# Do you prefer a family Hierarchy or Consensuality? Updated!



## Calm

*UPDATE*
_Well, this turned into quite a long, circular discussion. I thought I would make it easier by summarising where we have gotten to, so those of you wishing to catch up can see the issues I am still working through in Consensual Living. The summary is made up of a list of those things CL states as fact or as useful/necessary to execute CL. I question they are necessary for being a CL parent, and I question they can be true at all.

This is the summary post

which can be found here.

Which is, at time of writing, almost at the end of the thread so you can skip to that and see how you feel about those CL premises._

***********************

I know there are many types of family structures, but I'm interested to know that out of the choice of just these two, which appeals or which you actually follow more than the other.

I don't think they are opposites, but I don't think they fit together very well, although I am trying to make them fit.

I thought I was a consensual parent, at least, that's what I was aiming for. For the most part, this is true for me. However, I have to admit to a preference for some hierarchy so I looked into it. Anthropologically, it is actually congruent with my preferred type of parenting which is along the lines of Continuum Concept, or The Vital Touch, or to not use a book - untouched tribal type parenting.

I thought consensual living was in line with AP, but within the most AP type of communities there is a definite hierarchy and structure within the community and also family unit. For instance, in the Continuum Concept, Jean mentions how when eating, the children do not talk at all. There are a few other offhand references in her book that highlight a definite non-consensual, more hierarchical structure in the family and community.

I was brought up with a definite hierarchy, with strong masculine leadership in my father. It was a very secure feeling, and although there was a lot of non-consensual structure in my life, I had and still have the most enviable relationship with my parents. Our relationship grew into a friendship but NOT until I was a teenager (right when a girl needs that friendship, ironically). It was like the structure in my childhood, and the hierarchy, freed me from the stress of decision. And this is outlined in the classic book Magical Child, where the author presents evidence of how damaging it is to engage logic in the child's brain too early.

Logic is required to make reasonable decisions. How does one reconcile this with consensual living? Esp when dealing with very small children?

All this suddenly hit me when I found myself totally and utterly intolerant of my daughter's insistence that she ride in the front seat of the car. In my determination to follow a consensual pattern, I negotiated with her long ago, and we shared. What a ridiculous thing to do! I meant well, but really, I was doing her NO favours in her future as a reasonable human being. The moment I quit the total consensual stuff and started being a little more hierarchical she stopped being so demanding and disrespectful.

I didn't change much other than things like, to continue with the car example, tell her that I am the adult, and I get the front seat, no discussion, no argument, get in freakin' line lassie. I earned these damned stripes, I sat in the backseat my whole childhood while my mother, and rightly bleedin' so, sat in queen's position up front with dad. I never questioned it, I never resented it, nothing. It was a respect thing, or something I can't quite find the word for.

I can have sex, I can drive, I can drink, I can do many things she cannot simply because I have earned both society's seal of approval to, and my own personal stripes. Some things, I have realised, are earned and granted only at maturity. That is what makes maturity so special, our milestones. Like the ceremony when a girl first gets her period and everyone comes over wearing red and welcomes her into womanhood.

So I'm starting to lose favour with consensual living, not in totality, I have just put it in a new place in our life. I always discuss with my daughter and she has more choices and freedom than any other child I've ever met. But sitting in the back seat of the car I had an enlightenment moment, not of resentment for a better seat, but for my earned place in the hierarchy - it was symbolic, and life is nothing if it isn't rife with symbolism. It spoke volumes about why we were having so many struggles she and I. It seems, in my family at least, that there are now things in which there is little choice. I will listen and I will help her understand a particular decision, but I probably won't budge. And I'm now ok with that, and oddly, she didn't seem as put out as I thought she would be. It was almost like she felt... _relief_.

Thoughts?


----------



## Calm

I can see that I messed up on the poll, as everyone usually does AFTER it is posted. It can't be changed. One of the mistakes was to not allow an option for other. Consider the last option to be the "other" option.


----------



## GuildJenn

I should say from the start that I'm not really into "tribal parenting" which I find disturbing on a number of levels as a concept, particularly that there is one archetypal peace-producing type of tribe/parenting, the one that had a big book written about it by a white woman. *cough*

Anyways. For me attachment parenting informs our family structure and our approach to decision making in that we are close and we really care about each other's needs, wants, and feelings. In that sense we are consensual about trying to find a solution to problems that respects that.

And I appreciate learning about consensual approaches and solutions because to me, that is new, and so it brings fresh ideas and perspectives to the table.

But who is deciding still? Myself and my husband. And we do impose things that have to happen, from brushing teeth to sitting in a car seat to (eventually) curfews. (Although we try to do them more as 'routine' than 'requirement,' and by "enforce" I don't mean punishment, etc.)

I see my role as gradually opening up freedoms as my son becomes capable of the responsibilities that come with them, not as an equal partner. After all who would decide whether or not or family was going to be consensual? My husband and I. If my son said he would rather I hit him, I wouldn't. You know?

And although I've already said that I'm not a big fan of trying to copy some culture, I will say that so many societies have a pattern of transition from child to adult that for me I think these little rites and rituals along the way of NOW being old enough to X (although obviously we don't have to /create/ them) is fairly deeply human, so I'm fine with delaying some decision-making roles until later.

Those are my early morning thoughts anyway.


----------



## mommy2abigail

I chose mostly consensual. Although we don't have a strict structure....but I think that's the one that best describes us. We strive for a consensual household, but I've long since given up on perfection and 100% consensual all the time. There are times that dh or I will have to make a decision based on what we, as their parents think is best for them, and we are ok with that. However, in most everyday matters, the kids have just as much say as we do. This should be an interesting thread...


----------



## mommy2abigail

Ok, so I just went back and read your response, Calm, and I totally agree. I've never been so resentful and irritated with my child as the months when I tried to be 100% consensual.







You just can not expect a 2-3-4-5-6- year old to be rational sometimes, and that's ok. It simply means that they are developmentally on track, and you have to step in and help them out. Not in a mean way, but in a loving and gentle way. I find I am much more patient and my kids are all much happier when we live this way, when they don't feel the need to negotiate every. single. thing. all. day. long.







: Sometimes I pull the mama card, and you know what, it's ok.


----------



## Calm

So far so good! Interesting already.

I think we all copy a culture or a format, we either choose it consciously or have it thrust upon us and follow what we know. Sometimes we follow a mix of things that have shown results we'd like to copy. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, as is so common on forums like MDC when it comes to The CC.

I have a friend who says he should have been born a century earlier (due to fashion and social preferences), well, I feel I should have been born in a jungle, or in "water birth Russia" as they say. Somewhere like those places. I feel such a lack of community in my western culture, it saddens me. It struck a chord in me when I started learning about other cultures, and then as a parent to learn more... and apply that to my life. I bought 50 acres of land as I couldn't find the right commune to join







...

I lived in Japan and that was a culture shock initially. They cosleep and carry their kids and are so traditional, so cultural, so together. (Very VERY hierarchical culture, just as an aside, to highlight one does not preclude the other, in fact, it often goes hand in hand as mentioned). Provincial France is also a big AP place, with tight community. It isn't black or white. There are AP cultures scattered all over the globe in all colours and this is what people seldom know. I didn't pick a culture to emulate. I feel I chose a parenting style and I use cross cultural references simply to help explain it, and the benefits of it.


----------



## meemee

i was already doing the consensual thing before i even heard about it. as my dd grows older - she is 6 1/2 - it is so much easier to be very consensual.

its just dd and me. and i draw the line where safety matters. in my opinion. but i do it in the gentlest way.

i dont think (i havent read much about it though) being consensual means having no hierarchy. its more about how you carry out the hierarchy rather than what you do.

but then again you are operating from your point of view.

i miss tribal parenting (not sure what you meant but kinda the likes of continuum concept). i was raised in a kinda sorta 'village' of parents. i miss not having others parent my child. i miss not having that village to love my child, discipline my child, guide my child, wipe a tear of my child. it is sad. and i miss it. i miss not having that opportunity myself.


----------



## EFmom

I don't buy into the consensual or "tribal" approach at all. I've read the Continuum Concept. I've read ethnographies of many cultures. Not all "tribal" cultures are anything like what's portrayed in the Continuum Concept, and I have to say that I don't understand why that particular book would be regarded as a model for child rearing.

Children are children. They don't have the experience or maturity to make many decisions. We have a benevolent dictatorship in our house.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
So far so good! Interesting already.

I think we all copy a culture or a format, we either choose it consciously or have it thrust upon us and follow what we know. Sometimes we follow a mix of things that have shown results we'd like to copy. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, as is so common on forums like MDC when it comes to The CC.

I have a friend who says he should have been born a century earlier (due to fashion and social preferences), well, I feel I should have been born in a jungle, or in "water birth Russia" as they say. Somewhere like those places. I feel such a lack of community in my western culture, it saddens me. It struck a chord in me when I started learning about other cultures, and then as a parent to learn more... and apply that to my life. I bought 50 acres of land as I couldn't find the right commune to join







...

I lived in Japan and that was a culture shock initially. They cosleep and carry their kids and are so traditional, so cultural, so together. (Very VERY hierarchical culture, just as an aside, to highlight one does not preclude the other, in fact, it often goes hand in hand as mentioned). Provincial France is also a big AP place, with tight community. It isn't black or white. There are AP cultures scattered all over the globe in all colours and this is what people seldom know. I didn't pick a culture to emulate. I feel I chose a parenting style and I use cross cultural references simply to help explain it, and the benefits of it.

Sure, I get you on the finding things that speak to you and letting them inform your parenting, and of course we all are impacted by culture. I'm totally with you on looking for AP models, or at least, looking for influences beyond the SuperNanny brand of current North American culture.

I just have a thing about CC - as someone who is in very small part First Nations, it absolutely set my teeth on edge. I could go on but I won't.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I put mostly consensual but who knows!

To me (and the dictionary), consenual means:
Agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole. So, yes many times my children make decisions for themselves and sometimes I make decisions for myself, but often we make decisions as a family. I am part of the consensus. It doesn't mean that I get the final say but it does mean that my needs will be met too.

Example: Child wants to run around in the parking lot.

Permissive: letting them do so because it's their body to do with what they want.
Parent as Dictator: Unacceptable doesn't allow it.

Consensual (in our family) I would Empathize and Validate their desire and feelings. My feelings on this ARE part of the equation. So running in the parking lot is not an option - but we do have options. We can go somewhere else, like a park, to run. We can find an abandoned parking lot to run around in. We have choices. They are welcome to suggest some ideas as well - all ideas will be considered. They can turn down my suggestions and I can turn down theirs. We can find a mutually agreeable solution. I realize some people think "but they don't like their options and I don't like theirs" in these cases I find whoever feels the most strongly ends up "getting their way" we keep empathizing with the other person, and eventually the other person sees that we feel more strongly then they do. Sometimes a consensus can be reached in 5 seconds. Sometimes it takes 20 minutes. Sometimes we have to revisit it later.

In unconditional parenting it says something like "Reasonable structures are imposed when necessary, in a flexible manner, without undue restrictiveness, and when possible, with the participation of the child"


----------



## velochic

I would go so far to say that 100% consensuality is almost a disservice to children. EVERYWHERE for the REST of their lives outside of the home, there will be a hierarchy. There is no escaping it unless you move to a deserted island, and even there, nature has the upper hand.

I believe that my job as a parent is to gently guide dd to make good decisions as she gets older *based on our beliefs as a family*.

I think all children need to be led to a certain extent. I don't think you can let your child make every decision from birth without there being some sort of negative fall out. Now that is my opinion... based on what I have read, seen, and experienced, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. However, this works for us, as dd is a very sweet, respectful, mature, and loving little 7 year old. In fact, her teacher at school is always talking about how mature dd is. We let her make age-appropriate decisions and as she's gotten older, she has developed the reasoning needed to make those decisions wisely. I have no doubt that gently parenting her about her decisions has led to a kid wise beyond her years.


----------



## Daffodil

I picked the Combo choice. I might have gone with Mostly Consensual, but I don't think anything around here is highly structured. The parents are definitely in charge, but there aren't a lot of hard-and-fast rules, and we're usually willing to hear complaints or suggestions. There are times every day when I tell a kid what to do or not do. ("Don't throw that in the house." "Pee before you put on your snowpants." "It's time to leave now.") And there are times every day when I decline to do something a kid wants me to do - make pancakes, buy candy from the vending machine, read another book, take them on a particular outing. But sometimes I change my mind based on what I hear from the kids.

I feel like adults deserve to choose the way they want to live their lives - where they live, whether they have any animals, what hobbies they spend time and money on, whether or not they have jobs, etc. I think it sometimes makes sense to compromise on what you want for the sake of your kids' happiness - maybe letting your kids have a pet when you don't really want one, or finding a new home for yours if your kid is allergic - but I don't think parents should feel obligated to give their kids equal say in deciding things like whether or not the family will move. And I think it's okay for parents to insist on smaller things they really want, too, like sitting in the front seat, or using the yard for a flower garden instead of a ball field, or painting the deck brown instead of pink.


----------



## lolar2

I went with "consensual family" but in practice it's more of a combo. There is a natural hierarchy where parents are just more powerful than the child, no matter what; plus I'm kind of a control freak sometimes. So when I try really hard to achieve 100% consensual living, that counteracts my automatic tendencies to the point where it ends up a pretty normal combination.


----------



## transformed

I am subbing to read later.


----------



## 2xy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolar2* 
I went with "consensual family" but in practice it's more of a combo. There is a natural hierarchy where parents are just more powerful than the child, no matter what.









:

Also, things changed for us over the years.

My ex was far more authoritarian than I am, and he's no longer part of the kids' daily lives. And I've also given them more "power" in the home as they've gotten older and wiser.


----------



## 2xy

I also just want to mention that for me, consensual living means respecting everyone's wants and needs, and finding mutually agreeable solutions whenever possible.

It's not extremism. It's not based on the book that's been mentioned a couple of times. I've never read that book and don't intend to.

My goal is not to achieve "100% consensual living." My goal is to treat everyone like they matter. Yep, I nag my son to unload the dishwasher. And he nags me to run out and buy ice cream at midnight. Both usually get done. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. I'm sure the concept was around before any book was written about it.


----------



## transformed

In general I do quite well being about being consensual. I learned that when I was on my own recently with the kids for 2 months due to a move.

I have a VERY hard time being consensual with dh though and it seems like the whole vibe is thrown off when he is around.







He is very violent (energy-wise) and has rediculous expectations of the kids (6,3,1) And I often engage him in fights about his mistreatment of them. (In front of them - in the thick of the situation.)

I dont understand how to make CL work in my home.

But that was kind of OT.







: On topic: I dont try to discuss or rationalize with my young children anymore. My 5 yr old doesnt even understand logic half the time so I have to make some decisions for them. Its just part of it,


----------



## frontierpsych

I didn't vote because DS is only 7 months and doesn't make too many decisions on his own yet, but I lean more toward the CL/UP end of the spectrum, though I'm sure, like anything, it will be molded to fit our family's individual needs and situations.


----------



## hollycat

interesting discussion. a toughie because i know people who are so doctrinaire and unbending wtih their consensual approach to parenting it doesnt look consentual at all to me. and i know hierarchical families where the kids feelings are totally validated. and i know people who think they're being one way, one style of parenting and are really another.

i guess in general i think its good to discuss theories and educate youreslf if that feels good to you but i feel the two most important things are to use and value your intuition and to note what WORKS. we've all seen people try to make theories and systems work in their house - and they just dont. sometimes theories feel good to US - they value our ideas about what worked in our own childhood or not, they identify us as being for or against a tribe, they work to reiinforce OUR ego/identity, but they dont work as well for the kids. (and sometimes they do!)
you can read daily here in any thread about a specific theory of parenting a thread from a mommie who is just like HELP!! this doenst WORK!!!
i know my life works best when i just try to stay loving and fluid in my intuition in the living present....


----------



## octobermom

honestly a combo of this

Quote:

Hierarchy with guidelines, routine, soft structure; most decisions made for children.
and this

Quote:

Mostly Consensual; guidelines, choice where possible, highly structured
We do thrive off of rountiune and structure and mommy daddy remain firmly incharge but we also allowa great deal of choice round tabling solutions ect.

Deanna


----------



## mamazee

I guess I'd say mostly consensual. I like the idea of consensual living, but there are times where we can't find a consensual agreed way to do things and I've decided I'm really OK with that. I don't consider us to be "highly structured" though. That's more a personality thing than a parenting thing maybe. But there really isn't much in the way of hierarchy here. All of our needs are equally considered. The "combo" thing didn't sound far off the mark either. I'm probably somewhere between those two - "mostly" and "combo".


----------



## Norasmomma

There really isn't an answer for my view. There are times when a child is fully capable of input and there are times when it's completely inappropriate to let them make the decisions based on what is safe for them at the time.

I believe there have to some rules and structure, but am I a hard structure parent-definitely not. There are times, however when there is just one way of things being done(usually for safety reasons).

Plus my DD needs some structured rules otherwise she is just running all over the place and her decision making is still in normal 2.5 y/o development, so she needs to be directed at times.


----------



## Ofwait

I think that this a kind of a hard thing to compartmentalize like this. Does everyone really follow a single line of parenting the entire time? I don't, it has changed as both my children and my self have grown.
DH and I have vastly different parenting styles in many respects, but at the same time we make them work together.

We are a Benevolent Dictatorship/Oligarchy for the most part here.


----------



## onlyzombiecat

I didn't set out to follow a particular family structure nor have I read books about it.

I think we naturally settled into a combination. I think children need rules and structure but in our family dd has a say within those limits.
It is age appropriate input.

I know some people who could not understand that we would give our child a pretty equal vote on where to go for our family vacation for example. Dh and I would have the final decision- actually I would because dh goes on a solo trip every year so this is more for dd and myself.


----------



## MittensKittens

My answer has to be "other". First of all, my job is to protect my children and to keep them safe. That comes before anyone's wants and needs. Many aspects of consensual living appeal to me. I do try to reach consensus whenever possible, but I think that this really applies to older kids more and more. At times when consensus can't be reached, I - the parent - decide.


----------



## Dr.Worm

I voted for hierarchy with guidelines but after I voted I saw that Combo might be the one I meant. I also am having trouble with the whole consensual thing. For the most part DD, 9, is a very sweet child but lately she has really been disrespectful of her nana and me. It is like she thinks she is in charge, so much so that she has actually argued with me when I said I am actually in charge. And the thing is, I really really try hard to let her get her way most of the time unless it is a safety issue or something but the lack of respect is very hard to take. I do believe in respecting children but it works both ways you know? I am not her slave I am her mother so I hear ya OP!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

can anyone give an example of when there is only one way of something being done safely? haven't encountered that yet.


----------



## rightkindofme

I'm on the benevolent dictator end of things. That said, I try not to have too many demands/opinions because my life is more stressful when I do.







In general it seems to me that it's best to give children lots of choices in areas where it won't cause problems and to simply present what is going to happen in areas where there might be problems.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
can anyone give an example of when there is only one way of something being done safely? haven't encountered that yet.

The only safe/legal way for a child to ride in a car is to be in a car seat. It's pretty non-negotiable. The only other alternative would be to not go in the car, but that's not alway an option.


----------



## Norasmomma

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
can anyone give an example of when there is only one way of something being done safely? haven't encountered that yet.

I have one walking on the road-it is required for DD to hold my hand when we encounter a car-and she hates it, but it has to be done this way. We live on a country road and when there are no cars, she can run ahead. Not touching the pellet stove period. There are a bunch more examples that I can think of-all having to do with cars, hot things and general safety.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

but there are still other options involved in that.

Riding in a car seat properly strapped in WITHOUT anything "fun" in addition
or
Riding in a car seat properly strapped in WITH something fun.

There are different ways you can buckle them in safely:
while singing a song or being quiet. You push the buckle in, or they push the buckle in.

I could probably think of hundreds of different ways to safely ride in a car seat. I am open to an example there there is only ONE way to do something safely, but I haven't encountered that yet. There are usually more then one way to do something safely.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
but there are still other options involved in that.

Riding in a car seat properly strapped in WITHOUT anything "fun" in addition
or
Riding in a car seat properly strapped in WITH something fun.

There are different ways you can buckle them in safely:
while singing a song or being quiet. You push the buckle in, or they push the buckle in.

I could probably think of hundreds of different ways to safely ride in a car seat. I am open to an example there there is only ONE way to do something safely, but I haven't encountered that yet. There are usually more then one way to do something safely.

But there is still only one way to actually ride in the car regardless of how many ways there are to be strapped in.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Norasmomma* 
I have one walking on the road-it is required for DD to hold my hand when we encounter a car-and she hates it, but it has to be done this way. We live on a country road and when there are no cars, she can run ahead. Not touching the pellet stove period. There are a bunch more examples that I can think of-all having to do with cars, hot things and general safety.

There is more then one way to not touch the pellet stove though right? There is more then one way to hold your hand? There is more then one way for her to stay safe when a car comes by? No matter what is 'required'/necessary I find there is always multiple ways to carry out that necessity


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
But there is still only one way to actually ride in the car regardless of how many ways there are to be strapped in.

no there is not. you can listen to music while you drive. or hold onto a special toy. sing a song, or if the child is of reading age they can read a book. They can look for certain colors or objects or letters out the window. There is not only ONE way to ride in a car while being safe. Yes, there is only one way for the buckles to buckle - but that is not the same as there being only one way to ride in the car safely - that only refers to there being only one way for the buckles to stay buckled. there are many ways to do the buckling though (child does it, parent does it, princess sleeping beauty does it, we get it done as fast as we can, we buckle it really slow), many things you can do while safely buckled in (count things, sing, look at colors, play games), and many ways to stay safely buckled in (stay buckled until mommy unbuckles you, until daddy unbuckles you, you can unbuckle yourself when we are parked in front of the house, stay buckled in while pretending you are a cat, stay buckled in until 1 hour has passed and we'll pull over to stetch, or stay bucked for half an hour before we take a pit stop to use the bathrooms).


----------



## aprons_and_acorns

I voted the combination choice. I'm not really into CL as my "ideal" however we seem to lean that way quite a bit on account of having a small family. With just one easygoing child it's simple most of the time to just go about things in that way. But my philosophy about our family is that my husband and I are in a leadership position.


----------



## mamazee

Our family was much more consensual when my dd was younger, actually. And we'd probably be more consensual if she wasn't in school. But school is where most of the "push comes to shove" issues come up. The bus comes at a certain time. Homework has to be done. And there are just different issues for a 7-year-old than a 2-year-old. You can't get a 7-year-old's attention taken away from an issue by getting a fancier toothbrush or a toy in the same way.


----------



## Norasmomma

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
There is more then one way to not touch the pellet stove though right? There is more then one way to hold your hand? There is more then one way for her to stay safe when a car comes by? No matter what is 'required'/necessary I find there is always multiple ways to carry out that necessity









Well I guess for me I just don't see it that way. Don't touch the stove-end of story. Obviously we don't see things the same, and that's fine you can parent with multiple choice and I can parent with options of times where multiple choice is appropriate and times where there is only one option. It doesn't really matter, for us this works. Whatever works for you that's fine.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I agree, having a child of school age does make things harder! (this was my son's first year in school!) but still haven't experienced the "only one way" situation yet. Yes, more sophisticated children need more sophisticated approaches. I don't look it as taking their attention away from their concerns - its about everyone addressing a concern and finding a solution that works for everyone - parent included!

Homework has to be done. It can be done in silence, or with soft music. It can be done before dinner, or after dinner. I can hang out with you while you do it, or you can do it alone in your room. You can write with this pencil or this pencil.

the bus comes at a certain time - we can go to the bus stop at 7:15 or 7:20. We can walk to the bus stop slow or fast. We can ride a bike to the bus stop. we can skip. we can play hand games while we wait (I loved hand games at the bus stop when I was that age! probably well through elementary school we did this) Yes, things have to be done, but we can find a consensual approach to doing them. Mind you, I'm not totalyl consensual, as a consensual person may say "then homeschool" for example - which is yet another option. I just don't feel so limited that there is ever only one way to get something done.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
no there is not. you can listen to music while you drive. or hold onto a special toy. sing a song, or if the child is of reading age they can read a book. They can look for certain colors or objects or letters out the window. There is not only ONE way to ride in a car while being safe. Yes, there is only one way for the buckles to buckle - but that is not the same as there being only one way to ride in the car safely - that only refers to there being only one way for the buckles to stay buckled. there are many ways to do the buckling though, and many ways to stay safely buckled in.

There is a difference between ways to ride happily and ways to ride safely. The only way to ride safely or legally is for the child to be strapped into a car seat. Period.


----------



## mamazee

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 

Homework has to be done. It can be done in silence, or with soft music. It can be done before dinner, or after dinner. I can hang out with you while you do it, or you can do it alone in your room. You can write with this pencil or this pencil.

LOL. See my daughter won't be distracted from the real issue - homework vs. no homework. LOL. I wonder if that'll work for your child for much longer. If so, yay for you!


----------



## aprons_and_acorns

One thing I've noticed about CL --speaking from an outsider's perspective--is that going over all of the endless minutia (the car ride example for instance) seems tiresome for everyone when you actually witness it. And in the deciding of all of the external details (hold a toy or not, music or not, what kind of music, what windows are down and how far down) in a way can seem to get in the way of the idea that often we can be content just because we decide to be content. And being in the throes of negotiation constantly just does not appeal to me at all. I used to spend a lot of time with a CL family and it often seemed like the constant negotiation made it so things never really got off the ground. And the kids seemed like they didn't really understand that it's your attitude that determines your experience most of the time-- not where you sit in the car and what tree you eat your picnic under.

**Not that there aren't some drawbacks to heirarchy structure as well. Just that we might look like a CL family most of the time but I don't consider that to be our ideal philosophically.***


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Norasmomma* 
Well I guess for me I just don't see it that way. Don't touch the stove-end of story. Obviously we don't see things the same, and that's fine you can parent with multiple choice and I can parent with options of times where multiple choice is appropriate and times where there is only one option. It doesn't really matter, for us this works. Whatever works for you that's fine.

I agree with don't touch the stove. Not saying to let them tuch the stove. There can still be multiple options : dont touch the stove but tell me how you wish you could. dont touch the stove but look at it. don't touch the stove, but play with a pretend stove instead. All in volve NOT touching the stove. there is more then one way to not touch the stove though. Dont touch the stove while standing on one foot. dont touch the stove while singing your ABCs. Be silly, be stern. you still have more then one way to STILL *NOT* touch it. I agree, whatever works for you, but even if YOU dont think there is more then one way not to touch the stove, your daughter is probably still using more then one way not to touch it. sometimes she may go play a game instead. sometimes she may complain. sometimes she may play with a toy kitchen. there are always more then one way to do (or not do) something. thats all im saying.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

too many choices overwhelm. that is an example. we usualy do two choices. we get things done very quickly. Come visit me if you think CL is time consuming. SOMETIMES it is, but in the long run that time invested pays off tenfold. then again, we aren't really CL, we are somewhere in between just more consensualish.

My son can get ready for school and out the door within 15 minutes including eating breakfast. He gets choices during this time. It doesnt slow us down at all.


----------



## mamazee

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I agree with don't touch the stove. Not saying to let them tuch the stove. There can still be multiple options : dont touch the stove but tell me how you wish you could. dont touch the stove but look at it. don't touch the stove, but play with a pretend stove instead. All in volve NOT touching the stove. there is more then one way to not touch the stove though. Dont touch the stove while standing on one foot. dont touch the stove while singing your ABCs. Be silly, be stern. you still have more then one way to STILL *NOT* touch it. I agree, whatever works for you, but even if YOU dont think there is more then one way not to touch the stove, your daughter is probably still using more then one way not to touch it. sometimes she may go play a game instead. sometimes she may complain. sometimes she may play with a toy kitchen. there are always more then one way to do (or not do) something. thats all im saying.

You're still basically just distracting from touching the stove. Not all children can be distracted. This is where it became obvious that CL wasn't going to work for us. My dd is a tenacious little thing, and the older she gets the less I can distract her. She SO sees through that. I tried with the homework one time and she came back with Dr. Seuss. "I will not do my homework in a box, I will not do my homework with a fox." LOL. She just doesn't fall for distraction.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
LOL. See my daughter won't be distracted from the real issue - homework vs. no homework. LOL. I wonder if that'll work for your child for much longer. If so, yay for you!

thats when you empathize! its not about distracting. I would probably address the homework versus no homework FIRST and then talk about the different ways they CAN do their homework. It can work for you too! Just look at how it can work, instead of resolving to the fact that it can't







works on people of ALL ages - even my husband - and he's a hard one to crack! I never would have thought that CL would help my marriage as it has - I start leaning this way for my children, but in applying it to other adults in my life the results have been AMAZING. definitely not something that stops working, but something that evolves. I'm sure you will figure it out with your daughter and be able to say "yay for us"


----------



## mamazee

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
thats when you empathize! its not about distracting. I would probably address the homework versus no homework FIRST and then talk about the different ways they CAN do their homework. It can work for you too! Just look at how it can work, instead of resolving to the fact that it can't







works on people of ALL ages - even my husband - and he's a hard one to crack! I never would have thought that CL would help my marriage as it has - I start leaning this way for my children, but in applying it to other adults in my life the results have been AMAZING. definitely not something that stops working, but something that evolves. I'm sure you will figure it out with your daughter and be able to say "yay for us"

My marriage is fabulous and I don't need any tips. And it isn't going to work with my daughter. She sees though the games and doesn't appreciate it. And I do empathize and don't get angry. But the homework is going to get done.


----------



## momofmine

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
There is more then one way to not touch the pellet stove though right? There is more then one way to hold your hand? There is more then one way for her to stay safe when a car comes by? No matter what is 'required'/necessary I find there is always multiple ways to carry out that necessity









See my older DS never fell for that stuff, because it is false freedom, and I think he just saw right through it, even at 2. He was the kind of child that no matter how many choices there were, he would come up with one that was completely unavailable. For example, choosing what was for lunch, there would be a number of different options, but he would want something we didn't have. Option C always. I am more on the consensual side, I have tried to be at least, and reading The Continuum Concept is what set me on an AP parenting path to begin with. But I can understand what the OP is saying, and looking back I feel like my older DS might have needed more structure and to know what is expected. In those tribal cultures, a child would have just eaten what was available, not expected the mom to run back out into the woods and gather a different kind of berry.

I actually think that some of the advice about giving kids choices is misleading, because it really is false. Like the care seat example, you are trying to make it "look like" they have a choice by letting them choose who buckles, what song to sing or to be silent, whether or not to have the window up or down, but really, in the end, it is still a fact that you are controlling the situation and manipulating them to go along with you and get in the car seat. I have totally done all of that, and have really believed in letting children direct their own lives, but I am seeing things now that looking back I feel like there is some value in children just knowing where they fit in to the world, and sometimes I wish I had done more of that. I'm just thinking out loud here.


----------



## Storm Bride

Combo, I guess. DH and I are definitely in charge of decision making, but we also try to take what the children want into account, and make that part of the decision making process. Our children are a huge priority in making decisions. For example, we both want to move in the next few years, and the reason we haven't done so is because we want ds1 to be able to graduate with the people he's known since kindergarten. Financially, it would probably make more sense to pack up now, while house prices are low, but we don't think it would be in ds1's best interests, and ds1 agrees.

I find out what dd and ds2 want to do, but I don't attempt to live consensually with them. DS2 has _no_ impulse control. DD is extremely volatile, and is not open to negotiation of _anything_ when she's in a mood. Living consensually seems to work for some people, but I honestly can't imagine trying to do that with such young children. DH and I live consensually (no "head of the household"), and we live consensually, to some extent, with ds1...but not with the little ones.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I agree the home work should get done! Wasn't saying anything was wrong with your marriage I was speaking about how MINE improved, because it shows it works with any age. I'm not saying you need to play games with her either. I am sorry you feel defensive I wasnt attacking you







I was trying to support you. It sounded like you enjoy a more consensual approach even if you aren't CL (like me I enjoy more consensual but I dont practice CL) and I was just trying to offer support because I know you can do it and I believe it works with anyone at any age. Sounds like you are handling it much the way I would, but even if you werent that is okay too. Please read what I am saying. I really get the impression you think I think the homework should be optional, and I wasnt saying that. It's important to you that the homework get done. You are part of the consensus so not doing the homework is NOT an okay option with you. I agree, but even if I didnt I am not a part of your families consensus. All I am saying is that there is always more then one way to do (or not do) something. More then one way to DO the homework.


----------



## Dr.Worm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
LOL. See my daughter won't be distracted from the real issue - homework vs. no homework. LOL. I wonder if that'll work for your child for much longer. If so, yay for you!

LOL doesn't work for me anymore.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momofmine* 
See my older DS never fell for that stuff, because it is false freedom, and I think he just saw right through it, even at 2. He was the kind of child that no matter how many choices there were, he would come up with one that was completely unavailable. For example, choosing what was for lunch, there would be a number of different options, but he would want something we didn't have. Option C always. I am more on the consensual side, I have tried to be at least, and reading The Continuum Concept is what set me on an AP parenting path to begin with. But I can understand what the OP is saying, and looking back I feel like my older DS might have needed more structure and to know what is expected. In those tribal cultures, a child would have just eaten what was available, not expected the mom to run back out into the woods and gather a different kind of berry.

I actually think that some of the advice about giving kids choices is misleading, because it really is false. Like the care seat example, you are trying to make it "look like" they have a choice by letting them choose who buckles, what song to sing or to be silent, whether or not to have the window up or down, but really, in the end, it is still a fact that you are controlling the situation and manipulating them to go along with you and get in the car seat. I have totally done all of that, and have really believed in letting children direct their own lives, but I am seeing things now that looking back I feel like there is some value in children just knowing where they fit in to the world, and sometimes I wish I had done more of that. I'm just thinking out loud here.

I do not mislead. I make it clear that they DO NOT have a choice about whether or not they will ride in the car seat to the grocery store. And I empathize and if necessary handle a temper tantrum the way I handle any other temper tantrum. Once that is aside, then we look for ways to make the experience more enjoyable. give them the choices where there are choices available. I have asked me kids do you want "this or that" and they have at times wanted "the other" (something not in the house) And I empathize let them know its not in the house, (if I am willing to buy it the next week I will let them kinow I'm adding it to the grocery list and do so) and I empathize as much as I can but if they refuse to choose from the available options I would just let them know to let me know when they decide, or if they can think up another DOABLE option I have overlooked. I'm open to their ideas where applicable (talking about the example you gave here, because we've been there!) Perhaps I offered yogurt or cereal and they ask for pancakes. If I have pancakes and feel like making them, then that is doable. IF I dont have pancakes that is not doable. Or if I dont feel like making them. If they have a fit I empathize. If they say "how about oatmeal" and we have it and I feel like making it I will say "well that I CAN do!"

My kids definitely thrive on structure too. Especially my oldest son who has Autism.







Just remember consensual means coming to a solution that works for EVERYONE. that INCLUDES you. sometimes you think there is no solution that works for everyone, but I find there always is, even if its just because someone is willing to compromise. coming to a consensus does not mean that another might not compromise to still be happy with the result.


----------



## Norasmomma

I've come to the I have to be stern mentality because my DD has put multiple dolls on the stove and melted them.

Holding her hand when a car goes by, that's just non-negotiable. She knows that-she can make decisions on how she wants to walk or run when there is not a car coming, that's fine, but when there's a car she needs to hold an adults hand.

I guess I just don't need to explain everything to her, she's 2.5 and redirection doesn't work for her. If she was a different child it may, believe me I have tried with giving her options and it's come down to the fact many times an option doesn't exist(or at least one she likes), so as her parent I have to make that decision for her to keep her safe. Not all decisions need to be explained for her to understand, there are times when she needs me to make the decision to keep her safe and she knows that, at least I believe she does.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
You're still basically just distracting from touching the stove. Not all children can be distracted. This is where it became obvious that CL wasn't going to work for us. My dd is a tenacious little thing, and the older she gets the less I can distract her. She SO sees through that. I tried with the homework one time and she came back with Dr. Seuss. "I will not do my homework in a box, I will not do my homework with a fox." LOL. She just doesn't fall for distraction.


which is why you empathize. (not saying this is why you should empathize, im saying this is why you DO empathize - because you do, and I think you do a great job!) having more then one way to do something doesn't mean that the other person wont still be upset about the thing they CANT do. As I said, we've been there. I don't distract. whatever is off limits is off limits and im not denying that to them. but once we get past that, we can talk about what we can do. and at first it takes a lot of time and energy but with time it gets easier. I used to think things wouldn't work with my children either. It's about respect though, and it sounds like you realize that respect works at any age, that's why you respect that your daughter doesn't like distraction!









we established she DOES do her homework. you empathize., then what? she is doing it, you may give her some ideas of what she can do before, after, or during, but even if you don't she is probably still aware of those options. maybes sometimes she does it in her room and sometimes in the kitchen? maybe sometimes she listens to soft music? maybe she DOES do is the same way every time (I always did it in my room on the floor even though I had a desk with some music on but not headphones because I didnt like how they felt on my ears) BUT that was the choices I made. Homework had to be done, but I found a way I liked to do it. so maybe you dont say "you can do it this way or this way" but once she accepts that YES she DOES have to do it, she makes decisions about how to get it done. It's not like you say "you have to sit here at this desk, in this room, no music because you wont be able to concentrate" (which is usually projected when a parent does that because thats how THEY would be able to concentrate, but some peopel concentrate better with background noise)


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Norasmomma* 
I've come to the I have to be stern mentality because my DD has put multiple dolls on the stove and melted them.

Holding her hand when a car goes by, that's just non-negotiable. She knows that-she can make decisions on how she wants to walk or run when there is not a car coming, that's fine, but when there's a car she needs to hold an adults hand.

I guess I just don't need to explain everything to her, she's 2.5 and redirection doesn't work for her. If she was a different child it may, believe me I have tried with giving her options and it's come down to the fact many times an option doesn't exist(or at least one she likes), so as her parent I have to make that decision for her to keep her safe. Not all decisions need to be explained for her to understand, there are times when she needs me to make the decision to keep her safe and she knows that, at least I believe she does.

I agree with all the rules you have in place. Sorry you are taking it as disagreement. I am just saying there is more then one way to do or not do something (and that doesnt mean to do it when you are not okay with doing it or not do it when you need it to be done). And frankly, they may not like ANY of those ways







and its not about distraction - actually I am VERY against distracting a child from their emotions. I think they need to be allowed to have them and fully express them and we don't even get started on autonomy until "the storm has passed"


----------



## Dr.Worm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
thats when you empathize! its not about distracting. I would probably address the homework versus no homework FIRST and then talk about the different ways they CAN do their homework. It can work for you too! Just look at how it can work, instead of resolving to the fact that it can't







works on people of ALL ages - even my husband - and he's a hard one to crack! I never would have thought that CL would help my marriage as it has - I start leaning this way for my children, but in applying it to other adults in my life the results have been AMAZING. definitely not something that stops working, but something that evolves. I'm sure you will figure it out with your daughter and be able to say "yay for us"

I empathize and I am sure mamazee does too..correct me if I'm wrong, mamazee?







I do the whole "I understand honey, you really do have too much homework for a nine-year-old thing. You can do______for a while and then do it later." If she is in a good mood she MIGHT say yes but usually she will not be happy. I agree..it IS easier when they are not in school.


----------



## Dr.Worm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
My marriage is fabulous and I don't need any tips. And it isn't going to work with my daughter. She sees though the games and doesn't appreciate it. And I do empathize and don't get angry. But the homework is going to get done.

you are my hero


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I know mamazee empathizes! thats what im saying - that what she is doing is really no different then what im doing!

I agree as well, it IS easier when they are not in school!


----------



## phrogger

There are things in my home that are NOT up for negotiation and I will not sit there and listen to a child try to negotiate their way out of something.

However, there are MANY things that we can ngotiate and we discuss many things and many aspects of their lives.

It is pick and choose and it is MY choice to pick and choose. That is the benefit of being the mom and being the adult in the home.

I do notice I am getting stricter as time goes by, my kids are older then some of the kids in question here and frankly, my 12 year old needs to learn to shut up sometimes (said in the nicest way possible). He is getting way too big for his britches and it is becoming or going to become a major problem in school. We as the parents are working hard on getting him to learn to STOP, THINK, LISTEN and APPROACH in a proper and repsectful way, even if that means he has to wait an extended period of time. This is valuable in school, work, and home. Very different then trying to just distract a young child, I am having to teach him to be a young adult that isn't going to be causing problems for himself with this mouth and his idea that he can talk his way out of anything or talk people into getting what he wants.

Honestly, I do regret some of the negotiation as a YOUNG child because it gave him a false sense that he always had the right to have a say so, when in reality, he doesn't. Not when it comes to the real world.

Oh and I voted for a hierarchy, but really, I like the dictatorship idea


----------



## Llyra

Benevolent dictatorship, here. Dh and I are firmly in charge, but the kids have a great deal of freedom inside the structure we've put in place. We're very happy as we are.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Thats well put Llyra. Reminds me of what Alfie Kohn says in Unconditional Parenting:

Reasonable structures are imposed when necessary, in a flexible manner, _without *undue* restrictiveness_, and when possible, with the participation of the child.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dr.Worm* 
you are my hero









and then a hero comes along, with the stregnth to carry on, and we cast our fears aside, and we know we can survive! so when you feel like hope is gone, look inside you and be strong, and you'll finally see the truth - that a hero lies in you!!!

I think that song just took on a whole new meaning for me







:


----------



## Dr.Worm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I know mamazee empathizes! thats what im saying - that what she is doing is really no different then what im doing!

I agree as well, it IS easier when they are not in school!

Sorry if I sounded snippy...I know you are just trying to help. I miss the old days before school. I mean, I can let her delay and delay but if it were up to her she would do it late at night or not at all...it's hard.


----------



## Dr.Worm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phrogger* 
There are things in my home that are NOT up for negotiation and I will not sit there and listen to a child try to negotiate their way out of something.

However, there are MANY things that we can ngotiate and we discuss many things and many aspects of their lives.

It is pick and choose and it is MY choice to pick and choose. That is the benefit of being the mom and being the adult in the home.

I do notice I am getting stricter as time goes by, my kids are older then some of the kids in question here and frankly, my 12 year old needs to learn to shut up sometimes (said in the nicest way possible). He is getting way too big for his britches and it is becoming or going to become a major problem in school. We as the parents are working hard on getting him to learn to STOP, THINK, LISTEN and APPROACH in a proper and repsectful way, even if that means he has to wait an extended period of time. This is valuable in school, work, and home. Very different then trying to just distract a young child, I am having to teach him to be a young adult that isn't going to be causing problems for himself with this mouth and his idea that he can talk his way out of anything or talk people into getting what he wants.

Honestly, I do regret some of the negotiation as a YOUNG child because it gave him a false sense that he always had the right to have a say so, when in reality, he doesn't. Not when it comes to the real world.

Oh and I voted for a hierarchy, but really, I like the dictatorship idea

















This is what I meant earlier...the idea that she has no boss...she is in charge because I try to be gentle with her. I am gentle with you and then you give me a bad attitude?


----------



## vegemamato

we do our best to make decisions as a family- everyone's input counts!

that said, mama's opinion _usually_ tromps if an agreement can't be reached


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I understand that! Me and my sister were always awesome about homework because we loved school (until I got older and the work was SO boring that I didnt do it and for a while I got bad grades for not doing homework, then I got switched to advanced classes, felt challenged, and graduated 2 years early) My brother on the other hand, hates homework. It seemed to help all of us though to know that homework was done after snack but before anything else, and on the first night of the weekend so we had the whole weekend to ourselves. With some children I can see how they might need a "break" from school work when they get home. In those cases perhaps an hour of free time first would work and when the homework is done they have the rest of the night to themselves. It helps when you really know you child, and you can separat their needs from their desires ya know? You know your daughter doesnt desire to do homework at all, but you probably know if, since she DOES have to do it, if she would do better doing it right after school or taking an hour break first or something else ya know? You know if she rather be left alone while she does it or if your company would make it more bearable for her - or if she needs to take a 15 minute break between assignments or whatever. And if a parent doesnt know they can sit down and say "it's important to me that your homework gets done. let's decide now in what way it will be easiest for you" let them build up a homework "schedule" that you can hold them accountable too. revisit it if it turns out its not working out for everyone involved. and of course, that is not the be all end all solution! they STILL dont WANT to do their homework. they will still complain and we will still empathize. but perhaps, even if we don't see it, it has made it a little easier for them. At the very least, they can know that we respect them to involve them in making the homework rules - which of course our opinion in those rules matter so any rules we don't agree with would not be a consensual decision! And probably best to bring this up when one isnt already in the middle of a homework battle. It is definitely hard. It seems as they get older things get easier in one area and harder in another!


----------



## Storm Bride

It's funny that this discussion has turned to homework. I'm probably slightly more consensual in my style than my mom was (although maybe not - we have pretty similar approaches). I did my homework occasionally once I reached high school (didn't really have it before that), and my brother and sister pretty much didn't do it at all. They actually both dropped out.

Homework wasn't an option. We weren't allowed out on school nights, so it's not like we had other stuff going on that trumped it. We just didn't do it. I can remember sitting at the kitchen table for literally hours, refusing to do an assignment. I ultimately got done, but to a very low standard. I just wanted to get it out of my way. The schools didn't have any kind of system for tracking homework, or notifying parents, so I just said I didn't have any - every single day.


----------



## Bellabaz

I voted combo, but in reality we don't have a set family structure and I have never read any books on this subject. I believe that children should be respected as part of the family and given choice in situations where in it feasible. However there are definately times or ages when they aren't going to be able to do this.

I would describe my parenting style as more instinctual than anything else. I follow my gut on what will be good for my dd and our bond is strong enough to respond to her in the best way. There are times when its my way or no way but things are usually in regards to danger or health conerns. I think it is fundamental that she is respected as a person by others around her. I hate when people act like kids are just little dolls to dress up and order around. I also believe in picking my battles. I am not going to have dd go into a tantrum over something that isn't that crucial just because I am stubborn and want it my way (unless letting her have her choice will harm her in some way or is just not possible for us at the moment).

I hope to be able to continue this, especially when she is older and begins making more decisions for herself.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bellabaz* 
I would describe my parenting style as more instinctual than anything else.

Me, too. One aspect of MDC where I feel like a bit of a misfit is that I haven't ever done a lot of parenting research. I mostly wing it.


----------



## Ofwait

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Llyra* 
Benevolent dictatorship, here. Dh and I are firmly in charge, but the kids have a great deal of freedom inside the structure we've put in place. We're very happy as we are.


Quote:

Thats well put Llyra. Reminds me of what Alfie Kohn says in Unconditional Parenting:

Reasonable structures are imposed when necessary, in a flexible manner, without undue restrictiveness, and when possible, with the participation of the child.

This is I think what many of us do, this is largely how I grew up and it is how I am raising my kids.

As far as the homework goes I homeschool, and sometime I have to stand over my kids and employ the dictatorship and say you will do this! Other days they are bugging me.. is it time for school yet mom?
I also see where there is need for flexability, especially when dealing with different personalities.


----------



## catters

I voted combo. I see my husband and I as our children's moral compass. In that sense, we are together as one in the "highest", ie. the structural "top" of the family hierarchy. I believe children (and for that matter, all people) need structure as much as they need freedom to work within that structure. This isn't to say I believe we, as adults, do not have anything to learn from our children, I think we certainly do, but I believe in boundaries and rules and live by them myself, so I think my children should understand them as well while not being bogged down or oppressed.


----------



## phrogger

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Me, too. One aspect of MDC where I feel like a bit of a misfit is that I haven't ever done a lot of parenting research. I mostly wing it.

Me too and my new baby is in for a rude awakening, I learned a lot from trial and error with the first two kids


----------



## mamazee

The thing is, SGM, I kind of cringe because I remember having these same conversations on here a few years back, only on your end of the discussion and saying just what you're saying. So on one hand, I know where you're coming from because I've been there, and on the other hand, I know I was wrong, at least for my kid, and just hadn't seen where things were going and how older kids respond to certain kinds of negotiations. They don't buy the supposed choices. But I really and truly thought everything could be consensual at one point. I've learned that it simply isn't working here, at least with my daughter and her personality. She just gets more angry and upset. She's much happier if I deal straight with her at put everything in her court and let her figure it out. "Here's the deal. Your homework simply has be done. I understand you don't want to do it, and *** would be more fun, but you didn't want to do your homework earlier and now there's no time. How and where you do it is up to you, but you have to do it now." She responds best to that kind of approach. If I homeschooled I could be consensual much more often. But I don't want to homeschool. I would recommend it for people for whom CL is that high of a priority.


----------



## Dr.Worm

PM'ed you Super Glue Mommy.


----------



## meemee

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
Our family was much more consensual when my dd was younger, actually. And we'd probably be more consensual if she wasn't in school. But school is where most of the "push comes to shove" issues come up. The bus comes at a certain time. Homework has to be done. And there are just different issues for a 7-year-old than a 2-year-old. You can't get a 7-year-old's attention taken away from an issue by getting a fancier toothbrush or a toy in the same way.









its just my dd and me.

but in our case going to school, growing up has become far more consensual than before.

by consensual i mean my dd makes the decision, not me. i help her wake up the way she has asked me to. i dont insist with her going to school or doing her homework. she does that on her own. she knows if she doesnt want to go to school she will either have to stay with her dad or go to school with me. or stay home alone. that is still a choice even if it is illegal. she makes the choice not to stay home. and she chooses to go to school because out of all the alternatives that is what she chooses.

she does her homework by herself. sometimes she asks me for help. sometimes i remind her its getting late. somedays she chooses not to do it and suffer the consequences.

so really i am loving this. i only have a v. surface understanding of CL. so i might be just interpreting my way. but what i am enjoying truly is watching my dd make a choice and realise she IS making a choice whether she likes it or not.


----------



## mamazee

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
i dont insist with her going to school or doing her homework. she does that on her own. she knows if she doesnt want to go to school she will either have to stay with her dad or go to school with me. or stay home alone. that is still a choice even if it is illegal. she makes the choice not to stay home. and she chooses to go to school because out of all the alternatives that is what she chooses.

And that is exactly where I am NOT consensual. I absolutely will not allow her to stay home whenever she feels like it, and it is illegal and I'd be worried about my kids being taken away. I don't know enough about Illinois and truancy laws but I'm not playing around with that.

BUT I should add that the issues where I don't feel we can be consensual are few. In most issues, we really can find something that works well for everyone.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
The thing is, SGM, I kind of cringe because I remember having these same conversations on here a few years back, only on your end of the discussion and saying just what you're saying. So on one hand, I know where you're coming from because I've been there, and on the other hand, I know I was wrong, at least for my kid, and just hadn't seen where things were going and how older kids respond to certain kinds of negotiations. They don't buy the supposed choices. But I really and truly thought everything could be consensual at one point. I've learned that it simply isn't working here, at least with my daughter and her personality. She just gets more angry and upset. She's much happier if I deal straight with her at put everything in her court and let her figure it out. "Here's the deal. Your homework simply has be done. I understand you don't want to do it, and *** would be more fun, but you didn't want to do your homework earlier and now there's no time. How and where you do it is up to you, but you have to do it now." She responds best to that kind of approach. If I homeschooled I could be consensual much more often. But I don't want to homeschool. I would recommend it for people for whom CL is that high of a priority.

so funny and I was on your end a few years back! seems we switched veiws, though I am a bit confused because what you say you are doing is the same as what I said I would do. What you said is the same thing I would say, so I feel like you are debating me when I am agreeing with you? a bit confused, so forgive me if I'm missing something. All I'm saying is YES THE HOMEWORK HAS TO BE DONE THAT IS NOT NEGOTIABLE, VALDATE DONT GIVE OPTIONS AT THAT POINT. once that is "settled" the child can decide how they want to do it - whether you make suggestions or offer choices or whether they decide for themselves (sitting down at the kitchen table or going to sit in their room - you dont have to offer one or the other, but they will pick a place to do. they will create an environment that makes it better for them to do the thing they don't want to do - in this case homework. I mean, unless you are saying you tell your child "you have to sit in this seat, at this table. I don't care if music helps you concentrate that can't be possible we need no distractions so no sound for you. and no you can't take a break. no you can't have a snack first, no you cant have a drink of water next to you while you work" then we agree. the only thing I dont agree with is saying there is only ONE way to do homework. I mean, perhaps to your child there is only one way, but they know what that way is. Perhaps in some ways you know what distracts them and you can say "well we cant do the music because when we do that you end up not finishing your homework" but I don't think you saying that you dictate an exact way to do the homework. You just said that the homework has to be done. To me, that can be said with a consensus.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dr.Worm* 
PM'ed you Super Glue Mommy.

i replied. thank you


----------



## mamazee

It isn't consensual if she doesn't want to do homework in any way or place or time, and I say homework has to be done whether she wants to do it or not. That is not a consensus. CL people would not force their kids to do homework - they'd do like meemee said. So that's what has me confused.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Me, too. One aspect of MDC where I feel like a bit of a misfit is that I haven't ever done a lot of parenting research. I mostly wing it.

I almost started a thread about this awhile back. Honestly, I wish I hadn't done most of the parenting research I have done including reading The Continuum Concept. All it did was make me question and even deny some of my own instincts which looking back on it were pretty good to begin with. I'm all for winging it at this point. Now I just wish I could scrub my mind of all the propaganda and dogma.

To answer the OP, I voted "combo." We give choices and allow a fair amount of freedom where we can, but at the end of the day, my husband and I are in charge. I think my daughter actually appreciates that and it gives her some security.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
And that is exactly where I am NOT consensual. I absolutely will not allow her to stay home whenever she feels like it, and it is illegal and I'd be worried about my kids being taken away. I don't know enough about Illinois and truancy laws but I'm not playing around with that.

BUT I should add that the issues where I don't feel we can be consensual are few. In most issues, we really can find something that works well for everyone.

IMO consensual looks different in every family. you are not less consensual because you don't let your child stay home from school. your family consensus is just different then hers. she is okay with her child staying home from school. if she was not, and allowed her child to anyway that would not be consensual. you are not okay with your child staying home from school, so if you let them then you would be being permissive not consensual.

I'll try to break it down using the same example.
Child doesn't want to go to school.

Consensual Family 1:
Parents don't care if child doesn't want to go, child doesn't want to go, child doesn't go.

Consensual Family 2:
Parents want child to go, child doesn't want to go, they agree child can pick one "Free" day per month.

Consensual Family 3:
Parents want child to go, child doesn't want to go, Parent's don't feel comfortable with any free days from school, so child must go to school, they empathize with the child, and _perhaps_ try to think up some ways to make the experience more enjoyable.

Non-Consensual Family:
You must go to school, I don't care how you feel, I don't want to hear about it, I'm not willing to discuss any ideas about a middle ground, its not my responsibility to make it any more enjoyable for you, just do it.

Okay, and there are probably many more examples of consensual and probably some other kind of families I am leaving out here too, but the point is that consensus means that everyone's views are heard. You would not be reaching a consensus to let a child run around on the highway unless you don't care if they do so. If you care, then a consensus would not involve doing that, because you wouldn't have agreed to it as well.

I think its about underlying needs. No your child cant run around on the highway because you didn't reach that consensus, and you never will because its NOT okay with you (and maybe its okay with other CL families, but that's because they are different people bringing different feelings to the table) BUT maybe you can figure out what the underlying need is and meet that instead. The need to run. The need for excitement. Perhaps even the need to have a boundary set so they can "spill" some stored emotions. Might have nothing to do with running in the street in the first place.

anyway thats just my insight. as I said I am sure to most CL families I do not seem CL. I have been told that my approach is not CL and to be honest I dont care what its called all I know is that we work towards being consensual and I am part of that consensus. At the same time, so is my child, and I don't know how I can really explain that very well, but I do think sometimes a consensus can be reached and the other person isn't thrilled, but is willing to sacrifice this time and the other person may sacrifice on the next issue - but all the while trying to find a way to eventually find the "ideal solution"

To be honest though, the online consensual community looks very different then the "model" for consensus that is described in "CL-friendly" books. but perhaps that is because they have different things that are important to them then the authors of those books.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
It isn't consensual if she doesn't want to do homework in any way or place or time, and I say homework has to be done whether she wants to do it or not. That is not a consensus. CL people would not force their kids to do homework - they'd do like meemee said. So that's what has me confused.

that would only be consensual if they didn't care about the homework getting done. IF you do, then it wouldn't be consensual to not let them do it. Have you read "How to TalK so Kids will Listen?"

It explains (what I consider to be) a consensual approach to problem solving in there. maybe you could read that (or re read it) and it will help you be less confused? I think what is confusing is looking at the way CL works in one family and thinking there is some kind of continuum that some people or more or less CL then others, when the reality is just that they have different people in their families with different things being important to them, and so they come to a different consensus on the same issues.


----------



## mamazee

You and I just have different definitions of CL. I've read How to Talk but I dont' at all consider it CL.


----------



## super mamabug

Definitely a combo here. I like to say that they live in a totalitarian communist dictatorship (as a joke). We are not individualists in the family we are a community. We work together and share, but do each have our own special possessions. I encourage my children to make as many decisions as possible within their roles. There are certain things that are not negotiable, but most things are. We support each other and treat each other with respect. We do these things not for reward or punishment but because that is what makes our family run smoothly as a community.


----------



## cappuccinosmom

I voted combo.

We definitely have a family heirarchy. And the kids know it.









But we look for opportunities to let them make choices, as our goal is not control really, but raising them so that they can go out as adults and make good, healthy choices.


----------



## meemee

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
And that is exactly where I am NOT consensual. I absolutely will not allow her to stay home whenever she feels like it, and it is illegal and I'd be worried about my kids being taken away. I don't know enough about Illinois and truancy laws but I'm not playing around with that.

BUT I should add that the issues where I don't feel we can be consensual are few. In most issues, we really can find something that works well for everyone.

but see here is teh thing. of course i would not let her stay at home alone. but she makes the call on the illegality of it. not me. with neighbours around the only reason i would not leave her alone at home is legal. she is mature enough and has enough common sense to be left alone in our tiny place in the suburbs. so i dont play around with the law. she gets law so she knows she cant stay at home alone even if she wanted to. so me giving her a choice is not really a choice in a way but yet it is still a choice. and she knows i would not let her stay alone. but i want HER to make the call - not me. she has never, ever said oh i will stay alone then. never. ever.

yeah i agree. i too have noticed issues where i dont feel consensual are v. v. few these days.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
You and I just have different definitions of CL. I've read How to Talk but I dont' at all consider it CL.

thats fine! As I said, CL looks different in my family. Not that I think we are totally CL in my own family, but we are aspiring to be. How about unconditional parenting? which says a lot of the same things regarding consensus. Do you think that book is CL?

Here are books I have read and agree with, all recommended by consensual living . com
Kohn, Alfie, Unconditional Parenting
Faber, Adele and Elaine Mazlish, How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk (you don't consider it CL, but consensual-living.com does lol)
Faber, Adele and Elaine Mazlish, Siblings Without Rivalry
Greene, Ross, The Explosive Child: A New Approach for Understanding and Parenting Easily Frustrated, Chronically Inflexible Children
Aron, Elaine, The Highly Sensitive Child: Helping Our Children Thrive When the World Overwhelms Them
Aldort, Naomi, Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves: Transforming Parent-child Relationships from Reaction And Struggle to Freedom, Power And Joy

http://www.consensual-living.com/suggestedreading.htm

So I realize that How to Talk isnt CL in your eyes, but it is a CL-friendly book









I do think that CL gets lost on the internet though, because you meet CL families who don't have the same feelings as we do, so they come to different consensus then we do, and then we think we aren't CL if it's not something that we would be okay with. "Oh, they let their child skip homework and I wouldn't so if they are CL then I must not be CL" instead of looking at it as "they view more to be the decision solely of the child then I do, but this is important to me in my family and I am part of my families consensus and so not doing the homework would not be a consensual agreement for me"

However, I will say, if my child got good grades and understood the material and didnt NEED the practice (which is what homework is) I would be willing to talk to the teachers to see if we could come up with another solution. Perhaps some kind of related assignment that also engages their interests and is challenging to them instead of boring droning work that is too easy. and another solution may be in order if its because the work is too hard.

" Consensual living is a process, a philosophy, a mindset by which we seek to live in harmony with our families and community. It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone's wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties.
Consensual Living is broad and far reaching. It influences the way we interact with everyone, from our immediate families to our community and the world at large. It is about assigning positive intent and looking for solutions. This can apply in so many arenas. It can change interactions, even if they are historically adversarial. "
http://www.consensual-living.com/

Perhaps some parents confuse CL with TCS?

It may also be confused with Taking Children Seriously, TCS, a parenting and educational philosophy which, like CL, rejects the use of parental coercion and views coercive acts as psychologically harmful to the child. Consensual Living differs from TCS primarily in its preference for moral relativism and its rejection of the error-correcting method of determining objective truth as put forward by Karl Popper.


----------



## ~PurityLake~

Consensual family; decisions round table, children are self determining; few or no rules.

I hate arbitrary rules.

I do get frustrated with some things, such as Sophia's endlessly climbing on everything, getting up on the stove, cupboards, jumping on the dining table to talk to the birds, filling the kitchen sink and soaking her feet in it, ..... She is not supposed to do these things. Abigail stopped counter surfing when she was around 2-2.5 and learned this is not okay, for many reasons (dangerous, messy). But lately she's in 'do it myself' stage, so she often climbs on the counter to make a bowl of cereal (and I'm surprised at how well she does this!). But overall, very few rules.

The no climbing is my biggest battle. As I type this, Sophia has once again scaled the entertainment center.


----------



## Theoretica

I picked combo. We avoid arbitrary rules like the plague, but sometimes rules just are. For our family though, everything is about balance. Swing too far into the CL side and you potentially have kids that are completely out of control. Too far into the hierarchy side and you trounce their right to be different than you.

So...like everything else.....yin and yang...


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I still don't see how being too consensual would make unruly children - I think some confuse CL with permissiveness though- but if you include yourself in the consensus you shouldn't have a problem









I guess I see CL as the place between permissiveness and strictness... just the same we do have rules - rules that apply to everyone in the family, not just the children









ETA: I see nothing wrong with parenting in any of these ways, different things work for different families, and I think what works for one family is really dependent on what that families goals are. I just don't think that someone who is being consensual is going to have out of control or unruly kids. In fact the family I met that seemed to have it together the most was a CL family with 6 girls. They really inspired me, though at the time I though that would work with MY kids, but turns out it does lol.. though technically we aren't really there yet.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I still don't see how being too consensual would make unruly children - I think some confuse CL with permissiveness though- but if you include yourself in the consensus you shouldn't have a problem









How do you reach consensus, then? I've never understood this. If I don't want dd on the counter, and she wants to be on the counter, there's not going to be a consensus on this issue. She can get her way or I can get mine...but we can't have consensus when we each want things that are diametrically opposed to what the other wants.


----------



## AutumnAir

I picked the second choice, though that might have a lot to do with the fact that DD is 15 months old, and I just don't think consensual living is feasible on a practical level with babies. As she gets older I plan to offer her more choices, involve her in decision making more and encourage her to accept more responsibility for herself. Though I still don't think it will be hard-core CL.


----------



## Norasmomma

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
I almost started a thread about this awhile back. Honestly, I wish I hadn't done most of the parenting research I have done including reading The Continuum Concept. All it did was make me question and even deny some of my own instincts which looking back on it were pretty good to begin with. I'm all for winging it at this point. Now I just wish I could scrub my mind of all the propaganda and dogma.

To answer the OP, I voted "combo." We give choices and allow a fair amount of freedom where we can, but at the end of the day, my husband and I are in charge. I think my daughter actually appreciates that and it gives her some security.

I agree. I just feel like I have my own instincts and when it comes down to someone else writing a book about how I "should" parent usually it comes down to a: they are trying to make money and b: I am much better at following my gut. Whenever I read something else for a bit I question what I am doing, but then I realize that what works for one person may not for another, and I have a ton of examples. I really feel that I am doing the best for my family, I just don't need a bunch of literature telling me how I am screwing things up by not following their dogmatic ways.


----------



## transformed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aprons_and_acorns* 
One thing I've noticed about CL --speaking from an outsider's perspective--is that going over all of the endless minutia (the car ride example for instance) seems tiresome for everyone when you actually witness it. And in the deciding of all of the external details (hold a toy or not, music or not, what kind of music, what windows are down and how far down) in a way can seem to get in the way of the idea that often we can be content just because we decide to be content. And being in the throes of negotiation constantly just does not appeal to me at all. I used to spend a lot of time with a CL family and it often seemed like the constant negotiation made it so things never really got off the ground. And the kids seemed like they didn't really understand that it's your attitude that determines your experience most of the time-- not where you sit in the car and what tree you eat your picnic under.

**Not that there aren't some drawbacks to heirarchy structure as well. Just that we might look like a CL family most of the time but I don't consider that to be our ideal philosophically.***

I agree with that. I am a true hippy in my heart and I _so_ want to raise my kids in a respectful consensual PEACEFUL way but I hardly have a moment to have a 3 word conversation with my kids because they are so little and someone is always talking over someone else, or both kids want the same thing, or the baby needs me, or or or or or.

Your post made me realize that I need to be more of a facllitator and less of a negotiator. I resent my children often because I am just like "WHY CANT EVERYONE JUST BE CONSENSUAL!? THIS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK! IN THEORY!







Stuff just doesnt always work for everyone.


----------



## transformed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
How do you reach consensus, then? I've never understood this. If I don't want dd on the counter, and she wants to be on the counter, there's not going to be a consensus on this issue. She can get her way or I can get mine...but we can't have consensus when we each want things that are diametrically opposed to what the other wants.









:


----------



## Ruthla

My motto is "freedom within limits." I give my kids as much freedom as I can handle and that they are ready for. But, as the grownup, I have ultimate veto power. I retain the right to say "Ok, you've abused your freedom, and you've just lost some priveledges."

But, I give a lot of freedom when I can. I don't set "bedtimes" for kids who don't have to get up at a specific time in the morning, or who get up on time without my help.

But I don't hesitate to set firm limits for children who need them. If my 7yo is overtired and cranky, we'll start the bedtime routine early. When my children were toddlers and preschoolers, they had a lot less freedom than they have now. My teenaged daughters get a whole lot more freedom, and I won't tell them what to wear, what time to go to bed, etc. They don't even have an official curfew, unless they require me to drive them someplace.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
How do you reach consensus, then? I've never understood this. If I don't want dd on the counter, and she wants to be on the counter, there's not going to be a consensus on this issue. She can get her way or I can get mine...but we can't have consensus when we each want things that are diametrically opposed to what the other wants.

This would be a case where I would meet the underlying need. start with empathizing - which sometimes resolve the issue and then they are fine not being on the counter. sometimes they still have a need for adventure, we find a way to meet that need.

Example: child wants to jump off the roof with a sheet as a parachute. I am not okay with that. I validate and listen, I share my own feelings on the subject, we find out what the NEED is that needs to be met. (that get into this in how to talk - about bringing NEEDS to the table, not specifics) So we both make suggestions without ruling anything out at first. They might say "how about you let me do it anyway" and I'll write it down and say "thats one idea. What else?" and I might suggest "what if we went parasailing next weekend? or on a roller coaster ride?" then we go down the options and discuss what will work and not work. "Well, mommy isn't okay with you jumping off the roof, so we have to cross that one out" and child might say "rollercoasters wouldnt be the same to me. I like the parasailing idea" "okay, how about you call around and get some prices and locations, and we'll pick a date on the calendar"

sometimes a consensus cant be reached right away. The parent can say "it seems we can't find a way to agree right now. Why don't you think about it some more and we'll talk about it tomorrow after lunch". Or sometimes the solution you choose doesn't work out, and you need to go back to the drawing board.

I think how to talk so kids will listen covers this really well in depth. Sometimes we can say "I am not comfortable with this. if you can think of a safe way to do this I will consider it"

CL does not mean that everyone agrees or gets their own way, but more so that we come to a consensus that every ones NEEDS are met. My child does not NEED to jump off a roof. It also means all feelings are seen as equal and valid and respectable - My child CAN feel just as strongly about jumping off a roof as I feel about them not jumping off, and they are allowed to feel that way.

everyone's needs are met ("meet the underlying needs of all parties"
everyone's feelings and wants count and are valid ("Everyone's wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age")

for some reason this gets construed into everyone gets what they want or gives in to the other person DESIRES (desire: jump off roof, need: adventure) I think when you see a family practicing CL that let their children jump off the roof you need to consider that is what CL looks like FOR THEIR FAMILY. no in general. how could CL look any way "in general" when the consensus is based on the people involved, and you aren't parent of their family consensus? Perhaps those parents don't mind their child jumping off the roof. We may not agree with that, but that does not mean they are CL and we are not, or vice versa.

I hope that makes more sense but I think if you read How to Talk, maybe even re-read if you already read it, you will pick up on these things a little more clearly


----------



## Storm Bride

I don't generally read parenting books. They make my head hurt, and rarely tell me anything useful.

DD's need to climb on the counter has a lot to do with wanting to get into things she's not allowed to get into (eg. my spices). I can't/won't meet her underlying need to get into things that I can't afford for her to get into, yk?

In any case, what you describe doesn't sound anything like consensual living to me. It sounds like any reasonable household, including many who self-describe as a "benevolent dictatorship".


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

well, maybe you are consensual and don't even realize it! That book is a very easy read, and while you might not take anything out of it to use, it would probably help you understand what consensual living is (outside the way it seems to be presented in the internet world, which to me often seems more like TCS not CL - though I can see how someone can be BOTH TCS and CL, you can be CL without being TCS)

Quote:

DD's need to climb on the counter has a lot to do with wanting to get into things she's not allowed to get into (eg. my spices). I can't/won't meet her underlying need to get into things that I can't afford for her to get into, yk?
so you feel her need is to "get into things she isn't allowed" ? If it were my child I would see it as my child needing to explore, and I would find other ways to meet that need. It's okay if you can't/wont meet that underlying need. Maybe that is the difference between CL and benevolent dictatorship? See I could find many ways to meet that need without letting my expensive spices get ruined.

1) anytime I have to add spices while cooking, let the child do it.
2) save used up spice containers, fill them with something else they can shake out, and (because I hate messes) let my kids pretend to cook with these pretend spices out side or in the bathtub.
3) find other things for my child to explore.


----------



## Storm Bride

I'll admit I'm totally confused now. I have the final say. I don't get where "consensus" comes into "consensual" living at all, if this is what CL actually is. There's no consensus. There's me (or dh, or both of us) deciding how things will work.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
so you feel her need is to "get into things she isn't allowed" ? If it were my child I would see it as my child needing to explore, and I would find other ways to meet that need. It's okay if you can't/wont meet that underlying need. Maybe that is the difference between CL and benevolent dictatorship? See I could find many ways to meet that need without letting my expensive spices get ruined.

1) anytime I have to add spices while cooking, let the child do it.
2) save used up spice containers, fill them with something else they can shake out, and (because I hate messes) let my kids pretend to cook with these pretend spices out side or in the bathtub.
3) find other things for my child to explore.

It's not about getting into "things she's not allowed". It's about getting into the _spices_. She does put spices into cooking (when she wants to, which she often doesn't). She doesn't like pretending with fake spices, because she eats the spices. She explores all kinds of other things. She wants to eat the spices. She's not allowed to do so, without getting permission, and getting my help in getting them out. She doesn't see that as reasonable (being not-quite-6, she doesn't grasp the importance of not spilling $5.00 worth of spices into my coffee press, because she wants to eat $0.10 worth of fennel seed, yk?).

So...she thinks she should be allowed to climb the counter and eat the spices. I don't. There's no consensus to be had, and it's simply not possible to always honour the need for independence in a child this young (I know, as I was the one who used to wander out of the yard every time mom and dad lost sight of me for 3 seconds).


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

okay, then its not consensual for you.

It's not really about who decides though. It's about meeting _everyone's_ underlying *needs* (not everyone getting what they want, which obviously isnt possible if everyone wants different things) and its about everyone's feelings and opinions being viewed as equally valid. yes to us it may seem silly our children are THAT upset about not being allowed to play with spices, but to them this is what they are really feeling and no one should tell them they shouldnt feel that way or be unwilling to "hear" them (even if not verbally) just because they are a child.

Perhaps it is the word consensus you do not understand?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
It's not about getting into "things she's not allowed". It's about getting into the _spices_. She does put spices into cooking (when she wants to, which she often doesn't). She doesn't like pretending with fake spices, because she eats the spices. She explores all kinds of other things. She wants to eat the spices. She's not allowed to do so, without getting permission, and getting my help in getting them out. She doesn't see that as reasonable (being not-quite-6, she doesn't grasp the importance of not spilling $5.00 worth of spices into my coffee press, because she wants to eat $0.10 worth of fennel seed, yk?).

So...she thinks she should be allowed to climb the counter and eat the spices. I don't. There's no consensus to be had, and it's simply not possible to always honour the need for independence in a child this young (I know, as I was the one who used to wander out of the yard every time mom and dad lost sight of me for 3 seconds).

yes I know. You can make edible fake spices I'm sure! You are looking at the surface problem not the underlying need. You are bringing specifics to the table, not needs.

examples:
specific : wanting to color on the walls
need: need an exiting artistic outlet

specific: wanting to eat spices
need: wanting to explore flavor, perhaps culinary skills, perhaps something as simple as cause and effect (she knows going after the spices gets a certain reaction from you) It could be a number of things of course, your child know, and you could figure it out. PS - its 110% okay if you don't want to though! You are doing what works for your family. I am just explaining that no, CL does not mean children rule the roost, or that everyone gets what they want - but everyone will get what they need and all their feelings and desires will be considered valid even if they can't be granted. This is in no way putting down your parenting, I am just defending CL because it seems that everyone wants to base CL on the way some people practice it without realizing that their family consensus is different from the next families consensus. IT doesnt make one person "more CL" then another family just because they are more child-led then another family.

I am willing to explain anything to you that you are confused about, but it's very hard to debate something I understand and practice with someone who not only does not understand or practice it, but is seemingly unwilling to understand it. It's like saying "I know what italy looks like even though I've never been there, and am unwilling to look at pictures, but I know other people who have been there and I'm basing my opinion on what they said about it, and so what you say you have seen doesn't sound like italy to me... maybe you went to spain? that sounds like what people I know say spain looks like. and no I don't want to see the pictures you took while you were there because that will not help me see what it looks like"


----------



## phrogger

This all makes my head spin, but honestly, and this is a serious question, what is truly wrong with at times just saying no, and it is no because I don't want you to do that?

Maybe I just don't have the time or the patience, but I don't see it being realistic for every issue that comes up to have a sit down conversation about it and writing the pros and cons of the underlying cause and getting to figure out some why to eventually make the kid happy.

If my kid wants to get into something they can't, it is NO and that has to be enough sometimes. I guess I don't see it being a huge benefit when I can't have a sit down conversation with my boss about every little thing I don't agree with. I don't get to aruge with teachers about why I FEEL a certain way, and it has to be taught to my kids eventually that they don't have that option either.

I have often said to my son "if you don't like how your teacher is running the class, go to college, get a degree and teach kids yourself, you will get to be the one to make the rules then, until that time, learn to Stop, think, listen and if it is a major issue, approach the teacher in a respectful way, but except that you will get nothing out of it, but saying your peace." He hasn't gone to a teacher once, but he is learning that sometimes you just have to do what you are told to do and you can't expect explinations or a say in a lot of it.


----------



## Theoretica

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
It's not about getting into "things she's not allowed". It's about getting into the _spices_. She does put spices into cooking (when she wants to, which she often doesn't). She doesn't like pretending with fake spices, because she eats the spices. She explores all kinds of other things. She wants to eat the spices. She's not allowed to do so, without getting permission, and getting my help in getting them out. She doesn't see that as reasonable (being not-quite-6, she doesn't grasp the importance of not spilling $5.00 worth of spices into my coffee press, because she wants to eat $0.10 worth of fennel seed, yk?).

So...she thinks she should be allowed to climb the counter and eat the spices. I don't. There's no consensus to be had, and it's simply not possible to always honour the need for independence in a child this young (I know, as I was the one who used to wander out of the yard every time mom and dad lost sight of me for 3 seconds).

I totally see where you are coming from, whcih is why I picked combo LOL. To me, it's about teaching them to expect respect and respect others. Sometimes that means we negotiate a consensus, and sometimes they get their way, and sometimes I or DH have to just say 'this is the way it is'. I do avoid doing that whenever possible, but there are times you just have to do something a certain way and negotiating with a child who doesn't comprehend reason and logic Just.Doesn't.Cut.It. YKWIM? I don't buy it that a kiddo has an underlying emotional need to climb counters. To me, validating their wants is an important part of basic parenting, and has nothing to do with CL. I validate my infant when she screams hysterically because she has to be in the car seat. Doesn't change much, but I do love on her and tell her I know she doesn't like it etc. We sing to her while driving, we make it as pleasant as possible, but she cries EVERY time. Some things just have to happen.







:


----------



## Storm Bride

I understand the underlying needs thing - not sure why you think I don't.

(She doesn't want/need fake edible spices. This is about _spices_ (or, occasionally, a square of dark chocolate - but usually spices). I don't know about you, but when I'm craving ice cream, someone determining that my underlying need is for calcium and offering me low-fat mozza isn't going to cut it, yk?)

What I don't get is how any of this is "consensual". I also don't get how everyone's needs can possibly be met, when those needs do, in fact, come into conflict. That's not just the kids not having their needs met, either - it goes both ways. When they need mama's attention, and mama needs to sleep/rest/grieve/journal/whatever, it's frequently mama's needs that don't get met.

I have never, irl, seen a family in which everyone's needs are being met. I hear about them here on occasion, and that's it. However, the other CL (possibly TCS - many seem to use them interchangably) families I've seen here do seem to be claiming to achieve actual consensus on things. So, I don't get how that works, but they do claim that it does. You're not talking about CL in that sense, but still calling it "consensual". So, yeah - the term confuses me. If everyone doesn't agree, then it's not consensus. If everyone's needs aren't being met, then it's not consensual. So...confused, yeah.

Oh - and you said in analyzing the underlying need when dd gets into the spices that "your child know". I'm not sure what you meant there. If you talk to dd about the climbing on the counter, you're not going to get anything beyond, "I wanted spices" (or maybe, "I wanted a cinnamon stick").


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

There is nothing wrong with doing what works for your family phrogger. For my family, CL takes less time then "laying down the law" we are addressing underlying needs, not specifics. its not like we spend every second of every day making lists or negotiating or trying to reach a consensus. We are pretty new to CL but I find less need to discipline (even though my needs have not changed AND my needs are now being met!) I have more cooperation, my children move on from things faster, they are more considerate, and it takes less time overall. Yes, when necessary it _sometimes_ takes more time then "laying down the law". This works for my family. It's right for us. It doesn't need to be right for anyone else. I am willing to be the change I want to see in the world, and I want that for my children too. If my children want to approach their teachers then that is okay with me! It's okay to be different. Its okay to speak up when others don't.

At my sons school there is a teacher, with whom we have become mentors to each other, but he has the children critique his teaching.


----------



## phrogger

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
There is nothing wrong with doing what works for your family phrogger. For my family, CL takes less time then "laying down the law" we are addressing underlying needs, not specifics. its not like we spend every second of every day making lists or negotiating or trying to reach a consensus. We are pretty new to CL but I find less need to discipline (even though my needs have not changed AND my needs are now being met!) I have more cooperation, my children move on from things faster, they are more considerate, and it takes less time overall. Yes, when necessary it _sometimes_ takes more time then "laying down the law". This works for my family. It's right for us. It doesn't need to be right for anyone else. I am willing to be the change I want to see in the world, and I want that for my children too. If my children want to approach their teachers then that is okay with me! It's okay to be different. Its okay to speak up when others don't.

At my sons school there is a teacher, with whom we have become mentors to each other, but he has the children critique his teaching.










That still doesn't answer the question as to WHY it isn't ok to just say no. I am trying to understand your way of thinking because it isn't making sense to me from the small snippets I am reading from you.

Let me rephrase, why is the CL parenting style your perferred method and what are the key differences you see in a CL parenting style and a more hierarchy/dictatorship type parenting style.


----------



## phrogger

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Oh - and you said in analyzing the underlying need when dd gets into the spices that "your child know". I'm not sure what you meant there. If you talk to dd about the climbing on the counter, you're not going to get anything beyond, "I wanted spices" (or maybe, "I wanted a cinnamon stick").


Wouldn't the underlying need be that they have no impulse control and if they get something into their heads they will go to the ends of the earth to get what they want and sometimes you as the mom have to stop them and basically teach them how to control their impulses?

The underlying problem is the kid doesn't know how to stop themselves from getting what they want.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

No I don't know. This is what my midwives did for me lol. Yes, I still wanted the dang ice cream, but with time upping my calcium intake did meet my underlying need for calcium.

All needs can be met, even if not met at the same time. I can meet my need for rest and my child's need for attention even if I don't get all those needs met on the spot. I find my needs are getting met more frequently now that we are more consensual though. I also notice my children trying to help me meet my needs (oh did my son bless me the other morning in this regard! had I been sitting in a chair at the time I would have fallen out of it!)
TCS and CL are not the same. I guess thats why its upsetting to me when people use them interchangeable. you can be TCS and CL but you dont have to be TCS to be CL.

have you asked why she wanted a cinnamon stick? I am not in your family so I cannot decide the consensus for you.

consensus means _agreement in the judgment_ *or* _opinion reached by a group as a whole_.

We can reach an opinion as whole even if we aren't all 100% happy with what that overall consensus comes to. We can be in agreement on what the judgment of the situation is, even when we aren't getting out way. I don't know if I am explaining this well... sorry!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phrogger* 
That still doesn't answer the question as to WHY it isn't ok to just say no. I am trying to understand your way of thinking because it isn't making sense to me from the small snippets I am reading from you.

Let me rephrase, why is the CL parenting style your perferred method and what are the key differences you see in a CL parenting style and a more hierarchy/dictatorship type parenting style.

I thought I did. It IS okay for YOU to just say no. We don't need to do that to have our children cooperate. Our family dynamics is different then yours. neither way is wrong - we both have children who cooperate more often then not









why is the CL parenting style your perferred method and what are the key differences you see in a CL parenting style and a more hierarchy/dictatorship type parenting style.

I feel it ultimately is the most respectful method towards all members in the house, I feel it better prepares them to be successful and true to themselves at the same time in a world of in the box thinkers how they can be out of the box thinkers in a healthy way. And also the hierarchy parenting style just created lots of power struggles and not a lot of compliance. (Again, I am speaking of in MY family. I am not saying that method equals more power struggles and less cooperation, I'm saying that is just what happened when *we* used that approach in the past)

Leaning more towards CL I have noticed more compliance, and that I am even able to gain compliance in areas what had once been "battles I would not pick" Everyone is happier, everyone's needs get met, our connection is stronger, there is more cooperation, and more respect. That is why CL is preffered in our family, though I am still learning to fully embrace this!!! Which does not mean agreeing with TCS it just means embracing the approach more and having more faith in the areas I didn't before. Bit by bit. I let more of my controlling ways, and I gain more compliance. My children's attitudes have changed so much overall that less issues arise because they are in just a more "agreeable mood" then they used to be







(and again, this can surely be achieved for other people using a different approach! For us there is also an underlying thought process that reflects more on how we are achieving compliance and less on outward results, though I wont like, the outward results are very encouraging... I was brought up with praise and punishment so I can't help but prefer CL when it works better! I admit, at this point in my journey I am not sure how I would feel without the outward motivators, and perhaps that is where I differ from other CL mamas who I admire)


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phrogger* 
Wouldn't the underlying need be that they have no impulse control and if they get something into their heads they will go to the ends of the earth to get what they want and sometimes you as the mom have to stop them and basically teach them how to control their impulses?

The underlying problem is the kid doesn't know how to stop themselves from getting what they want.

a need for impulses and tools to control their impulses! yes that is a need!







though often if they are having a hard time receiving help in this area, there is yet another deeper need that needs to be met first


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
No I don't know. This is what my midwives did for me lol. Yes, I still wanted the dang ice cream, but with time upping my calcium intake did meet my underlying need for calcium.

Yeah, but...my desire for ice cream has little or nothing to do with my need for calcium. I can have the calcium and still want the ice cream. DD can have the ability to climb, explore, eat diverse foods (oh, I wish!), help cook, etc. and still want to eat fennel seeds, cardamom pods or cinnamon sticks.

Quote:

TCS and CL are not the same. I guess thats why its upsetting to me when people use them interchangeable. you can be TCS and CL but you dont have to be TCS to be CL.
Then, I guess I still don't understand what's consensual about it.

Quote:

have you asked why she wanted a cinnamon stick? I am not in your family so I cannot decide the consensus for you.
She wanted a cinnamon stick, because she likes cinnamon sticks.

Quote:

consensus means _agreement in the judgment_ *or* _opinion reached by a group as a whole_.

We can reach an opinion as whole even if we aren't all 100% happy with what that overall consensus comes to. We can be in agreement on what the judgment of the situation is, even when we aren't getting out way. I don't know if I am explaining this well... sorry!
I'm still not seeing where the agreement comes into this. If she's not allowed on the counter, and that's where she wants to be, then there's no consensus. She's not allowed on the counter, and she's not allowed to waste the spices, and that's what she wants to do. The bottom line is that she likes to play in real spices, and sample real spices, and we can't afford the waste.

Anyway, if this works for your family, that's great. To be honest, the more people describe it, the less consensual, and the less workable, it sounds.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

exactly - your desire for ice cream is valid, your need for calcium can be met. desires valid, needs meetable.

CL: onsensual Living, CL, is a philosophy derived from the principles of consensus decision-making which advocates a consent-based approach to conflict resolution. The process of finding solutions in this model usually includes the communication of individual needs and the brainstorming of possible solution which will successfully address the needs of all parties, based on finding a common preference. It may also be confused with Taking Children Seriously, TCS, a parenting and educational philosophy which, like CL, rejects the use of parental coercion and views coercive acts as psychologically harmful to the child. Consensual Living differs from TCS primarily in its preference for moral relativism and its rejection of the error-correcting method of determining objective truth as put forward by Karl Popper.
moral relativism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Yep cinnamon sticks are yummy. She desires a cinnamon stick. This could be a case where its not about a need, but just a desire. HEr desire could possibly be met : Cinnamon sticks are expenseive so you aren't willing to let her eat them whenever she wants. Does she have any ideas of something that might work for both of you. Would you be okay with her having one cinnamon stick a month. Can you pick out a special day on the calendar. Does she like other cinnamon things - flavors, scents, etc. And is there an underlying meed that is being missed (I miss they all the time myself, sometimes I catch them in retrospect - it is hard when they are at that age that they have a hard tim seperating needs from wants!)

you are still looking at the surface. It's very workable in our family, and very consensual. I just feel that you are looking at if from the wrong direction, and you are unwilling to look at it from any other direction so I am unsure how to help you understand. You dont want to understand, you want to convince me that its not consensual.

I keep hearing this:
"I know what italy looks like even though I've never been there, and am unwilling to look at pictures, but I know other people who have been there and I'm basing my opinion on what they said about it, and so what you say you have seen doesn't sound like italy to me... maybe you went to spain? that sounds like what people I know say spain looks like. and no I don't want to see the pictures you took while you were there because that will not help me see what it looks like" so I'll just agree to disagree with you are this point. You dont understand consensual living, never practiced it, and never read about it - but you are sure that what I am doing is not that, and is not workable. I really don't need flying lessons from a scuba instructer. Similarly, someone who doesn't want to learn to fly doesn't need a consultation with a flight instructer









I said "consensus means agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.

We can reach an opinion as whole even if we aren't all 100% happy with what that overall consensus comes to. We can be in agreement on what the judgment of the situation is, even when we aren't getting out way. I don't know if I am explaining this well... sorry!"

perhaps I should have said We can reach an opinion as whole even if we aren't all 100% happy with what that overall consensus comes to. *OR* We can be in agreement on what the judgment of the situation is, even when we aren't getting out way.

Example:
DH and I agreed that we would not vaccinate. He wanted to, I didn't. We discussed it. He isn't 100% happy with the overall consensus but we did reach this opinion/choice as a whole considering everyone's feelings on the subject. I wanted to buy an SUV for a family car. DH wanted to buy a classic car. I dont think that is practical. But I am in agreement with the judgment made in the situation, because I agree/understand/know that he is the one who drives the car, I dont even have a license, we do already have a more "practical" car. so no, its not the car I picked, but yes, I am in agreement with his decision.


----------



## mamazee

Consensual living, as I've always heard it defined, and as it's defined here: http://www.consensual-living.com/ is based on always finding a mutually agreeable solution to any disagreement and making sure everyone's wants and needs are met. Your definition is way different than any I've seen.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

mamazee the definition I used was copy pasted from that site. It is totally in line with what I think, and also, the book I said earlier is suggested reading from that sight - the book that you said does not sound like CL based based on what you think CL is, is in fact, one of the CL recommended books!

Consensual living is a process, a philosophy, a mindset by which we seek to live in harmony with our families and community. *It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed.* Everyone's wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties.

(((needs considered, addressed, does not say they are always met - mutually agreeable solutions are found)))
((( wants and needs are equally valid and discussed. solution are created which meet the underlying needs
doesn't say everyone's _wants_ are met.)))


----------



## mamazee

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
mamazee the definition I used was copy pasted from that site. It is totally in line with what I think, and also, the book I said earlier is suggested reading from that sight - the book that you said does not sound like CL based based on what you think CL is, is in fact, one of the CL recommended books!

They might recommend it as a parenting book, but that doesn't mean it's CL. They don't look for mutually agreeable solutions, which is a cornerstone of CL.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

yes that book does look for mutually agreeable solutions and has at least 1 whole chapter on such!


----------



## mamazee

They also show the mom staring at her kid and saying something like, "Mark, your shoes!" and pointing at shoes. It's about ways to communicate with kids largely to get kids to do what you want.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

staring at her kid? really? I must have missed that part where they say "stare at your kid and say xyz in order to ensure that they do xyz" that is not the vibe I got at all. I heard them saying we need to give credit to our childs intelligence and realize that we can say one word to them and that they can figure out what we are asking. I hear them saying, lets respect that our children have busy minds and may only want to tune in for one or two words. [/I]I also hear them saying they will do it themselves if their child doesnt and let their child know how they feel about doing it themselves instead of the child fulfilling the request for cooperation.

You may not want to practice CL. that is fine. and I don't claim to be CL, just leaning more towards that direction. However, I think you could respect that consensual living looks different in every family. If not, that is okay too, but I am not going to debate with you about it. Why does it matter. I dont care what you call what I do it works for my family. I dont care what you call what you do - it works for your family. You want to call my parenting the poopy parenting approach I am okay with that! I am just merely basing what I say my parenting leans towards based on the definition provided at consensual-living.com. Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you want to disagree. But either way, we can agree to disagree. Well, I can anyway


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Yep cinnamon sticks are yummy. She desires a cinnamon stick. This could be a case where its not about a need, but just a desire. HEr desire could possibly be met : Cinnamon sticks are expenseive so you aren't willing to let her eat them whenever she wants. Does she have any ideas of something that might work for both of you. Would you be okay with her having one cinnamon stick a month. Can you pick out a special day on the calendar. Does she like other cinnamon things - flavors, scents, etc. And is there an underlying meed that is being missed (I miss they all the time myself, sometimes I catch them in retrospect - it is hard when they are at that age that they have a hard tim seperating needs from wants!)

DD can have a cinnamon stick whenever she wants. She cannot climb up on the counter, and go through the spice cupboard herself. Last time she did it, while I was in the bathroom, I came out to find her opening the packet of saffron. While I can certainly afford to restock cinnamon sticks, I can't afford to regularly restock saffron, yk? DD is a very independent-minded little girl (much like I was at that age), but she does _not_ understand why we have the rules we have about climbing on the counter (safety, and waste). I've discussed/explained them multiple times, but we're not getting anywhere.

Quote:

"I know what italy looks like even though I've never been there, and am unwilling to look at pictures, but I know other people who have been there and I'm basing my opinion on what they said about it, and so what you say you have seen doesn't sound like italy to me... maybe you went to spain? that sounds like what people I know say spain looks like. and no I don't want to see the pictures you took while you were there because that will not help me see what it looks like" so I'll just agree to disagree with you are this point.
You're not talking about showing me pictures of Italy. You're expounding a definition of consensual living that's at odds with _every_ other definition of it that I've heard here...and I used to spend a lot of time on the gentle discipline board, reading many, many, many posts on the subject. No - I haven't read the books. I have, however, read hundreds of posts from people who practice consensual living, and _none_ of them described what you're describing.

Quote:

You dont understand consensual living, never practiced it, and never read about it - but you are sure that what I am doing is not that, and is not workable.
I've read about it. I just haven't read the books you're talking about. I can get information from places other than books.

I also missed where I said that what you're doing isn't workable. It doesn't sound like consensual living, as _every_ other CL mama I've seen here has defined CL. It sounds totally workable. CL, the way I've seen it defined by everyone else, does _not_ sound workable to me.

Quote:

I said "consensus means agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.
I honestly have no idea what "agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group" even means. I've re-read it a dozen times, and it's not making any more sense to me than it did the first time.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

im sorry it doesn't make sense to you.

let me try to meet you on your level. here are what some moms from around the web have said about consensual living:

"from what I have understood so far, consensual living doesn't mean that noone every has to do something that they don't want to do, but it does mean that everyone's needs are considered and everyone has a say in the decision making process. Ultimately, while not everyone will necessarily be happy with every decision, they should be able to agree on a compromise that is best for everyone."

and

"Maybe I'm wrong, then, in thinking that consensual living and the "taking children seriously" philosophy are the same thing? Your description of consensual living sounds more along the lines of Kohn's "Unconditional Parenting" (which, to be fair, I haven't finished yet, so maybe I should reserve judgement on it, but so far I more or less agree with him). The TCS philosophy is, from what I've read, a literal no-coercion approach - your child does nothing unless they want to do it."

maybe they explained it better. IDK. CL looks different in every family, and as I said, we lean that way but havent fully embraced it. What we are doing BY DEFINITION provided on the CL website is consensual living. Other CL mamas may have definitions of what CL looks like in *their* family though. So the way we practice it in my family sounds workable to you, so therefore it must not be CL since other CL approaches don't seem workable to you. I am sorry I am unable to understand that reasoning as it seems, well, unreasonable!

agreement in the judgment.... I gave an example, but basically to be in agreement of the judgement would be to say we got a car that wasn't the car I wanted. we didnt agree on the car we got, but we agreed that the judgment that my husband pick the car since he drives and I don't and the car was more for him was the right judgement for our family. Opinion reached by a group would mean that while some of us like red and some of us like blue, our opinion as a whole may be more purply. it maye be a blueish purple, or a redish purple. Or it may just be read or blue. But our opinion is colored (if you will) by the opinions of the GROUP. and our decisions are based on that. my definition may be at odds with how other have expressed their understanding of it - but my definition is just what I read from consensual living.com.

I am yet to meet a person who doesn't understand how mathmatically 40 weeks is equal to 9 1/2 months not 10 (please if anyone understands this speak up so I dont feel so alone!) and yet, it is still fact. While every person so far I have spoken to online feels that 40 weeks equals exactly 10 months that does not mean it is so. A month is a little over 4 weeks (except february) and therefore 40 weeks is a little under 10 months.

Now, in my experience, every CL mama who has ever defined CL to me has sounded very different from every other CL mama who has defined CL. I always accepted this because CL looks different for every family.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

We just switched to having our older two share a room because we are renting a 2 bedroom house and trying to figure out the best living arrangement for everyone. I thought this wouldn't work with our kids, but actually, works even better then out old arrangement so far.

My son got in the habit of sleeping with a light on though, and DD can not. I don't think he really needs it, but he does need things "not to change" he gets "stuck" on things being "just so". We all agreed to a nightlight. So we got the nightlight and put it in, but as we left the room DS got very upset. He told me the light in his room must be broken and asked that DH or I fix it. I tried empathizing. I tried explaining. He wanted that light on. He cannot sleep in the dark, and DD can not sleep in the light. I told him to wait there and I would get DH. I got DH and my husband handled it. He turned the light back on, and spoke to him. My son decided he didn't want the light off, but was okay with it being off. My son turned the light off, went to bed, and has (so far) left it off. Perhaps this means I am lucky with some kind of super reasonable child. Whatever, it works for us, and others should do what works for them. At the same time, at one point I did not think my son was capable of such a reaction. I felt he was far from reasonable and anyone this method worked for was lucky or didnt know what it was like to have children like mine, especially my son with Autism. Turns out though, it wasn't my children that it wouldnt work for. It was me. Now that it works for me it works for them. And if it didnt work for us that would be okay too. But it does. which is why we do it. and I do think decisions like these are consensual. Sometimes I will do something I dont want to do because I have compassion for the other person or I am being considerate of them. It doesn't mean im not being consensual or consensting to the idea just because it wasnt what I "wanted"..

All I know is this: I've read the definition of CL on the CL website. I have read several books from the CL website's recommended reading list. I am basing my idea of what CL is based on that. I am not basing it on other CL mamas I speak with here or otherwise, because I feel CL looks different in every family, and I am just trying to get the overall idea of what CL means. What does CL mean _in general_. I know some parents who things they arent AP because they don't cloth diaper - well you can be "ap" even if you use disposables, but a lot of AP mamas use cloth. this stands for a lot of different things. Just because most CL mama's ( or even in some cases all CL mamas that on person in particular knows) practice TCS as well (perhaps without realizing it) does not mean that TCS has to coincide with CL


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
im sorry it doesn't make sense to you.

let me try to meet you on your level. here are what some moms from around the web have said about consensual living:

"from what I have understood so far, consensual living doesn't mean that noone every has to do something that they don't want to do, but it does mean that everyone's needs are considered and everyone has a say in the decision making process. Ultimately, while not everyone will necessarily be happy with every decision, they should be able to agree on a compromise that is best for everyone."

This is pretty much what people here have talked about. So - compromise. I've never seen a family that doesn't compromise, so I don't really get putting a label on it. Honestly...the hardcore consensual living sounds like harsh tyranny to me, but I do tend to see things differently than most...

Quote:

maybe they explained it better. IDK. CL looks different in every family, and as I said, we lean that way but havent fully embraced it. What we are doing BY DEFINITION provided on the CL website is consensual living. Other CL mamas may have definitions of what CL looks like in *their* family though. So the way we practice it in my family sounds workable to you, so therefore it must not be CL since other CL approaches don't seem workable to you. I am sorry I am unable to understand that reasoning as it seems, well, unreasonable!
I'd never heard of the CL website before. I didn't realize this was an official movement. And, it's not that what you're doing doesn't sound like consensual living _because_ it sounds workable. It doesn't sound consensual. It sounds like the way every family I've ever seen does things, even without calling it consensual living.

Quote:

agreement in the judgment.... I gave an example, but basically to be in agreement of the judgement would be to say we got a car that wasn't the car I wanted. we didnt agree on the car we got, but we agreed that the judgment that my husband pick the car since he drives and I don't and the car was more for him was the right judgement for our family. Opinion reached by a group would mean that while some of us like red and some of us like blue, our opinion as a whole may be more purply. it maye be a blueish purple, or a redish purple. Or it may just be read or blue. But our opinion is colored (if you will) by the opinions of the GROUP. and our decisions are based on that. my definition may be at odds with how other have expressed their understanding of it - but my definition is just what I read from consensual living.com.
Well, yeah - on choosing a car, dh would go along with a car that he didn't like, if I preferred it, because I do the driving. That seems like kind of a no-brainer, really. However, what you discuss about the colour seems to be what I've come across before - it's better to have something that nobody likes, rather than something that somebody really dislikes. That's not a very happy way to do things, to my way of thinking.

Quote:

I am yet to meet a person who doesn't understand how mathmatically 40 weeks is equal to 9 1/2 months not 10 (please if anyone understands this speak up so I dont feel so alone!) and yet, it is still fact. While every person so far I have spoken to online feels that 40 weeks equals exactly 10 months that does not mean it is so. A month is a little over 4 weeks (except february) and therefore 40 weeks is a little under 10 months.
I think I got lost in an extra negative somewhere in here, but if you're saying what I think you are, you're saying that you've never met anyone online who understands that 40 weeks isn't the same as 10 months. Is that right? It seems remarkable, because I've never met anybody, irl or online, who thinks 10 months equals 40 weeks.

Quote:

Now, in my experience, every CL mama who has ever defined CL to me has sounded very different from every other CL mama who has defined CL. I always accepted this because CL looks different for every family.
Fair enough. That's not my experience here at all. What you describe sounds livable. What I've seen described as consensual living every other time I've seen a discussion about it sounds absolutely hellish.


----------



## Storm Bride

*double post*


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

well CL (in the sense we have so far embraced it) has been wonderful and while I never ran a dictatorship and was always willing to compromise, it is very different from the way we used to parent (we were always willing to compromise, we were not always consensual) only call it similar to consensual living because of the definition on consensual-living.com. Your definition of consensual living is based on other resources - I respect that!

That being said, call it whatever you want. I confess! I practice "poopy toilet with peepee splatter stinky yuck soda can floating with turd in an unflushed toilet" parenting! I don't care what you call it lol works for us. Please don't tell anyone I practice "banana apple cheesecake with a side of pickles on a acorn plate" parenting!

hehehe...

but hey I say good job more then I would like, I sing "pee pee on the potty! pee pee on the potty! just like your mommy! just like your daddy!" and heck yeah I bet that is as coercive as it gets. And did I mention, sometimes I yell! I do rewind, repair, replay, but I wont negate the fact the yelling took place! I know I'd be off my rocker to insist I fully embrace CL. It's an ideal though. Maybe one day I'll get there. Maybe I'll stick too "raisen tunafish on a snowboard in june while doing a handstand" parenting though. Ya never know!


----------



## Storm Bride

I know you're kidding, but you kind of have a point. I don't like labeling my parenting. I'm not even comfortable calling it AP, because once I put a label on it, it's no longer just parenting...it's part of...something. So, even if I did practice consensual living, I probably wouldn't call it that...


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

yeah I felt it was time to bring some light to it all - getting way to serious and really, what is the importance? As I said, I dont think my way is better then anyone elses, I just know its best for my family. and hey, that may change right? and thats okay too! I'm not exactly anti labels, but I really don't need any kind of badge associated with any label either. Labels can be useful to sum up what you do, but if I have to describe it that far in detail then obviouslt the "label" isnt doing its "job" so heck might as well resort to comparing my parenting to applesause and call it a day







And no matter what you call it or don't call it, it will be part of something (your own personal walk in life), and it doesn't have to be dictated by anything (you dont have to embrace all aspects of a philosophy, and you especially do not have to embrace other ideals that others who embrace that philosophy embrace).

there I go theorizing again. peanut butter


----------



## Storm Bride

Well, I'm afraid I'm contrary by nature, just like dd. We both have a strange way of looking at things, and we're also both really bad at disengaging...

Besides, I ate way too much at dinner, and I'm putting off starting my step workout.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

oh dear, you are preaching to the quoir! (not that its a bad thing - i find that quiors by nature dont mind being preached to) You and I are alike in more ways then one







We both ate too much dinner and both are avoiding excserize! (okay, and perhaps I have a strange way of looking at things and an inability to disengage as well... is it obvious?!) but really, I always enjoy debating with you. You keep it clean and you challenge my thinking. I don't care if we agree, I can still admire you for both our similiarities and differences. Definitely one of the most fun people to talk to on MDC thats for sure!


----------



## Viola

I want consensuality within my system of values, but that seems impossible.









I think the problem is I always want consensuality, and this has been a trait of mine since I've been an adult. I was really an ineffective manager. I figured we all were adults, we knew what we had to do, there was no reason to be unreasonable and bossy. But then people just did what they wanted to do, and I had to get pissy sometimes.

And that's the same kind of parent I am, and it just doesn't work. I mean I'd like us all to realize that we have needs to be met and we can cooperate, but it seems my kids feel I just exist to cater to their every whim. It seems like they push until they hit some sort of boundary, so for my own sanity, it needs to come sooner than later.

I described myself as a path of least resistance parent one: "Oh, honey, you want to stick that fork in that electrical outlet while standing in a pool of water? I don't think that's such a...well, if you must, but BE CAREFUL!"


----------



## sunnmama

I'm with the majority, wrt to poll.

This caught my eye:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I am yet to meet a person who doesn't understand how mathmatically 40 weeks is equal to 9 1/2 months not 10 (please if anyone understands this speak up so I dont feel so alone!) and yet, it is still fact. While every person so far I have spoken to online feels that 40 weeks equals exactly 10 months that does not mean it is so. A month is a little over 4 weeks (except february) and therefore 40 weeks is a little under 10 months.
.

Are you referring to 40 wks of pregnancy? I was under the impression that it is calculated as 40 wks from the first day of the last menstrual period--which is typically 2 weeks before a woman ovulates again (and pregnancy occurs). So the woman *is* actually pregnant for 9.5 months, not ten. The 40 wks includes the (average) 2 weeks before ovulation/conception.

(re-reading, and realizing you may not be talking about pregnancy....just 40 wks. Gah--just ignore me







)


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
I'm with the majority, wrt to poll.

This caught my eye:

Are you referring to 40 wks of pregnancy? I was under the impression that it is calculated as 40 wks from the first day of the last menstrual period--which is typically 2 weeks before a woman ovulates again (and pregnancy occurs). So the woman *is* actually pregnant for 9.5 months, not ten. The 40 wks includes the (average) 2 weeks before ovulation/conception.

(re-reading, and realizing you may not be talking about pregnancy....just 40 wks. Gah--just ignore me







)

I am talking about 40 weeks equaling 9.5 months not 10. if you dont invlude the 2 weeks before conception actually occurs its 9 months, not 9.5 but since we include that its 9.5

Peopel seem to thing 4 weeks in a month so 40 weeks divided by 4 equals 10 weeks. Where as I understand that its more like 4.33 weeks in a month for 40 weeks equals something more like 9.25 months.

I have gone as far as to explain:
7 days in a week multiplied times 4 weeks would only equal 28 days and most months have 30-31 days, but alas, I cannot seem to get through to those who feel that 40 weeks divided by 4 weeks in a month equals 10 months.

idk???


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Peopel seem to thing 4 weeks in a month so 40 weeks divided by 4 equals 10 weeks. Where as I understand that its more like 4.33 weeks in a month for 40 weeks equals something more like 9.25 months.

That makes sense....but most people I know would agree. After all, there are 52 weeks in a year and 12 months.....and 12 x 4 (weeks) is only 48....so obviously there are some extra weeks to make up!


----------



## LynnS6

I picked Hierarchy with some softness to it. Probably we're more of a combo, but my heart lies in a hierarchy.

I've read about CL, I've even tried it out and discovered I'm terrible at it. *I* am not a good parent when I try to work that way.

My bottom line is this: What's wrong with someone being disappointed some time? Disappointment is part of life. (You can't always get what you want...) I'd rather spend my energy helping my child learn to deal with disappointment than searching out solutions that least disappoint everyone. OK, maybe that's an unfair characterization of CL, but that seems to be how it works in practice for those that I know who try it.

I also object to CL because I think it's unrealistic - parents DO have more power than children (however benevolently wielded), and considerably more knowledge of how the world works. They have control over the money, the housing, transportation and access to a lot of things such as schooling, health care, etc. Even if you don't do these traditionally you know what the OPTIONS are. A 3 year old doesn't and an 8 year old's opinions are still going to be very swayed by their parents. Has any 8 yo come to their parents and said "I've done the research, I want to be vaxed"?

My other objection is that I don't think CL is developmentally appropriate for young children. A 3 year old is going to have a very very hard time seeing someone else's point of view, if they can do it at all. A 6 year old can see someone else's point of view but is still going to blame everyone but themselves when something goes wrong (it's developmental). A teenager may be unable to see the risks that I see clearly.

That doesn't mean I'm inflexible. That doesn't mean that I don't listen to my children or encourage them to voice their opinions when they're different from mine. I certainly empathize with them. But it does mean that when push comes to shove, the grown-ups make the decision. And it means I don't negotiate over some things.


----------



## flapjack

Jumping in late here: I could not vote for the combo option because you used the word freedom and none of us have the freedom to do exactly what we want regardless of the consequences. In areas where a conflict could present itself, our family look for a win-win situation and we keep looking until we find one. There is never a point where I allow my needs to be ignored in the quest for meeting my child's needs.


----------



## Jojo F.

Consensual living is a nice thought but, I think it can be taken way too far, same with AP. Kids NEED boundries, they test the limits for a reason- to see where the line is. Out in the real world there are rules and real life concequences, some of them quite serious.

BUT, I also think it is very important to a child's developement for them to learn how to negotiate rationally. Rationally being the key word.

I'm not against CL or AP but, I do think there is a fine line and I have seen that line crossed many times with other families. Some of the kids I have seen are whiny, rude, & inconsiderate of anyone elses feelings or physical well being while the parents are miserable. Please don't take my response as a slight to CL or AP. I consider our home a good balance of CL/AP/Hierarchy.

We have rules that are unbending like being left alone with the IL's dog whom has attacked me and tried to attack DS. (I hate that dog) But things like playing Wii have been negotiated- DS said he will play Wii only 3 days/week for no longer then 2hrs. DH and I liked the sound of that


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
I
My bottom line is this: What's wrong with someone being disappointed some time?

Nothing is wrong with that. We let our children experience their disappointments. Then again, I am not CL by MDC standards only by the standards of the many CL-friendly books and the CL.com definition of CL.
"Has any 8 yo come to their parents and said "I've done the research, I want to be vaxed"?" not that I know of - but they might decide that at an older age.

A 3 year old is going to have a very very hard time seeing someone else's point of view, if they can do it at all. - My son is 3.5 with autism and isn't struggling with this. I understand what you are saying. Thats why we follow the ideals set in unconditional parenting. IDK if you read my other responses, but it answers all your other questions more clearly


----------



## mamazee

What's frustrating is that we had CL parents, and I think that included the person or people who started that site, telling us over and over again things like that if people have to compromise, that it isn't a mutually agreeable solution. Everyone has to get what they want - no one should compromise. To use an earlier example, it's like you are talking about Italy but we're seeing Belgium. I'd call what you're calling CL simply "gentle discipline."

I agree that it doesn't matter what you call it so long as it's working for you. It's only frustrating because of earlier conversations about CL from a long, long time ago.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Perhaps there are some extremests out there. I have read what they said too and it had me really confused about what CL is especially since all the books they recommend are more what I do.

I notice a lot of time out, natural and logical consequences, etc with GD, so to me its not just about GD as those are things I no longer do. Also, it's not always about discipline or behavior. its a way of life, not a way of discipline. Often the only people who agree with me on the GD board are CL mamas - I do feel like I am in between "groups" like I practice CL, but I don't use that term because the way others _here_ practice CL.... I know most CL mamas don't think I'm CL and most non-CL mama's think I am and tell me that "CL doesn't work for everyone" So when I give insight on what works for me I am told "CL doesn't work for everyone" but if I say I am CL then I am told "you aren't CL because _other_ CL mamas practice CL _this_ way" So I'm getting mixed messages from MDC as a whole. Some say they cant use my advice because its CL and then others say what I'm doing is not CL and is the same things everyone else is doing. Talk about confusing! I guess it depends on the person. To some its important to them I don't call myself CL and to others it's important that I do say I'm CL. To me its just important that everyone in my families opinions and feelings are viewed and considered equally and that all their underlying needs are met. All the books recommended on the CL website seem to have all the same information in them, however they aren't CL books. Really I just think that maybe the reality of it is that most CL mama's let children be more self determining then others. One may not make her child brush teeth, but would stop them from jumping off the roof. Another may try to find a safe way to jump off the roof, but if they cant and the child still wants to they would let them do it. And that same parent might pull their child out of the way just before a mack truck runs the child over. I think there are varying degrees of letting a child be self determining, and I do think trying to encourage autonomy is an important part of both GD and CL. I don't think you have to be willing to let your child get run over by a car to be CL, but if someone thinks I'm not CL because of that then it's really no different to me. I might not understand why some people can't accept the fact that CL looks different in every family. Perhaps some CL mamas excluded them saying they weren't CL and so now they need to find healing by telling me that what I'm doing isn't CL.

I wont get into the compromise issues, because then you'd really be confused, but to be clear I am not suggesting anyone compromise their underlying needs!

but more accurately I would say I am a peanut butter rice cake peach applesauce orange juice almond milk fresh druit mommy. really, the only thing I seem to be successful at doing consistently is buying those foods when I go grocery shopping haha


----------



## Calm

Well, it seems the whole discussion worked itself out nicely!







Thanks for all the responses and votes!

I think what causes so much confusion is the fact that CL contradicts itself sometimes. I'm not sure if it is just the way it is interpreted by different people. It happens because things like this are written on the website, and supported by the hard core CL-ers:

_With accurate information, only the individual is capable of making decisions regarding what is right for him. No one is better at making those decisions than the individual. We are masters of our own fate. If we take the right to self-determination away from any individual, we are changing the course of their life, and may never come to know the person they were meant to become._

Age is not taken into account here. And considering it is 99% for families with children, that seems fairly remiss. Children's abilities grow and change at an alarming rate, their reasoning ability changes. My son, only one, is leaps ahead of where he was at 6 months. My daughter, at 7, is in a different maturity area again. I can say that for my daughter, yes, the above statement of CL is almost entirely workable and true. I have seen her grow and believe that for many of life's challenges, she is the best one to make decisions for her and master her own fate.

However, my son? _Get real_. He is 12 months old, he just mastered walking, fate will have to wait a while. As for decisions, they revolve around whether to eat his own poo or the dog's poo, whether to run on the road or rip up the mail... although this is amusing for its facetiousness, the fact is, at what point do we say _*now*_ they are mature enough to cope with such decisions, self-determination and fate mastering? Two? Four? Is each child different or is there a magic age? Or is it a blanket statement where I am to somehow negotiate with a baby to reach a consensus?

River Scout makes a valid point. I can negotiate with a child about _how_ to wear a seatbelt, but not _if_ they'll wear it. I can negotiate on what song to sing while wearing it... yes, all that. But there is only one way to do the seat belt - and that is buckled.

As someone mentioned, all the options on _how_ to do something (the seatbelt, for eg) are just manipulation, or redirection. Which after a certain age is condescending for children and adults alike. They need to deal with the issue directly or they think you're taking the piss. So I give my daughter that respect and deal with the issue - "No, you can't ride in the car without a seat belt. Want to talk about it?"
I could offer her "stuff" and songs but she would just look at me like I'd lost my mind. Redirection, the ol' bait and switch, was lost on her years ago.

I let my children touch the stove though. I let them fall under water. I let them climb and fall down stairs. I let them go yea verily through the valley of the shadow of death... and stuff. If I didn't, I'd have to "parent" them constantly. One good fall and they don't climb the furniture anymore, or if they do, they do it with the respect and caution only experience can bring.

DS used to run at the waves at the beach and I'd have to keep pulling him away from the water until eventually it was voted "too hard" and we didn't go. One day, we took DD and the dog just for a walk along the water and DS kicked to get out of the sling and although we were all fully dressed and I wasn't in the mood, I shot a look at DH and we both waited. He bolted into the water and fell flat on his face and started flailing and panicking (all in the matter of seconds) and I grabbed him by the arm and reefed him out and plonked him on the sand with a smile and a cuddle of reassurance. He has never done that since, and we've all been freed up to go back to the beach. He has respect for the ocean, respect that no amount of "no" and redirection was ever going to give him.

Consensual living with a baby... God help us all.









My daughter has had this method used on her for 7 years. Poor sod. Made parenting a breeze though. She can negotiate her environment like a freakin' SAS soldier, and I reckon it's because she had to. Pure laziness on my behalf. Most of the time I let life sort her out. No ironed shirts in this house, put it that way.

DS was only 7 months old and kept reaching for hot cupfuls of tea - as they do. The drinker would say, "oooh no, hot!" but hot meant nothing to him. He needed to relate the concept of HOT to the reality. So I let him touch a few hot things, starting with a hot cup. He won't go near a hot cup now. He kept reaching for the oven and I said, ok, but it's hot. He touched it and started crying, bringing his hand for me to kiss. Now, I command great authority with the word "hot". If I say it, he gives it a wide berth. I may have saved him from a much worse incident. Nothing like the power of experience to guide a child.

I believe in the child's own direction, this is intrinsic discipline, one that can guide for a lifetime. Whereas extrinsic discipline requires the parent/law/authority figure to be there to "guide", causing troubles for teens and adults when the figure is not there to do the guiding anymore. In my opinion, this is what has gone wrong in our society, the over-worried parenting and kids haven't learned enough intrinsic discipline, cos frankly, most parents aren't brave enough.

The other thing relates to non-physical consequences. Things like homework. I specifically chose a school that doesn't do homework as I am against it , but when she was at one that had it, I let her choose. She'd learn the consequences herself. If I keep protecting her from the consequences, she will start to wonder if there are any, and I'll have to remind her every day about homework, and perhaps become a nag.

Redirection is the only option in many cases for a certain age bracket. Then at some point, redirection becomes useless and insulting. So there is also a whole between period where intelligent children accept redirection but know they're being redirected so essentially it is manipulation and coercion dressed up as, "I can't let you do THAT, but I can let you do THIS, AND we can sing while doing it!" We're kidding ourselves if we think that's not coercion.

Lest we forget that it has been compellingly evidenced that to engage the logic of a child at too early an age and they must forfeit certain other aspects of their development. A child has to be a child, and not have to go through booooooring negotiations all the time. I see my child glaze over when the negotiations hit town, and in the end she's begging me just to give her boundaries and shut the F--- up (she's allowed to swear, too







, now THAT'S brave parenting, dammit! Where's my gold medal? Although, she hasn't ever actually told me to shut the F up. I'm sure she'd like to at times, though, cos I can really ramble... uh, or is that obvious la la la).

As mentioned, how does the highly negotiating family reconcile the logic factor with young children? When a child is screaming for direction, security, structure, and we offer them too much choice, there is also evidence that this is harmful... what of that?


----------



## Calm

Regarding instinct, I've had that discussion several times on MDC and the problem with it is that most mothers in the western culture don't know the difference between instinct and learned or knee jerk reaction. Instinct is a really hard thing to follow when your whole life you are taught to ignore it, which is where we are at in our culture. Then suddenly, with a baby, we're expected to switch it on? It's not that simple.

What the CC has done for humanity cannot be compared to any other book, or perhaps any other anything. Other books have altered parents but nothing like it has. And the best part, in my opinion, is that it wasn't a book of instructions or a step by step "plan", it was observation - that's what makes it so powerful, I think. Whether it instills its own dogma or guilt is irrelevant when we consider that the result is action toward a closer unit and a questioning of our cultural norms. We all have to start somewhere. And guilt is a valid, useful emotion, one that if utilized effectively can harness greatness in one's life. We spend too much time avoiding guilt when in reality this is avoiding the growth that guilt secrets beneath.

I hear mamas say they have never read a book and just go with their gut. To that I retort: how lucky for you that your gut lead you to AP. Because on about a hundred other parenting forums you will read the exact same "instinct" lead mothers to spank, isolated/crib sleeping, and crying it out. They swear up and down it is natural and normal. Who is right? And how do we know for sure? Is it instinct we are talking about or are we confusing it with something else? Why do I feel sick hearing a stranger's child cry but she barely notices? Wouldn't she know her child better than I do, or could I be projecting... so is it really instinct we are dealing with?

When we answer these questions with, "instinct is when something feels right to me", then that's coming at it from the self point of view. There is a baby involved however, and their point of view rules when it comes to these things. What feels right to _them_? Luckily for us in the AP world, we feel the answer to that is the most simple one: if they ain't cryin', things probably feel right to them. Is the ability to answer this question effectively the definition of instinct?

Another point of concern is the woman who was raised violently. She is now trying to raise her children non-violently, but the "cycle of violence" dictates that she will do to her children that which was done to her. She must fight this "instinct" every. single. day.

I've come to the conclusion, with the evidence put before me in the last decade, that telling a mama to "trust her instincts" as a parent is about as helpful as tits on a bull, and almost as useful.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

yes you should never offer to much choice and yes you should not redirect them away from their feelings but once they are expressed you can ask them how a unenjoyable experience can be more enjoyable for them. IMO this is different then distraction and redirection. *I TOTALLY agree with what you said about instinct.* I also agree, that CL looks different in every family.


----------



## mamazee

I agree there. I was raised in an abusive family, and my "instincts" come from that. I'm very glad I did a lot of research when I was pregnant with #1. I wouldn't have been abusive but I would have probably been a spanker otherwise because that's what I knew. My husband on the other hand was raised by parents who are very gentle, and his instincts are spot on. I kind of think it depends on your family of origin.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
What the CC has done for humanity cannot be compared to any other book, or perhaps any other anything. Other books have altered parents but nothing like it has. And the best part, in my opinion, is that it wasn't a book of instructions or a step by step "plan", it was observation - that's what makes it so powerful, I think. Whether it instills its own dogma or guilt is irrelevant when we consider that the result is action toward a closer unit and a questioning of our cultural norms. We all have to start somewhere.

We must have read different copies of the book.







I recall Leidloff most definitely putting forth a plan and instructing readers that if they didn't follow it then their child would end up pretty messed up...keep in constant contact with your baby for 6 months no matter what, sleep with baby, let baby explore their environment freely because even babies have a survival instinct, yada, yada, yada. IMO, Our Babies Ourselves does a much better job of challenging cultural norms without the dogma.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
And guilt is a valid, useful emotion, one that if utilized effectively can harness greatness in one's life. We spend too much time avoiding guilt when in reality this is avoiding the growth that guilt secrets beneath.

I don't like when guilt is used as a form of manipulation . The "experts" on the other end of the spectrum use it too which is why people listen. I thinks it's coercive and often makes people comply out of fear rather than really analyzing the situation. I think there are far more effective and respectful ways to challenge one to think and grow. Now if we are talking about listening to one's own inner guilt, something that has come from inside rather than the outside, then I agree that it can be a useful emotion. I actually think it is part of our instincts.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I hear mamas say they have never read a book and just go with their gut. To that I retort: how lucky for you that your gut lead you to AP. Because on about a hundred other parenting forums you will read the exact same "instinct" lead mothers to spank, isolated/crib sleeping, and crying it out. They swear up and down it is natural and normal. Who is right? And how do we know for sure? Is it instinct we are talking about or are we confusing it with something else? Why do I feel sick hearing a stranger's child cry but she barely notices? Wouldn't she know her child better than I do... so is it really instinct we are dealing with?

I think a PP made an interesting point about conditioning versus instinct (or maybe that was another thread...I can't remember







). I think people have been conditioned to think certain things like CIO are okay. But I have heard many mamas who have done it say how hard it was and how bad it made them feel. I think they feel that way because they were ignoring their instincts.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Another point of concern is the woman who was raised violently. She is now trying to raise her children non-violently, but the "cycle of violence" dictates that she will do to her children that which was done to her. She must fight this "instinct" every. single. day.

I think this goes back to the conditioning. She was conditioned to hit. But the instinct to me in that case is that she knows to fight it. She knows to try and break the cycle.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I've come to the conclusion, with the evidence put before me in the last decade, that telling a mama to "trust her instincts" as a parent is about as helpful as tits on a bull, and almost as useful.









Yeah, I think people often say that when they agree with what the mama wants to do anyway.

Anyway, I don't think I would advise anyone else to quite reading parenting books and just trust their instincts. I was just saying at this point, it's what is best for me. If reading and researching makes someone a better parent, great. For me, the result isn't better parent though but rather a less confident less joyful one who is afraid of f%$king up.

ETA - I think it might be an instinct to know when you need to seek more info and when you don't. Several people here have mentioned they knew they needed help to change the way they had been conditioned which I think is an instinct.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
What the CC has done for humanity cannot be compared to any other book, or perhaps any other anything. Other books have altered parents but nothing like it has. And the best part, in my opinion, is that it wasn't a book of instructions or a step by step "plan", it was observation - that's what makes it so powerful, I think. Whether it instills its own dogma or guilt is irrelevant when we consider that the result is action toward a closer unit and a questioning of our cultural norms. We all have to start somewhere. And guilt is a valid, useful emotion, one that if utilized effectively can harness greatness in one's life. We spend too much time avoiding guilt when in reality this is avoiding the growth that guilt secrets beneath.

I just feel compelled to say that I could not disagree with you more about this book. I think it is really awful. And I am no less committed to attachment parenting for having read it, but it could well have turned me off entirely.

Of course it may be life changing for some people, and that's fine. But not for me.


----------



## momofmine

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I just feel compelled to say that I could not disagree with you more about this book. I think it is really awful. And I am no less committed to attachment parenting for having read it, but it could well have turned me off entirely.

Of course it may be life changing for some people, and that's fine. But not for me.

Can you expand more on what you didn't like about it?


----------



## Norasmomma

I guess for me my instinct was AP-before I even had heard of that term. Carrying my DD in a sling, co-sleeping, nursing on demand, not letting her cry it out-that all seems pretty instinctual when it comes down to it. I didn't even know what AP was until my DD was almost 4 months old, then I read about AP and was like "duh, this is a no brainer for me, these are my instincts"(believe me I had a copy of What to Expect the First year which clearly was against my instincts, yuck). My DD wouldn't sleep without being close to us, wouldn't relax without being held and what's wrong with that-it natural to hold and cuddle a baby. I hate the whole western culture of you better start getting it kid from the beginning. I now am at that place my DD is 2.5 and she is at this point where she needs to sleep in her own bed, it no longer is healthy for her to sleep with us, we all stay awake all night. I am pregnant and need some space in bed, and with the baby coming I just can't deal with co-sleeping with a thrashing toddler and an infant, just not going to work.

I fully believe you can be AP and have strict boundaries of what is allowable. I just don't believe there is one right fit for all families. This discussion has made me think of other ways to communicate with my DD in a fun, constructive way. Will it change all of my ways? Not a chance, but it has taught me different ways to look at the situation.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Norasmomma* 
le. *I just don't believe there is one right fit for all families.*









:







I agree with that!


----------



## One_Girl

I voted combo because I do strongly believe that children need to make a lot of choices and be respected as people, but I also believe that they aren't fully capable of making all of their choices regarding themselves in a way that respects their personal safety, another persons body, and the law. There are some things I put my foot down to because they are not heatly or kind like hitting, spitting, swearing, riding without a carseat or in the front seat (illegal and dangerous), eating only junk food (that can lead to malnutrition and make minor injuries very serious), getting toys instead of food with our food money, etc... But I also let dd make a lot of choices about her life and our routines and I negotiate with her a lot.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
One good fall and they don't climb the furniture anymore, or if they do, they do it with the respect and caution only experience can bring.

*sigh*
Please permit me a moment of envy. That was my experience with ds1, and with dd, but it's not working out that way with ds2 at all. One good fall, and he'd be mad at the furniture, and climbing again 10 minutes later.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Regarding instinct, I've had that discussion several times on MDC and the problem with it is that most mothers in the western culture don't know the difference between instinct and learned or knee jerk reaction. Instinct is a really hard thing to follow when your whole life you are taught to ignore it, which is where we are at in our culture.

Perhaps that's where I'm fortunate. My parents were never into teaching us to ignore our instincts - not even a little bit.

Quote:

What the CC has done for humanity cannot be compared to any other book, or perhaps any other anything. Other books have altered parents but nothing like it has.
Are you referring to the Continuum Concept? I did read that one a few years ago, and to the extent that it moved me at all, it mostly just annoyed me. Huge assumptions about why things worked the way they did in that tribe, combined with gross generalizations about how every child in the western world was being raised. I was expecting so much more after reading all the raves.

Quote:

I hear mamas say they have never read a book and just go with their gut. To that I retort: how lucky for you that your gut lead you to AP. Because on about a hundred other parenting forums you will read the exact same "instinct" lead mothers to spank, isolated/crib sleeping, and crying it out. They swear up and down it is natural and normal. Who is right? And how do we know for sure? Is it instinct we are talking about or are we confusing it with something else? Why do I feel sick hearing a stranger's child cry but she barely notices? Wouldn't she know her child better than I do, or could I be projecting... so is it really instinct we are dealing with?
Let's see...from a survival standpoint, if we had evolved to ignore babies when they cry, many (most?) of them would have starved to death or died by accident. I can't see how any parenting behaviour that significantly increases the risk of death on the part of a child could be considered "instinctual". Is there _any_ mammal that sends the infants off to sleep alone, other than people? How can an action be "instinctual" when it requires man-made furniture and/or laboratory created food in order to perform that action? If people can't tell the difference between "mommy told me so" and instinctual behaviour, that's very sad...but it doesn't mean that highly artificial behaviours are instinctual.

The only mom I've ever seen practicing cry it out sat in her kitchen, while she had company, staring at her screaming baby on an infant monitor. She watched him until he finally fell asleep. She was visibly upset, and very, very tense. There was absolutely no instinct telling her to leave her child to cry alone - no way.

Quote:

When we answer these questions with, "instinct is when something feels right to me", then that's coming at it from the self point of view. There is a baby involved however, and their point of view rules when it comes to these things. What feels right to _them_? Luckily for us in the AP world, we feel the answer to that is the most simple one: if they ain't cryin', things probably feel right to them. Is the ability to answer this question effectively the definition of instinct?
The AP world is also full of rules and checklists that have nothing to do with actual attachment, so this argument doesn't impress me much. The instinctive reaction to a baby's cry would be to figure out what's causing it, and stop it (why do so many cultures - maybe all of them - have lullabies...maybe because we automatically try the option of soothing them with song?).

Quote:

Another point of concern is the woman who was raised violently. She is now trying to raise her children non-violently, but the "cycle of violence" dictates that she will do to her children that which was done to her. She must fight this "instinct" every. single. day.
Instinct and conditioned reflexes aren't the same thing. If she instinctively feels that violence is the way to parent, then why is she fighting it in the first place?

Quote:

I've come to the conclusion, with the evidence put before me in the last decade, that telling a mama to "trust her instincts" as a parent is about as helpful as tits on a bull, and almost as useful.
Interesting. The best parents I've ever met have all been operating from instincts (although in the last couple years I've met a few members of my local MDC tribe, and they seem to do equally well out of books, so I guess that approach does work for some people).

Anyway, if we want to go with books, then which ones? There are books out there about parenting that range from Pearl to Ezzo to Sears to Neufeld, etc., etc., etc. How does a parent choose? Personally...if I were going to parent out of a book, I'd pick a book that felt right to me. If I listen to my instincts, that would be something like Neufeld (the only parenting book I've ever read that actually spoke to me). Someone else would pick Pearl. Whatever approach people take, it's still always going to come down to what feels right for them...and I don't believe that someone who is actually going by instinct would ever use Pearl.

ETA: I should have finished reading the thread before posting, because riverscout said it all and said it better.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Norasmomma* 
I guess for me my instinct was AP-before I even had heard of that term. Carrying my DD in a sling, co-sleeping, nursing on demand, not letting her cry it out-that all seems pretty instinctual when it comes down to it. I didn't even know what AP was until my DD was almost 4 months old...

I practiced AP (more of less - probably not ever aspect of it, but certainly the fundamental approach) from the moment I finally got to hold ds1...and I first heard the term "Attachment Parenting" when I signed up here, shortly after his 12th birthday.

I believe instincts led everyone on this board to attachment parenting, because if AP hadn't fit in with their own instincts, they wouldn't have started to practice it.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momofmine* 
Can you expand more on what you didn't like about it?

Sure; I just didn't want to hijack the thread and I don't really want to start a negative thread totally (although this is an interesting discussion pro and con here: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ight=continuum ), but since you asked, here are my main objections:

1) Parents should follow their instincts - unless those instincts go against the Ye'kwana's instincts, of course. (Ye'kwana is the more usual spelling.)

2) Liedloff, who never had kids to my knowledge, is pretty quick to pin any problem she sees, especially in her abreaction therapy practice, on any parenting practice she chooses. So kids who aren't held crave roller coasters. Um ok... why? Do we say this? Never mind the whole "refrigerator mother" thing with homosexuality. Of course these are biases of her time, but why are we not challenging them at this point?

In other words, she makes a lot of statements about cause and effect without backing any of them up. How is this different from CIO proponents, etc.

3) Liedloff's observations are so incredibly positively biased by her "noble savage" stance (a stance I find pretty indefensible) that it gets almost silly. Like with the whole concept that kids will just naturally learn about danger. Other people have addressed that the kids may not have died but many have scars.

The babies never cry? Okay, I just plain don't believe that.

She wasn't a trained researcher at the time so I guess we have to kind of let it go, but why do we keep believing it? And why didn't she, in the process of writing the book, at least take a look at the other research?

3A) There are no Ye'kwana voices in the book. So like, who knows what they think of it all.

4) I don't actually believe in all her end goals, like children that never fight. To me the goal is not the end of conflict. I suspect that I would see something quite different in the behaviour she describes as idyllic.

Do I agree with "hold your kid, don't CIO, make your kid a part of your daily life" - sure. But just because she got some things right doesn't make the book a good one.


----------



## Juvysen

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
It's not about getting into "things she's not allowed". It's about getting into the _spices_. She does put spices into cooking (when she wants to, which she often doesn't). She doesn't like pretending with fake spices, because she eats the spices. She explores all kinds of other things. She wants to eat the spices. She's not allowed to do so, without getting permission, and getting my help in getting them out. She doesn't see that as reasonable (being not-quite-6, she doesn't grasp the importance of not spilling $5.00 worth of spices into my coffee press, because she wants to eat $0.10 worth of fennel seed, yk?).

So...she thinks she should be allowed to climb the counter and eat the spices. I don't. There's no consensus to be had, and it's simply not possible to always honour the need for independence in a child this young (I know, as I was the one who used to wander out of the yard every time mom and dad lost sight of me for 3 seconds).

Wow. Maybe she'd like a set of spices for her birthday!







sounds like you have a budding chef on your hands. I loved tasting (or smelling) the spices when I was little and LOVE cooking, now, so you never know. I'm sure it's absurdly frustrating (because I have climbers, too, although younger), but it's a beautiful interest she has. That said, I'd probably handle it similarly to how you are - no criticism here.

Anyway, I follow a consensus based thing similar to SGM, in theory, but usually in practice it falls apart into my being too exhausted to deal with what they want to do. When I'm "on" i try and question myself on my no's with "well, is this really a problem or not - why are you saying no" obviously there's some really good reasons, and sometimes I remember to help the kids find a different way to fill their need, but this past year has been really hard on me with lack of sleep (read: lack of patience) and so lately I've been really unhappy with how i've been handling things.

I voted combo, but in truth lately it's been more of a dictatorship. I *have* been working on compromises with my 3 year old who seems to be getting it more when I say "lets find a compromise", so that makes me happy, at least. My 20 month old is a handful, though, and he is completely unwilling to bend or find different ways of doing things, so I've been pulling rank a lot lately







I hope that gets better as he gets older, but I'm not counting on it.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Juvysen* 
Wow. Maybe she'd like a set of spices for her birthday!







sounds like you have a budding chef on your hands. I loved tasting (or smelling) the spices when I was little and LOVE cooking, now, so you never know. I'm sure it's absurdly frustrating (because I have climbers, too, although younger), but it's a beautiful interest she has. That said, I'd probably handle it similarly to how you are - no criticism here.

It's really neat to see how into spices she is. She also asks lots of questions about where they come from, etc. What's funny is that she likes most (not all, but most) of them individually, but hates almost everything I cook with them! She likes cardamom and ginger (dried, not fresh - we're working on it) and cloves, etc...but she won't touch the sauce on my butter chicken. She's the most interested in cooking of any of my children...and the least interested in eating.

We're homelearning and I've actually been digging around a little for some info, so I can do a bit of "social studies" work on where different spices come from and how different cuisines evolved. I put it on a back burner when I got so tired (I've been pretty anemic this pregnancy, but seem to be getting over it







:







: ), but I think it's time to get back to it.

Quote:

Anyway, I follow a consensus based thing similar to SGM, in theory, but usually in practice it falls apart into my being too exhausted to deal with what they want to do.
Fatigue is, by far, my greatest parenting challenge. As much as I wanted - and still want - this baby, I think I'm actually going to be relieved when I know I'm done. Reproductive issues of one kind or another (c-section recoveries, trauma related depression, pregnancy itself) have kept me pretty wiped out for the last few years. It's really difficult to be a decent parent when you really just want to sleep.


----------



## Juvysen

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
It's really neat to see how into spices she is. She also asks lots of questions about where they come from, etc. What's funny is that she likes most (not all, but most) of them individually, but hates almost everything I cook with them! She likes cardamom and ginger (dried, not fresh - we're working on it) and cloves, etc...but she won't touch the sauce on my butter chicken. She's the most interested in cooking of any of my children...and the least interested in eating.

We're homelearning and I've actually been digging around a little for some info, so I can do a bit of "social studies" work on where different spices come from and how different cuisines evolved. I put it on a back burner when I got so tired (I've been pretty anemic this pregnancy, but seem to be getting over it







:







: ), but I think it's time to get back to it.

Sounds like an in on learning about the spice trade and imperialism, too. There's also some interesting science experiments you could do with spices, I think. Some of them have anti-bacterial properties, so if you could get your hands on some agar you could test for which ones...

Quote:


Fatigue is, by far, my greatest parenting challenge. As much as I wanted - and still want - this baby, I think I'm actually going to be relieved when I know I'm done. Reproductive issues of one kind or another (c-section recoveries, trauma related depression, pregnancy itself) have kept me pretty wiped out for the last few years. It's really difficult to be a decent parent when you really just want to sleep.
I know what you mean. I desperately want another baby (well, I feel like we are missing someone, if that makes sense?) but my son only recently started sleeping decently (







: ) and my life is only now starting back on a reasonable level of sanity. I'm scared to go through all that again. My daughter was a much better sleeper and I night weaned her easily (I was close to my due date w/DS) because she had a pacifier to turn to. Ds gave up his paci before I was close to wanting to nightwean - really, even before his sleep issues started - and he's also a MUCH more determined little soul and extremely difficult to work with *sigh* The lack of patience that came with the lack of sleep really has not helped me to be a good mother to my little spirited guy. It's finally getting a little better, though... bleh.


----------



## webjefita

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I know there are many types of family structures, but I'm interested to know that out of the choice of just these two, which appeals or which you actually follow more than the other.

I don't think they are opposites, but I don't think they fit together very well, although I am trying to make them fit.

I thought I was a consensual parent, at least, that's what I was aiming for. For the most part, this is true for me. However, I have to admit to a preference for some hierarchy so I looked into it. Anthropologically, it is actually congruent with my preferred type of parenting which is along the lines of Continuum Concept, or The Vital Touch, or to not use a book - untouched tribal type parenting.

I thought consensual living was in line with AP, but within the most AP type of communities there is a definite hierarchy and structure within the community and also family unit. For instance, in the Continuum Concept, Jean mentions how when eating, the children do not talk at all. There are a few other offhand references in her book that highlight a definite non-consensual, more hierarchical structure in the family and community.

I was brought up with a definite hierarchy, with strong masculine leadership in my father. It was a very secure feeling, and although there was a lot of non-consensual structure in my life, I had and still have the most enviable relationship with my parents. Our relationship grew into a friendship but NOT until I was a teenager (right when a girl needs that friendship, ironically). It was like the structure in my childhood, and the hierarchy, freed me from the stress of decision. And this is outlined in the classic book Magical Child, where the author presents evidence of how damaging it is to engage logic in the child's brain too early.

Logic is required to make reasonable decisions. How does one reconcile this with consensual living? Esp when dealing with very small children?

All this suddenly hit me when I found myself totally and utterly intolerant of my daughter's insistence that she ride in the front seat of the car. In my determination to follow a consensual pattern, I negotiated with her long ago, and we shared. What a ridiculous thing to do! I meant well, but really, I was doing her NO favours in her future as a reasonable human being. The moment I quit the total consensual stuff and started being a little more hierarchical she stopped being so demanding and disrespectful.

I didn't change much other than things like, to continue with the car example, tell her that I am the adult, and I get the front seat, no discussion, no argument, get in freakin' line lassie. I earned these damned stripes, I sat in the backseat my whole childhood while my mother, and rightly bleedin' so, sat in queen's position up front with dad. I never questioned it, I never resented it, nothing. It was a respect thing, or something I can't quite find the word for.

I can have sex, I can drive, I can drink, I can do many things she cannot simply because I have earned both society's seal of approval to, and my own personal stripes. Some things, I have realised, are earned and granted only at maturity. That is what makes maturity so special, our milestones. Like the ceremony when a girl first gets her period and everyone comes over wearing red and welcomes her into womanhood.

So I'm starting to lose favour with consensual living, not in totality, I have just put it in a new place in our life. I always discuss with my daughter and she has more choices and freedom than any other child I've ever met. But sitting in the back seat of the car I had an enlightenment moment, not of resentment for a better seat, but for my earned place in the hierarchy - it was symbolic, and life is nothing if it isn't rife with symbolism. It spoke volumes about why we were having so many struggles she and I. It seems, in my family at least, that there are now things in which there is little choice. I will listen and I will help her understand a particular decision, but I probably won't budge. And I'm now ok with that, and oddly, she didn't seem as put out as I thought she would be. It was almost like she felt... _relief_.

Thoughts?

Haven't read any of the replies, will be back later to do so, but ITA with you!! I absolutely love CC, it is the book I go back to again and again. It just resonates with me so much... I sometimes have a little trouble defining the heierarchy... along with the complete *LACK* of control or coercion over people that Leidloff describes in the book. It would make so much more sense if I were living in a community of like minded people. But my husband and I don't even agree on what we want to do with our kids half the time


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Juvysen* 
Sounds like an in on learning about the spice trade and imperialism, too. There's also some interesting science experiments you could do with spices, I think. Some of them have anti-bacterial properties, so if you could get your hands on some agar you could test for which ones...

Yeah - I'm going to work up to some of this. She's still at kindergarten level, and isn't quite six, and her interest in geography/history is _really_ sporadic, so far.

Quote:

- and he's also a MUCH more determined little soul and extremely difficult to work with *sigh* The lack of patience that came with the lack of sleep really has not helped me to be a good mother to my little spirited guy. It's finally getting a little better, though... bleh.
Yup. That was dd when she was little, and ds2 now that they're older. I'm really hoping (not counting on it, but hoping) that baby-under-construction will be a ds2-like infant, and dd-like toddler/preschooler, in terms of general temperament.


----------



## EFmom

ITA with GuildJenn about the CC. It would never occur to me to use that particular book as parenting advice.


----------



## transformed

I think one of the reasons CL seems to not work for us is that when a compromise is made, both parties usually loose what they _really_ want. In any circumstance.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
I think one of the reasons CL seems to not work for us is that when a compromise is made, both parties usually loose what they _really_ want. In any circumstance.

Yes - this is what I meant about it really being kind of tyrannical.


----------



## Calm

I don't have much time, so forgive that this is rushed.

Quote:

I don't like when guilt is used as a form of manipulation
Guilt is an emotion, like anger or jealousy. We can only give information to another and how they react is their choice, based on their own set of baggage. If information tends to elicit guilt for the majority, then we should look at that information... why can it trigger guilt?

Quote:

Perhaps that's where I'm fortunate. My parents were never into teaching us to ignore our instincts - not even a little bit
If you were raised in a western culture, then I'm afraid to say that you were taught by that culture. Our parents do their best but they aren't the only influence on us. Here's evidence you have been "taught" to ignore your instincts - and before people start checking in to list all the instincts they have intact, note that we all lose different instincts, although largely we lose the following ones (and countless others). If you feel especially special, that's ok and not all that uncommon, but the point I'm making is that we _do_ lose instincts due to culture:

you do not have sex where ever and when ever the feeling strikes you (esp if you are in public)

you do not masturbate whenever you feel like it

you do not defecate in the squat position

you sit in a chair, not in the squat position

you wear shoes, causing the loss of a percentage of your environmental sensitivity

you have "tuned out" a large percentage of your environmental noises and can no longer distinguish between the rustle of a leaf from wind, or the rustle of a leaf from approaching danger

you've chosen mates based on factors _other_ than smell, taste, attractiveness to you (regardless of attractiveness in general)

Watch a baby/toddler, or a monkey, or even a dog (much further removed species wise, but still have links). Watch the monkey or dog eat a particular weed, or lay facing a particular direction (often north). Watch them engage in relationships, family and sex. Just their everday life, how much it is goverened by instinct compared to most of us. If you think we were biologically imprinted to be any different, you haven't ever seen people who have lived untouched by our morals - they don't give a rat's pajamas who sees them have sex, for example, and hence, cosleeping is no issue for them becasue they don't have the stress of "what if the baby sees, they'll be damaged for life?" And hey, guess what, they _aren't_ damaged for life. Odd, no? Yet our culture is rife with sexually damaged people.

Some of those on that list above _were_ helped along by our parents, who although they meant well and were preparing us for our society, were not armed with the longer term ramifications. We are now passing these things on to our children, unexamined. We just do it, we don't ask why or if we do, we aren't convinced the instinct is really required. And who knows if it is? Science keeps discovering that we've done nothing but mess up royally when we started interfering in nature, so what makes this any different just cos we are a "higher mammal", whatever that means (you'd think a "higher" anything would protect their own planet, for starters, and we can't even get that right. Higher my arse.)

This is an interesting place with tests on your instincts, such as feeling recognition when looking at a face. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbo...humaninstinct/

We don't actually "lose" our instincts, some die shortly after birth and some die naturally after that but most remain intact, buried beneath our preconceived notions and cultural morals.

Quote:

Are you referring to the Continuum Concept? I did read that one a few years ago, and to the extent that it moved me at all, it mostly just annoyed me.
That's ok. Can't please all the people all the time. I'm again talking about an overall effect, which naturally differs individually.

The reason that book impacts _most_ readers is because of that agonising trip down a western baby's life. It only lasts about 20 pages, but WHOA, what a helluva 20 pages it is. Who can read that and not clutch at their own gut and be wrenched with a kind of torturous regret and anguish? (again, I'm sure some of you weren't moved in such a way, just the _majority_ affect) And she could not have written it any other way. That book _needed_ that emotion, to call to arms, to move people to _act_ - get your babies OUT of the isolating crap and INTO your arms!

Some of us went through a type of healing as we saw ourselves in that helpless, tortured baby as we know we were put into nurseries and cribs. Some of us lamented with guilt and sorrow what we put our own babies through. Yes, it is a tough read. No doubt. I found The Vital Touch to do the same, only more convincingly, I recommend it as the author does not stop with only one community, she looks at the world as a whole.

Quote:

The AP world is also full of rules and checklists that have nothing to do with actual attachment,
I'm not sure what this means but perhaps the rules and checklists you have found are because some people like them? Some people need them when engaging in behaviours that are not only new to them, but against strong advice to the contrary from their family and peers at large. I'm not sure about "rules", but I get what you're saying and I'm not going to nit pick cos it drives me to distraction when it happens to my posts and usually only shows the person is not really "listening" and is more intent on finding a counter argument in what I've written.

Quote:

The best parents I've ever met have all been operating from instincts
Of course they are, I think you may have missed my point. An amazonian community is rife with instinct as they have not had them stripped down, they _need_ them to survive. We have constructed a reality that no longer relies largely on our biological makeup to survive. We don't need to keep the baby strapped to us or rush to a screaming baby as they might attract a lion, for instance. We no longer listen to the signals that say "eat something yellow and then eat something bitter..." and we often don't even listen to our sensations of fullness. Basic physiology is completely ignored in us. So of course the most well functioning families are going to be the most in touch with their basic instincts, not vice versa, as some modernists insist. (progress progress rah rah rah, I'm no savage nah nah nah!)

My point is that if one is going to say "trust your instincts" then give _more_ than that to a mama. I have known way too many frustrated mothers who I end up dealing with in private because they don't know how to _find_ their instinct, how to _identify_ it. It's great for us who can, but it's almost smug to keep rubbing a mama's nose in it when she doesn't even know what you're talking about when you say "instinct".

People confuse instinct with intuition. Instinct is a biological imprint that is not genetic or subject to learned behaviour. Instinct, by its very nature, is an inherent species survival mechanism.

Quote:

The babies never cry? Okay, I just plain don't believe that.
Many don't. Here's the beginnings of a page on my website where I mention this very phrase you chose. It's a common reaction. Sagacious Mama It is far from finished, as are most of my pages, but for the point I'm making, it kinda works.

Gotta run for now, I know I have left things out but I'll come back later. Some great comments towards the end of the page here I want to mention. Interesting discussion, I am learning which is my absolute favourite thing! Thank you.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
If you were raised in a western culture, then I'm afraid to say that you were taught by that culture. Our parents do their best but they aren't the only influence on us. Here's evidence you have been "taught" to ignore your instincts - and before people start checking in to list all the instincts they have intact, note that we all lose different instincts, although largely we lose the following ones (and countless others). If you feel especially special, that's ok and not all that uncommon, but the point I'm making is that we _do_ lose instincts due to culture:

you do not have sex where ever and when ever the feeling strikes you (esp if you are in public)

you do not masturbate whenever you feel like it

you do not defecate in the squat position

you sit in a chair, not in the squat position

you wear shoes, causing the loss of a percentage of your environmental sensitivity

you have "tuned out" a large percentage of your environmental noises and can no longer distinguish between the rustle of a leaf from wind, or the rustle of a leaf from approaching danger

you've chosen mates based on factors _other_ than smell, taste, attractiveness to you (regardless of attractiveness in general)

I don't see any of those as a loss of instincts, unless a person is unaware that they do these things, and that they aren't entirely natural. Some of these I don't see as a matter of instinct, really, anyway - loss of sensitivity to noises, for example, is far more a matter, imo, of noise overload than "tuning out". I don't squat to defecate, because we use toilets, and squatting on a toilet doesn't work for me - that doesn't mean I think that sitting on a toilet - or in front of a keyboard, for that matter - is in any way natural or instinctive. The fact that I know full well that I'd face being fired or social shunning or jail time if I had sex in public, or on the boss's desk, doesn't mean I think it's instinctive or natural to only ever have sex behind closed doors.

Mind you, I'm not sure how any of those have any bearing on someone thinking that sitting in front of a baby monitor, under tremendous stress, watching their baby cry himself to sleep, when every fiber of her being is screaming "pick him up" is in any way "instinctive". I'm well aware that there's a social penalty to public sex, or masturbating at one's workplace, or even, to some extent, to "spoiling" a baby by picking it up. Being aware of the social penalties involved in a behaviour is not even remotely the same thing as being taught that it's instinct to perform that behaviour.

Quote:

If you think we were biologically imprinted to be any different, you haven't ever seen people who have lived untouched by our morals - they don't give a rat's pajamas who sees them have sex, for example, and hence, cosleeping is no issue for them becasue they don't have the stress of "what if the baby sees, they'll be damaged for life?" And hey, guess what, they _aren't_ damaged for life. Odd, no? Yet our culture is rife with sexually damaged people.
I agree. I have no idea where you may have picked up the idea that I (unless that was a general comment) believe that I'm biologically imprinted to be any different. I also don't think there's anything odd about people not being damaged by growing up knowing what sex is or being witness to their parent's (or other's) sexual behaviour. I, personally, have major issues with anyone seeing me having sex, but that's something I consider an issue...not something I consider to be biologically normal or healthy. (It's also related to other issues of self-consciousness and social phobias, which are not healthy, instinctive or "normal".)

Quote:

Some of those on that list above _were_ helped along by our parents, who although they meant well and were preparing us for our society, were not armed with the longer term ramifications.
It doesn't actually matter if they were armed with the longer term ramifications or not. How can a parent say "masturbate wherever you want", when we know that would, ultimately, probably result in a jail term for indecent exposure or the like? The fact that I realize my children have to exist in a sexually (and otherwise) screwed up culture doesn't mean I don't care about the long term ramifications.

Quote:

The reason that book impacts _most_ readers is because of that agonising trip down a western baby's life. It only lasts about 20 pages, but WHOA, what a helluva 20 pages it is. Who can read that and not clutch at their own gut and be wrenched with a kind of torturous regret and anguish?
That part was a big part of where she lost me totally. It was smug, arrogant, and massively generalized things. She had such a "it can be this way or that way and nobody is doing anything even anywhere near the middle" attitude throughout the whole book, but especially through there. I was born in 1968 - pretty close, if I recall correctly, to the babies she'd have been talking about - and I didn't know anybody whose infancy was like that. It wasn't like the tribal babies in the book, either. I have trouble taking a book seriously when it's completely based on the observations of someone who demonstrated so little...comprehension.

Quote:

Some of us went through a type of healing as we saw ourselves in that helpless, tortured baby as we know we were put into nurseries and cribs. Some of us lamented with guilt and sorrow what we put our own babies through. Yes, it is a tough read. No doubt.
Maybe for some people, but saying "no doubt" makes it sound like some kind of universal truth. I didn't find it a tough read at all...just annoying.

Quote:

I'm not sure what this means but perhaps the rules and checklists you have found are because some people like them? Some people need them when engaging in behaviours that are not only new to them, but against strong advice to the contrary from their family and peers at large. I'm not sure about "rules", but I get what you're saying and I'm not going to nit pick cos it drives me to distraction when it happens to my posts and usually only shows the person is not really "listening" and is more intent on finding a counter argument in what I've written.
I'm talking about rules, just like the mainstream rules we like to rage against. I'm not getting into details, because I'll get chastized by a mod again, but I've had posts removed from this board, because I advocated _listening_ to my child, and figuring out what made my child happy, and doing what caused her the least pain, instead of just going "okay - this what the AP community says I should do". So, apparently, parenting in a way that works for your child is only okay if you follow the rules...if your child responds perfectly to the AP approach, you're gold. If your child responds to the mainstream approach, that's just a fluke. But, if you're actually working out what works for _your_ child, even if it's not strictly AP, then you're doing it wrong.

Quote:

My point is that if one is going to say "trust your instincts" then give _more_ than that to a mama. I have known way too many frustrated mothers who I end up dealing with in private because they don't know how to _find_ their instinct, how to _identify_ it. It's great for us who can, but it's almost smug to keep rubbing a mama's nose in it when she doesn't even know what you're talking about when you say "instinct".
It has nothing to do with being smug. I have no idea how to tell someone how to find or identify their instincts. It's beyond me how someone can feel their heart breaking while they ignore their baby crying, and still think that what they're doing makes any kind of sense. If someone is capable of parenting in a way that always makes them sad, and makes them feel wrong/bad/guilty, and still keep doing it, then I have no idea what to say to them. If they get "ignore my gut feeling" from "trust your instincts" - sorry - I've got nothing. I wish I did...but I don't.

People confuse instinct with intuition. Instinct is a biological imprint that is not genetic or subject to learned behaviour. Instinct, by its very nature, is an inherent species survival mechanism.

Quote:

Many don't. Here's the beginnings of a page on my website where I mention this very phrase you chose. It's a common reaction. Sagacious Mama It is far from finished, as are most of my pages, but for the point I'm making, it kinda works.
I'll read your page later (dd wants mommy snuggles), but I _hate_ the "babies don't cry" stuff...hate it. I see it here quite a lot (and talk about smug!). I did all those things that should ensure that babies don't cry (oh, except for actually giving birth, which is a big one, I'll admit)...and dd screamed her head off for four straight hours _every night_ for months. I'm sure many (or at least some) babies don't cry, but this whole thing is just more pointless guilt inducing crap for the moms who don't happen to have one of those many babies. If properly parented babies never cry, then if your baby _ever_ cries, you're doing it wrong. And, _I'm_ smug?


----------



## Juvysen

her "why AP'd babies still cry" thing was more a commentary on the difference between nuclear family living and extended family living. Basically blaming our social structure for the places where AP doesn't perform in our society. I have to agree.


----------



## LynnS6

First, EVERY human on the planet is socialized according to their society's culture. Every culture has taboos and morals and rituals. Otherwise it wouldn't be a culture. Is talking to infants or not talking to infants more 'natural' or 'instinctual'?

My beef with the CC is that it's holding up one tribal culture as an 'ideal' based on her very Western perspectives. It's the "Look at all the things these 'natural' people are doing right that we've screwed up in the West" mentality that bugs me. It's very patronizing to the Ye'kwana. That doesn't mean that many parenting practices in the West are _right_, but I don't like the implication that just because the Ye'kwana do it, it must be right. My life is not organized in a hunter/gatherer tribal culture.

I much prefer Our Babies Ourselves because it's really looks at the intersection between culture, agriculture/industrialization and child rearing practices. For example, in a hunter/gatherer culture, having a lot of babies close together is a detriment to the tribal survival, because the babies can't all be carried around/kept quiet/kept safe. Thus, extended breastfeeding and 3-4 year spacing between children makes sense. But, once people settle and begin agriculture, it actually makes sense to have more children because they can help with a lot of the farm work. Thus, a closer spacing and earlier weaning (to achieve that) make sense.

Is one better than the other? Hunting/gathering is gentler on the environment. Agriculture certainly provides a more stable food supply and can support larger numbers of people. Let's face it, most of us wouldn't be here if humans hadn't developed agriculture.

It's also important to remember that humans, long ago in evolution, became really good at LEARNING. That's what humans do best, really. I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about 'instinct' with humans, outside of a very few things. Responding to a baby's cry is probably one of those few things.

Most of what humans do is innately guided learning of one sort or another. Personally, I'll trade learning to respond to changing circumstances over a lot of instincts any day.

I'm not convinced that the Amazonian tribes are more 'instinctual' - maybe they've just learned another set of skills, ones that are important for their world, but not necessarily mine. It doesn't mean I should ignore my child's basic cries, but it does mean I'm not going to feel at all bad about insisting my child wear at least underpants when playing in the front yard.


----------



## webjefita

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
Me, too. One aspect of MDC where I feel like a bit of a misfit is that I haven't ever done a lot of parenting research. I mostly wing it.

I almost started a thread about this awhile back. Honestly, I wish I hadn't done most of the parenting research I have done including reading The Continuum Concept. All it did was make me question and even deny some of my own instincts which looking back on it were pretty good to begin with. I'm all for winging it at this point. Now I just wish I could scrub my mind of all the propaganda and dogma.

To answer the OP, I voted "combo." We give choices and allow a fair amount of freedom where we can, but at the end of the day, my husband and I are in charge. I think my daughter actually appreciates that and it gives her some security.

If you start a thread I want to sub! I totally get and respect this attitude, although I don't completely understand it. I also feel like a lot of the reading I did messed with my head.... although a couple very important books gave me a sense of a compass, resonated with me so strongly and felt so comforting that I go back to them again and again... (One of them TCC and one of them Easy to Love, Difficult to Discipline, which is all about disciplining myself and modeling the values I want to have for my children.)

When I wing it for too long I also get messed up. I find it hard to understand my DC, I lose my temper, I'm conflicted about everything, I try one thing for one day and another thing for another day.

I guess I really struggle with finding my way and having confidence that I'm doing it right. It may be because I grew up in a dysfunctional, broken family... that I don' t have strong relationships with my parents today... that I feel isolated. I sure wish I didn't.


----------



## webjefita

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 

Another point of concern is the woman who was raised violently. She is now trying to raise her children non-violently, but the "cycle of violence" dictates that she will do to her children that which was done to her. She must fight this "instinct" every. single. day.


Amen. I fight this struggle and even some days fail, all because of my "instincts" which are actually learned behaviors. How lucky those of you who have healthier "instincts" or, iow, had better parenting.


----------



## ann_of_loxley

Quote:


Originally Posted by *webjefita* 
Amen. I fight this struggle and even some days fail, all because of my "instincts" which are actually learned behaviors. How lucky those of you who have healthier "instincts" or, iow, had better parenting.

This is the same for me. I grew up in foster care - and many of them were very abusive (in more ways than one







). But because of this (and YEARS of counceling and therapy and drugs, etc), I do question and read and better myself. I often wonder if I would be the parent (which I think I am pretty good at now!) I am today if I had not had such a traumatic childhood - wanting to ensure that my son never has to go through what I did. My husband would be a good example of this - he had a 'normal' childhood. It included some yelling, some punishments, some rewards, he was even smacked once. Was he abused? No. Did he have a 'good' and 'decent' childhood - well yeah hes okay. But he never thinks about how he 'parents' because of this. He just...reacts. 50% of the time - its not very good. He gets impatient easily and has little tolerance for 'noise' (espeically 'bad' noises such as crying, etc). I can see he clearly gets this from his father. He also can not talk about his feelings. They were never talked about. He was 'ignored' when he had a tantrum as a small child - etc (which is 'normal' in our society and often done and recommended) - But because of this, hes emotionally stunted. So yeah, I could see where his parents could have improved. They even laughed at me when I got some 'parenting' books for Christmas two years ago: 'you don't need a parenting book to raise children!' they said. Well you know...they are not perfect (and I am not saying I am not either) but they could have certainly done a bit better and stood to improve in some areas IMO.

I voted most consenual for us. The 'here and now' for me does not often matter as much as my sons future and I feel that the way I parent can help with this. For example, I want nothing more for my son than for him to be emotionally healthy - both DH and I did not have a very good start with this. I want my son to know that he matters, that his feelings are important, that I am here to listen to him and love him unconditionally. For us - the only way to do this is to live consensually. Any other type of parenting would hinder this.

At first I thought this was a 'Hey lets bash consensual livers thread - what a laugh!' - But reading through I realise that a lot of people just do not understand what consensual living is. TBH with you, I don't think I really understood it until I really dove into it either. It requies a big shift in ones thinking and does not happen over night - so me going over what it is for our family (and the sum for all families) would not cover it at all.

I have to say though - I don't consider it hell at all...unless hell is harmonious and peaceful and goes with a natural flow to suit all family members! lol I can see how it might be 'hellish' though, at first to make this shift if you are starting out with an older out of control child - but even in those situations, any type of parenting 'technique' is going to be 'hellish'.

I don't feel living consensually makes everything a battle. Though I do think it helps I had an early start with it! I can see how it might be more difficult starting/trying to live consensually with a child who is used to the 'whats in it for me/what are you going to do about it' approach of parenting most people use (rewards/punishments/because I said so/etc). We have been working as a team for a long time - so no, I dont have to 'compromise' with everything we do. Some things are questioned and we come to solutions. The rest just flows. New things in our life are taken slowly. It just works.

I wouldn't say at the end of the day, DH and I are in 'charge' - but neither is DS in 'charge' either. Theres no heirarchy in this family but my son knows his place, just as I know my place and DH knows his place. Thats natural. Children are not 'dumb' - He can clearly see I am bigger and stronger than him but I don't have to use this against him in raising him/'parenting' him.

As far as the Continuum Concept (and I do think its a good book - but Anthropology is what I went to Uni for! lol) -the only 'parenting' advice I got from it (and the only parenting advice I think you can get from it - maybe people have failed to see this - or point this out? I have read most, but not all the replies) is to wear your baby continuously and trust them (and all the really good reasons why) and so far, this hasn't failed me and the many people I know who do this - based on such a simple thing, I notice a huge difference in the way our children are in their nature and behaviour compared to babies who were 'raised' otherwise (and it has nothing ot do with how they are born).

Regarding labes - they are there for a reason. It is a name you call something. A cup is a cup. 'Cup' is its label. When I say 'cup' - you know immediatly what I am on about! 'Smugness' about lables goes both ways really - smug to use the lable for yourself, and smug that you dont use any lables at all. I, for one, and thankful for the 'lable' though. When I am stuck and need advice and/or support -I can use that lable to find it. Without it, we could go round and round. If I didn't use the word cup but wanted to buy one, I could be a long time talking to someone in a shop about what I am after until they got the picture and they would then look at me funny and say 'why didn't you just say you wanted a C-U-P'. (obviously a cup isnt as hard to describe as consensual living/parenting though of course - but you get the picture!)

And I think thats all I wanted to say!


----------



## Calm

Ann, I've yet to read your post but it looks interesting so it will be first on my list in the morning (I'm in Australia).

Quote:

I don't see any of those as a loss of instincts, unless a person is unaware that they do these things, and that they aren't entirely natural. Some of these I don't see as a matter of instinct, really, anyway - loss of sensitivity to noises, for example, is far more a matter, imo, of noise overload than "tuning out". I don't squat to defecate, because we use toilets, and squatting on a toilet doesn't work for me - that doesn't mean I think that sitting on a toilet - or in front of a keyboard, for that matter - is in any way natural or instinctive. The fact that I know full well that I'd face being fired or social shunning or jail time if I had sex in public, or on the boss's desk, doesn't mean I think it's instinctive or natural to only ever have sex behind closed doors.

Mind you, I'm not sure how any of those have any bearing on someone thinking that sitting in front of a baby monitor, under tremendous stress, watching their baby cry himself to sleep, when every fiber of her being is screaming "pick him up" is in any way "instinctive". I'm well aware that there's a social penalty to public sex, or masturbating at one's workplace, or even, to some extent, to "spoiling" a baby by picking it up.
First, I didn't realise so many of the quotes were from you, Storm Bride. I didn't mean to pick you out, and I apologise if it seemed I did. I read a thread and pluck out quotes and put them on a word doc, otherwise I forget things. Anyway...

Nature didn't make toilets. We did. And only recently in relation to the time line of humanity. Japan and some other countries still use "toilets" that are at floor level. They suffer bowel issues to a much lesser degree. When used here bowel issues can be resolved.

I can help you understand instinct a little better. Or not. worth a try. A dog, for example. The _urge_ the dog feels to poo is a _physiological need_, if a physiological need is not met, the organism will die. The _urge_ to cover the poo with dirt is _instinct_, however. So is the urge to kick the hind legs in what seems to be an ineffectual attempt to cover the poo or urine. (scent glands in their feet, marking territory... irrelevant for topic however). This is not learned behaviour (a dog will do this even if they haven't seen another dog do it), it's pure instinct.

With my children, it has been a kind of experiment much of what I do, and I am the student, they teach me. I think we all benefit much more by learning from those less effected by culture. And I noticed in them something that I was told would be true: if you do not interfere with a child's toileting behaviour, they will squat to poo. Simple. Also makes sense. Also, it is true. The most natural way to teach a child to potty is by not using a potty at all. We use newspaper, like you would for a puppy. The squat is the most natural position for poop to come out, much like a baby (those of the natural birthing bent will know what I mean by that). When our gut is in pain, we naturally bend at the waist and clutch at our abdomen. The kindest thing we can do for the bowel health of our families is buy one of these: http://naturesplatform.com/ and teach your children how to poop naturally; or if you have a baby, don't interfere! Let them teach you how to poop!









Oh, the secrets our babies can tell us if we just shuddup and listen.

Yes, we have toilets, and that is my point. We don't even know that we had this instinct for pooping, it is so long ignored by us, except when in pain and we tend to have the "urge" to squat, bend in half or clutch at our abdomen.

What mentioned would happen if you stopped ignoring your instincts, such as getting arrested, doesn't negate the fact that we are, indeed, ignoring our instincts.

You have a point with the mother watching the monitor and ignoring her instinct to hold her crying baby. This is an obvious instinct, one we can all relate to easily. But it is flawed as a tool to help a woman find her instincts because there is more to instinctual parenting than picking up a crying baby. Plus, when holding a baby, and they DON'T stop crying... then we have a problem.

A woman who knows how to listen to her instincts will have an "urge" (there's that word again) to do whatever it is that instantly stops the crying. A certain position, something needed... whatever it is, she knows what it is. So much so, this is the reason why highly instinctive cultures have low rates of crying. Just because we don't understand it, or it threatens our status quo, doesn't make it any less true.

How do you teach a woman to find that kind of instinct within her again? It's not easy.

In Bali, Indonesia, you will also meet such children. I had the privilege of traveling there while globe trotting, and the feet of a baby do not touch the ground until they are two years old. They have a "grounding" ceremony at the age of two, and the child is finally put down. These kids are wildly happy, even in the face of the kind of poverty and abject circumstances I can't describe on a family friendly site.

Until you actually leave your own dogma (general you), until you leave your own culture and morals you cannot judge. We can't paint the world with one brush. We can't look at the world through virgin eyes and make any kind of call on what is happening "out there". We know what we know, we can only guess the rest. When I hear people say, "babies cry a lot everywhere in the world" and I ask what that is based on... it is always based on opinion, on belief. They can bring forth little evidence, and absolutely no experience. Often a "friend" of theirs spent some time with some culture and they saw babies crying ... I hear that evidence but I don't get many details about the tribe or culture they visited and how long the stay was and what the circumstances were.

Just because it is hard to believe, doesn't mean it isn't true. It is impossible for it to be impossible. I think people refuse to believe some things because to believe it means they have to _look_ at it, and they feel like a failure if they can't measure up. I've been there myself. I went through hell from some AP books and I guilted myself stupid and wished I had NEVER. SET. EYES. ON. THEM. Or any of those other godforsaken guilt laden unworkable unrealistic idealistic pseudo parenting books. Yes. BTDT bought the blog page.

The list I gave is incomplete and really only to highlight how hard instinct is to identify and how many we have ignored.

Quote:

Being aware of the social penalties involved in a behaviour is not even remotely the same thing as being taught that it's instinct to perform that behaviour.
I'm not sure what this means. I think we have a misunderstanding. We are not taught what our instincts are at all. Instincts by their very nature are inherent, unlearned behaviour. However, we can be taught to ignore our instincts. And this is where social policing comes into it. I think it was SGM who said her parents didn't teach her to ignore her instincts. I was showing her how society did it for them. That unless she was a raw, instinctual human being, running on instict like a dog, ape, meerkat or wild feral being, then she had indeed suppressed many instincts, or altered them to fit our culture. You know an instinctual culture when you experience it, and you know an instinctual being when you meet one. A baby, for instance, you can't over look it. And instinct is there to protect the species, hence why it is so strong after reproduction. Any mother will testify that her instincts were more raw once she got pregnant and stayed that way while raising a baby. It is for survival, and when we are not faced with harsh needs to survive, they atrophy, such as hearing, taste, and so on.

A good example would be the twins who were raised by wolves from babyhood. They behaved exactly like wolves, even walked on all fours and smelled and could hear like a wolf. We all have this potential, but some instincts switch off if they aren't used.

I haven't met the Yequana, so I can't comment on that specifically. But I believe Jean because I've seen such things myself. You know instinct when you see it. You just do. And they have learned to trust theirs and listen to it because not to is to tempt death. We aren't in that precarious situation anymore, so our instincts have died down a lot in comparison, and we struggle as a culture to "listen to our instincts".


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Juvysen* 
her "why AP'd babies still cry" thing was more a commentary on the difference between nuclear family living and extended family living. Basically blaming our social structure for the places where AP doesn't perform in our society. I have to agree.

When reading "the highly sensitive child" they talk about how some babies need to be left alone to cry because they are overstimulated and the parent holding them is making it worse and take longer. I know some moms who have let their babies CIO because they said that their bayb cried longer in their arms but only a few minutes if they put them down. I never had a baby like that so I cant imagine,, I felt "wrong" while reading it, but I wonder if that is instincts or if it feels wrong because I am so anti-cio...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --- -- - - - ---

more from UP reading last night:
p123
"There will be times when, in order to do the right thing, we have to put our foot down and cause our kids to become frustrated"

it also talks about the motives behind our rules. He basically says those times you have to put your foot down will be different in every family. Just like how I would put my foot down about my child jumping off the roof, but another parent would just look for a safe way to do it, and yet another parent would fully let them to explore this life lesson in any way they choose. It doesn't make one family more CL then the other, IMO, its just a different consensus. It's not a heirarchy. And the does talk about taking a child's age and maturity into consideration as well when deciding how self determining they can be. It's different for every family. No one's feeling or needs are less important though.

p11:
A childs preferences can't always be accommodated, but they can always be considered.

It's the difference between asking
"how can I get my child to do what I say"
and
"what does my child need and how can I meet those needs"

If you think thats a heirarchy then you haven't seen how very different family who have the same "rules" approach things when they ask that question differently. Again, I don't claim to be CL, just aspiring, and somewhere in between - but it's because of which questions I ask myself I think. This midset I cant get out of.

And yet, every time I give advice or share experience here I am told that great if that works for my kids but the consensual approach doesn't work for everyone. So, I guess I'm only considered CL when my advice (that here I am being told is no different then what a hierarchy family does) won't work for a hierarchy family.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
I think one of the reasons CL seems to not work for us is that when a compromise is made, both parties usually loose what they _really_ want. In any circumstance.

it's hard when you don't get what you want, but you always get what you need. sometimes you get what you want too. sometimes everyone finds a way to get what they want. sometimes one person gets what they want. but, in the end they get what they need. It's a matter of not thinking "im the parent, so when we disagree *I* get what *I* want" in away that is modeling for them that its good to always "Get your own way" no wonder they always want to get their own way. With a CL approach I find my children get insistent on getting their own way a lot less frequently, Thats just our family though. The more I have to have it my exact way the more they want it their exact way and we end up in a power struggle. this is just *our* family dynamics, this is just why CL "works" for us, but at the same time I am just trying to accept my children more for who they are and stop trying to make them into what I think they should be.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:

In Bali, Indonesia, you will also meet such children. I had the privilege of traveling there while globe trotting, and the feet of a baby do not touch the ground until they are two years old. They have a "grounding" ceremony at the age of two, and the child is finally put down. These kids are wildly happy, even in the face of the kind of poverty and abject circumstances I can't describe on a family friendly site.
I thought it was 6 months not 2 years.


----------



## nznavo

I thought it was 100ish days. Anyway, not 2 years.

I have difficulty with people holding up other cultures' child rearing practices as paragons because of an apparent advantage due to an 'authenticity' that we've somehow lost.


----------



## mamazee

I can't take that book too seriously due to it's heavy use of the noble savage stereotype. It's kind of like how I can't take Ina May too seriously due to her terms for body parts.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
That part was a big part of where she lost me totally. It was smug, arrogant, and massively generalized things. She had such a "it can be this way or that way and nobody is doing anything even anywhere near the middle" attitude throughout the whole book, but especially through there. I was born in 1968 - pretty close, if I recall correctly, to the babies she'd have been talking about - and I didn't know anybody whose infancy was like that. It wasn't like the tribal babies in the book, either. I have trouble taking a book seriously when it's completely based on the observations of someone who demonstrated so little...comprehension.

Yes... and I think I can relate this to discipline too.

What Liedloff did in that section was what philosophy would probably label a thought-experiment, which can be useful. She imagined things from a certain point of view and took them right through in a very expressive way.

However, and this is the danger with bias and stuff, it doesn't actually prove that's that person's experience. We could do the same with AP practices ("The infant struggles to feel free, to feel the cool wind and the solid ground, but instead is left to sway this way and that, trapped in the folds of confining fabric, leading to a life-long fear of enclosed spaces and a desperate need to seek out lake views on holiday, and have 2500 ft homes, spending long hours chained to a desk in order to do so..." <-- I _do not_ believe this, just saying that this kind of thinking/writing can lead to this kind of thing.)

And for me that's kind of where I try to evaluate my discpline practices too. I did come at parenting with a very particular point of view, but I find listening to my child, and evaluating my family's overall happiness and rhythm at the intuitive level is very important.

For example, before I had my child I thought that keeping his toys tidy all the time and having one toy out at a time would be a really important life skill to develop and key to our family's success. I was prepared to be the more dictatorial parent on that.

However, I observed that when I _asked_ him to tidy or to play a particular way (one toy at a time) he was _less_ happy and less willing to help.

But when I let it go and just made it an invitation like "Oh, I'm going to tidy up before dinner," he would rush to help tidy up, or to tidy up on his own - and also that while he does often need a "clean canvas" of tidy, sorted toys, at times he also needs to have them more or less all out, visually, to mix them up to play the way he really wants.

Also, part of his happiness in being in our family is having say and control over some of the space in our home.

Is that kind of more consensual? Yes I guess it is, and it is really nice. I trust that he is learning and I see that he is; our home is comfortable for us both. Later it may be that he needs more structure so I'm prepared to flex that way too. I'm paying attention, and that informs my decision about how to handle it. I am the decision maker though.


----------



## riverscout

This has got to be one of the most confusing, circular, semantical threads I have ever participated in







:. Maybe it's just me though







. I have tried writing a post like 15 times and think I am just giving up.


----------



## mamazee

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
This has got to be one of the most confusing, circular, semantical threads I have ever participated in







:. Maybe it's just me though







. I have tried writing a post like 15 times and think I am just giving up.









It's about three threads mixed up in one. LOL


----------



## webjefita

I do think there is a difference now that I can see between Cl and TCS (which I experimented with, and really messed me up!) In CL people can come to agreements (sometimes compromises) which are not their preferred choice but which they can live with. You might agree to something you didn't want for any number of reasons--you can see it's more important to the other person; you think you might get what you want next time; you think it will be better for the group; etc. I can see this in how DH and I make decisions.

So if you say, "homework is not negotiable, you can choose where and how to do it," and your DC basically says, "okay, I will" then she is consenting. If she didn't consent to doing it at all, she wouldn't do it, or you would force (through fear of punishment or by making her stay at the table as one poster's parents did.)

So I see how the two are different but could be very similar and have a lot in common.

I can see how it might be more difficult starting/trying to live consensually with a child who is used to the 'whats in it for me/what are you going to do about it' approach of parenting most people use (rewards/punishments/because I said so/etc). We have been working as a team for a long time

If consensual means not using rewards/punishments/physical coercion, then I totally agree with it. But I still lead my children and expect them to follow along with my program. I think it depends on how compliant/cooperative your DC are. I know kids who all it takes is telling them what they can do/ not do. Not so my oldest DS. My younger DS does this pretty well.

For an example, if I decide we're going out to run errands this morning, I simply announce "We're going out to the store, everyone get dressed." I get dressed, I announce, "We're getting in the van now, everyone get shoes." And I go out to the van and everyone follows me. I don't beg, cajole, repeat the instruction, or ask if and when they want to go. I have, in the past, and it did make us miserable. My children do really well with this setup, which is why I think the heierarchy works well for our family.

I don't know if I'm adding anything to the discussion. But I've read all 9 pages and am trying to digest it all. I'm not sure where exactly I fall, I do see the value in both approaches, and I do sometimes have a hard time deciding what would be best. I have an almost 6yo DS who I sometimes get into power struggles with and who often acts, with others, disrespectful and disobedient--something I think is due to his difficulty in adapting to change and some having to do with adults also being disrespectful to children-- and I constantly go back and forth with myself and my DH about whether it's "too much control" he's reacting to or "too little control/lack of parental authority". Sigh.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

webk - I agree that making the switch is hard! at first things may be a little rougher because the child is testing out the new way the family is working. They may become more insistent on things for a season, trying to learn if the power has shifted to them, or if the parents still have it, or if it is truly mutual. Maybe thats where it comes into play that some feel they are constantly "problem solving" with thier children. My children are young, so the transition wasn't too difficult for us, despite them being spirited, emotional, high needs, and special needs. Yet I can see how even for the average child the switch could be hard. They may want to make EVERYTHING into a problem solving moment. With time though, I imagine they begin to feel at one with the family and everyone "syncs up" in a sense (kind of like how women's menses can sync up when they are around eachother a lot! or maybe this is just a freak coincidence that happens with me and my friends and family members lol) At first getting your child into the carseat may be a "problem solving moment" and then getting them in the house is a problem solving moment and you feel you spend the whole day problem solving and not actually doing anything. then a week later, the novelty of it wears off for them. They feel confident that they are considered just as human as their parents, and no longer need to try to figure out if there parents are going to revert back to controlling them. They see themselves as equal and don't need to test this out anymore. They jsut get in the carseat and go, they just get into the house. (or in my case, they just take a bath, or brush their teeth... once we let go of these power struggles they resolved themselves)


----------



## transformed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
*it's hard when you don't get what you want, but you always get what you need*. sometimes you get what you want too. sometimes everyone finds a way to get what they want. sometimes one person gets what they want. but, in the end they get what they need. It's a matter of not thinking "im the parent, so when we disagree *I* get what *I* want" in away that is modeling for them that its good to always "Get your own way" no wonder they always want to get their own way. With a CL approach I find my children get insistent on getting their own way a lot less frequently, Thats just our family though. The more I have to have it my exact way the more they want it their exact way and we end up in a power struggle. this is just *our* family dynamics, this is just why CL "works" for us, but at the same time I am just trying to accept my children more for who they are and stop trying to make them into what I think they should be.

You mean food, shelter, water, clothing? Thats all we really _"need."_

In our society, CL is about wants, not needs IMO.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *webjefita* 
Amen. I fight this struggle and even some days fail, all because of my "instincts" which are actually learned behaviors. How lucky those of you who have healthier "instincts" or, iow, had better parenting.

Amen.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

In that I include the need for love, compassion, respect, and other emotional needs. (and I believe that emotional needs have been scientifically proven to be necessary for sustenance of life)

CL is not all about wants. It's all about needs.

I dont understand the Society comment. CL looks different in every family, every relationship, every town, because it respects that everyone is different. The way I practice CL with my children would look different then the way you would practice it with yours if you did. The way I practice CL with my neighbor is different then the way you would with yours. I am different from you, and we have different neighbors. and even if we had different neighbors, you and I would still be different. So when you say "our society" what are you talking about exactly. Society as you see it. Society as I see it. The way others in society see it, the way children see it?

But yes, thats your opinion. CL in my family, and by definition, is about respecting*that another person wants are valid (respect: need) and meeting everyone's needs (not wants).

Perhaps in some families CL is more "desire-focused" and less "need-focused" but that has nothing to do with society, it has to do with that family.


----------



## betsyj

Very interesting thread. I am probably going to be somewhere in the middle. My son is only 10 mos.

That said, he doesn't read any parenting books yet so I simply do what is working on that particular day.









Hubby doesn't read those books either. Some days I say "why don't you go surf the 'net for a bit then help me with the laundry." Other days I say "I need you to help me do stuff right now or I am going to freak out."

He of course prefers and wants to do things the first way, but understands that I need the second way sometimes.

For us, day to day living is too complicated to try only one approach or to believe that we can always meet needs. My goal is to not sweat the small stuff so I have time to sweat the big stuff.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
I have to say though - I don't consider it hell at all...unless hell is harmonious and peaceful and goes with a natural flow to suit all family members! lol

If it suits all family members, then I guess it's not hellish. I can't see a way in which it would suit everybody to always compromise and never get what they want. I have yet to see anybody define truly consensual living (in the very few cases where I've seen it, because the _fact_ is that we all live in a hierarchy - children are fully dependent on us, no matter how we choose to stucture our families) so that it suits everybody. Honestly - the CL thing has been presented to me in one of two ways...the first sounds like utter tyranny and it boggles me that anybody can live like that, but different strokes, yk? - the other seems like common sense parenting of the type I see in more families than not, no matter what they call it.

Quote:

I can see how it might be 'hellish' though, at first to make this shift if you are starting out with an older out of control child - but even in those situations, any type of parenting 'technique' is going to be 'hellish'.
On older, out of control child has nothing to do with what I'm talking about when I say that CL sounds hellish.

Quote:

I wouldn't say at the end of the day, DH and I are in 'charge' - but neither is DS in 'charge' either. Theres no heirarchy in this family but my son knows his place, just as I know my place and DH knows his place. Thats natural. Children are not 'dumb' - He can clearly see I am bigger and stronger than him but I don't have to use this against him in raising him/'parenting' him.
What place is that? I don't even get where people knowing their place is relevant if CL is anything like what people here usually describe it as. Some children are also people-pleasers by nature (ds1, for example) and practicing CL with him would basically mean he'd always put others before himself, and never get to do what he wants.

Quote:

Regarding labes - they are there for a reason. It is a name you call something. A cup is a cup. 'Cup' is its label. When I say 'cup' - you know immediatly what I am on about!
Okay - define consensual living, so that your definition applies to _every_ family who practices consensual living. If you can't, then the label "consensual living" has nothing to do with a label such "cup". A label that doesn't convey specific information about the item/philosophy/opinion supposedly being described by the label is meaningless noise.

Quote:

'Smugness' about lables goes both ways really - smug to use the lable for yourself, and smug that you dont use any lables at all.
I recall talking about smugness, but I have no idea where it came into play with respect to labels. If other people find that labels work for them, that's great. I find that they don't work for me, except for very, very simple things...and parenting, in general, isn't simple enough for a label to mean much to me. I don't use labels much. I'm not smug about it - they just don't work for me.


----------



## parent coach

I work as a parent coach and the majority of issues and concerns I see from parents stem from when a parent is either one extreme or the other. When kids are exhibiting signs of aggression, depression or behavioral issues, nine times out of ten the household is either overly permissive or overly authoritarian. There is a middle ground called "athoritative" which I believe (and research supports) is best for the development of a "healthy self."


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Nature didn't make toilets. We did. And only recently in relation to the time line of humanity. Japan and some other countries still use "toilets" that are at floor level. They suffer bowel issues to a much lesser degree. When used here bowel issues can be resolved.

I can help you understand instinct a little better. Or not. worth a try. A dog, for example. The _urge_ the dog feels to poo is a _physiological need_, if a physiological need is not met, the organism will die. The _urge_ to cover the poo with dirt is _instinct_, however. So is the urge to kick the hind legs in what seems to be an ineffectual attempt to cover the poo or urine. (scent glands in their feet, marking territory... irrelevant for topic however). This is not learned behaviour (a dog will do this even if they haven't seen another dog do it), it's pure instinct.

With my children, it has been a kind of experiment much of what I do, and I am the student, they teach me. I think we all benefit much more by learning from those less effected by culture. And I noticed in them something that I was told would be true: if you do not interfere with a child's toileting behaviour, they will squat to poo. Simple. Also makes sense.

Yes. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but none of this is news, in any way.

Quote:

Also, it is true. The most natural way to teach a child to potty is by not using a potty at all. We use newspaper, like you would for a puppy. The squat is the most natural position for poop to come out, much like a baby (those of the natural birthing bent will know what I mean by that).
Okay - so, does that mean your son is going to continue to squat and poo on newspapers when he's 20? If not, then I again fail to get your point here. Yes - it's natural/instinctual to squat to poo. I never said, or suggested, otherwise. It's also not feasible in the idiotic culture in which we live. I'd love to see Asian style toilets become popular here, but the fact is, those are _not_ what I have available to use.

Quote:

When our gut is in pain, we naturally bend at the waist and clutch at our abdomen. The kindest thing we can do for the bowel health of our families is buy one of these: http://naturesplatform.com/ and teach your children how to poop naturally; or if you have a baby, don't interfere! Let them teach you how to poop!








Sure - that would be great. It still leaves our children (and ourselves) living in a culture where most of the available toilets aren't like that. I live in a rental where I couldn't even fit that into one of the available bathrooms, and probably couldn't fit it into the other one, either. Until and unless the majority are willing to do things they consider "weird", we still have to fit into the world in which we live. (And, honestly - I've never heard of a culture that doesn't have some kind of constraints on toileting...highly doubt that it would be smiled upon if an adult were to suddenly poop right beside the communal firepit...no matter how badly he/she felt the urge.)

Despite having to live in a world with western toilets and manners that require holding it under many circumstances, I still listen to my body. IMO, there's a big difference between knowing you need to poop, but have to wait and tuning out the need in the first place (and yes, I do know people who will do that). I still followed what my body said in labour (okay - I will admit that my fear of the hospital probably kept me from listening to signs that things weren't okay with Aaron), instead of thinking an expert must know better.

Quote:

Oh, the secrets our babies can tell us if we just shuddup and listen.
This is the kind of thing that keeps losing me. What "secrets"?

Quote:

Yes, we have toilets, and that is my point. We don't even know that we had this instinct for pooping, it is so long ignored by us, except when in pain and we tend to have the "urge" to squat, bend in half or clutch at our abdomen.

What mentioned would happen if you stopped ignoring your instincts, such as getting arrested, doesn't negate the fact that we are, indeed, ignoring our instincts.
Who doesn't know they have this instinct for pooping? I have no idea what you're talking about here at least half the time. And, again - I personally think there's a difference between _ignoring_ your instincts, and making a conscious decision to override them, due to other considerations.

Quote:

You have a point with the mother watching the monitor and ignoring her instinct to hold her crying baby. This is an obvious instinct, one we can all relate to easily. But it is flawed as a tool to help a woman find her instincts because there is more to instinctual parenting than picking up a crying baby. Plus, when holding a baby, and they DON'T stop crying... then we have a problem.

A woman who knows how to listen to her instincts will have an "urge" (there's that word again) to do whatever it is that instantly stops the crying. A certain position, something needed... whatever it is, she knows what it is. So much so, this is the reason why highly instinctive cultures have low rates of crying. Just because we don't understand it, or it threatens our status quo, doesn't make it any less true.
Don't understand what? I'm getting really confused...

If my baby is crying, I pick him/her up (if he/she isn't already being held, which they usually are...except dd, who frequently got _really_ pissed off, because she wanted _down_), and nurse him/her if they're hungry, check their diaper for discomfort, etc. etc. Frequently, I don't even have to check, because I know what's wrong.

Quote:

How do you teach a woman to find that kind of instinct within her again? It's not easy.
Yeah - I said that already. I have no idea how to reach someone who has so totally tuned out...themselves.

Quote:

In Bali, Indonesia, you will also meet such children. I had the privilege of traveling there while globe trotting, and the feet of a baby do not touch the ground until they are two years old. They have a "grounding" ceremony at the age of two, and the child is finally put down. These kids are wildly happy, even in the face of the kind of poverty and abject circumstances I can't describe on a family friendly site.
And, do you have a point? I, for one, never denied that these children exist. What I deny is that you _will_ have a non-crying baby if you follow the AP checklist. It doesn't always work that way. Oh - and dd would have considered being carried for two years to be purest hell. Besides that...are they that happy because they're never put down? Or, are they that happy, because of the underlying assumptions/beliefs about babies that prompt them to be treated like that? (I'll also point out that there is no "instinct" involved in waiting for a calendar age to put a baby on the ground, nor in having a ceremony to mark that occasion. Those are conscious, man-made decisions...not instinctual parenting.)

Quote:

Until you actually leave your own dogma (general you), until you leave your own culture and morals you cannot judge. We can't paint the world with one brush. We can't look at the world through virgin eyes and make any kind of call on what is happening "out there".
I've got no interest in making a call on what's happening "out there". I'm also not interested in reading the observations of one woman who spent a few years (? I think - it's been a while since I read TCC) with one tribe, and decided she had all the answers about parenting.

Quote:

We know what we know, we can only guess the rest. When I hear people say, "babies cry a lot everywhere in the world" and I ask what that is based on... it is always based on opinion, on belief. They can bring forth little evidence, and absolutely no experience. Often a "friend" of theirs spent some time with some culture and they saw babies crying ... I hear that evidence but I don't get many details about the tribe or culture they visited and how long the stay was and what the circumstances were.
I'll have to take your word for this, as I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that babies cry everywhere in the world. I don't know anyone who has ever commented on what babies do in other parts of the world.

Quote:

Just because it is hard to believe, doesn't mean it isn't true. It is impossible for it to be impossible. I think people refuse to believe some things because to believe it means they have to _look_ at it, and they feel like a failure if they can't measure up. I've been there myself. I went through hell from some AP books and I guilted myself stupid and wished I had NEVER. SET. EYES. ON. THEM.
No idea if you're talking to me, or not. I don't like many of those books, for reasons completely different from what you're talking about. I don't like them, and don't like some posts here, for one reason. I _despise_ the attitude I see of "my kids don't cry because they don't need to" and "my kids don't cry because I'm a perfect mom" (although the ones saying that never actually say it. It's _not true_. Children are all different. Sure - maybe dd's issues did have something to do with the culture we live in...maybe they're related to pollutants, toxin, who know what. The _fact_ is that I could follow an AP checklist (if I'd ever seen one) like a rulebook, and dd still cried for hours every single night. DD was still unhappy, unsettled, and discontent for a large part of every day. DD still _never_ settled into any kind of nursing pattern (I was still leaking almost daily when she was 18 months old). It didn't work, if my goal was a baby who didn't cry - simply didn't work. Reading TCC, and the smug message from the author that if Western parents just did this, that and the other thing, we'd all have smiling, happy children 24/7, drove me around the bend. She even went one better, because nobody could have happy children in her world - it's not possible in western culture - that came through loud and clear. (FWIW - my parenting adapted to dd a lot...but all the things I was doing right out the chute with her produced...happy, smiling children with ds1 and ds2. Children are individuals, and I despise _any_ parenting label that claims, directly or indirectly, to be able to produce specific results with every child.)

Quote:

I'm not sure what this means. I think we have a misunderstanding. We are not taught what our instincts are at all. Instincts by their very nature are inherent, unlearned behaviour. However, we can be taught to ignore our instincts. And this is where social policing comes into it. I think it was SGM who said her parents didn't teach her to ignore her instincts. I was showing her how society did it for them.
That was me. We have a disagreement. I think there's a difference between ignoring our instincts, and making a conscious decision not to follow through on them. I was taught the latter.

Quote:

That unless she was a raw, instinctual human being, running on instict like a dog, ape, meerkat or wild feral being, then she had indeed suppressed many instincts, or altered them to fit our culture. You know an instinctual culture when you experience it, and you know an instinctual being when you meet one. A baby, for instance, you can't over look it. And instinct is there to protect the species, hence why it is so strong after reproduction. Any mother will testify that her instincts were more raw once she got pregnant and stayed that way while raising a baby. It is for survival, and when we are not faced with harsh needs to survive, they atrophy, such as hearing, taste, and so on.

A good example would be the twins who were raised by wolves from babyhood. They behaved exactly like wolves, even walked on all fours and smelled and could hear like a wolf. We all have this potential, but some instincts switch off if they aren't used.
Again - not arguing. I simply feel there's a huge difference between _ignoring_ instincts, and making a conscious decision not to follow them. A completely instinctual person, in our society, would end up in jail or a psychiatric ward, so following our instincts is _contra_ survival, in many cases. We _can't_ always follow our instincts...but that doesn't mean we're ignoring them, as such.

Quote:

I haven't met the Yequana, so I can't comment on that specifically. But I believe Jean because I've seen such things myself. You know instinct when you see it. You just do. And they have learned to trust theirs and listen to it because not to is to tempt death. We aren't in that precarious situation anymore, so our instincts have died down a lot in comparison, and we struggle as a culture to "listen to our instincts".
Oh, she may have been exactly right about the Yequana. I haven't met them, myself, so I have no idea. I simply found her incredibly patronizing and condescending, towards both western culture _and_ the Yequana. There was very, very little about that book that didn't grate on my nerves. She also jumped to a lot of conclusions that weren't really supported by what she saw, imo.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
At first getting your child into the carseat may be a "problem solving moment" and then getting them in the house is a problem solving moment and you feel you spend the whole day problem solving and not actually doing anything.

Yeah...I tried a more consensual approach to the carseat with dd when she was little (didn't call it that, as I'd never even heard of CL at that point, but that's what we did). It didn't work. Bottom line is, she _hated_ the carseat. She finally stopped fighting and screaming when she realized that we had things we _had_ to do, and she _had_ to be in the seat - no choice in the matter. As long as I tried to address underlying needs, etc., we got nowhere. Her underlying need was to _not_ be strapped into the torture seat...and that wasn't negotiable. (I can relate. I've heard people talk about putting 5-point harnesses in adult seats, and I'll stop driving the day that becomes required, no matter how badly we need the car.)


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *parent coach* 
I work as a parent coach and the majority of issues and concerns I see from parents stem from when a parent is either one extreme or the other. When kids are exhibiting signs of aggression, depression or behavioral issues, nine times out of ten the household is either overly permissive or overly authoritarian. There is a middle ground called "athoritative" which I believe (and research supports) is best for the development of a "healthy self."

That's interesting. As a teen who _had_ depression, aggression and other behavioural problems, that wasn't really my experience (although I have heard it before). Most of my friends and I were from homes where there were serious problems - abuse, addiction (my dad was an alcoholic) or just out-and-out toxic people (my grandmother - didn't live with us, but was a hugely manipulative person, and a big influence in our lives). I can't think of very many - only one, in fact - who came from a home where the problems were as simple as "too permissive" or "too authoritarian".

I have seen this before - that authoritarianism _and_ permissiveness cause a lot of problems. I just haven't seen it in action.


----------



## transformed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
In that I include the need for love, compassion, respect, and other emotional needs. (and I believe that emotional needs have been scientifically proven to be necessary for sustenance of life)

CL is not all about wants. It's all about needs.

I dont understand the Society comment. CL looks different in every family, every relationship, every town, because it respects that everyone is different. The way I practice CL with my children would look different then the way you would practice it with yours if you did. The way I practice CL with my neighbor is different then the way you would with yours. I am different from you, and we have different neighbors. and even if we had different neighbors, you and I would still be different. So when you say "our society" what are you talking about exactly. Society as you see it. Society as I see it. The way others in society see it, the way children see it?

But yes, thats your opinion. CL in my family, and by definition, is about respecting*that another person wants are valid (respect: need) and meeting everyone's needs (not wants).

Perhaps in some families CL is more "desire-focused" and less "need-focused" but that has nothing to do with society, it has to do with that family.

so if love, compassion, emotional needs, etc are met then you are CL? Ok, then we are pretty much CL. As are most healthy familys. With freak outs occurring on a regular to semi regular basis depending on the ages of your kids, number of kids you have, and your tolerance and patience level.

it also feels like you are trying _really_ hard to be consensual with me.







:







:

Life is more concrete than abstract to me. CL is so very abstract it is hard to apply.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

did I come across as being consensual towards you? I take that as a compliment, but I wasn't trying! I guess my parenting is seeping over into other areas of my life. I don't mind if you call yourself consensual or say I am not.

I feel I have described what CL means to me. If what it means to me is what you practice, then while observing your family I would probably think you were a CL family too even if that is not what you label yourself.

At this point though, if you really want to understand what CL means to me, if it's REALLY that important that you understand what CL is, then be willing to read a little more about it. Don't keep insisting you know what France looks like even though you've never been there. I personally do not care if another family practices CL, but I feel like other families need to either 1) convince me that CL doesnt work despite the fact its working for me 2) convince me that what I am doing is no different then them (in this thread, then in another thread say my approach won't work for them because they arent consensual?) or 3) convince me that what I'm doing is not CL. Why do people care so much if others practice consensual living and what consensual living means to them? Why all the hostility around the subject that you must make it know the other person is NOT CL? or that if they truly are CL that it's a bad thing?


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I have difficulty with people holding up other cultures' child rearing practices as paragons because of an apparent advantage due to an 'authenticity' that we've somehow lost.
If you think we haven't lost authenticity then we are too far apart to even begin to discuss this issue. For me, my culture has seriously messed with nature and our inherent beingness, emotionally and physically and spiritually and spread this filth world wide. Everywhere white man (usually white man) has gone, we have trampled the beauty we find there, we instill our beliefs, our religions, our morals and leave nothing but disease and misery in our wake. People are STILL doing this. Please help stop them. PLEASE!

SB, you are confusing quotes I've taken from you with those I've taken from others. This is confusing the heck out of you and making you answer things as though I've directed them to you. Sorry for the confusion.

You say what I'm telling you is not news in any way. Firstly, it is not news to _you_. Secondly, you sound so confused and were writing things as though you didn't get the basic concept of instinct so I started from the basics.

Quote:

Okay - so, does that mean your son is going to continue to squat and poo on newspapers when he's 20?
Of course not. He'll transition to magazines. Then he'll move on to books, but just soft cover crappy ones first, then he'll move onto pooping on Shakespeare.

This is why I give you basics, SB, because it seems you aren't grasping even the smallest of them. My son is pooping on newspaper right now because he cannot get onto a toilet fixture (a platform that changes a western toilet into a squat one), he is too small. When he can do that, he will then use that.

If nothing else, at least I will have honoured his instincts for as long as possible before he has to sit to poop, should we be faced with a smaller bathroom for some reason.

In an ideal world, to address your further concerns, we would start changing all our toilets to natural ones. This will take time, but unless we are willing to see this change, it won't happen. But we do change in our society, it just takes education and willingness and courage. Education being the first hurdle, people won't want to change to that if they don't even know that the natural way to poop is squatting. You seem to think everyone knows this, I can tell you they don't, very few know this.

I know all other toilets aren't like that, but we squat on them anyway, first we stand on the seat, then we squat down. My daughter is a master at it and so am I and no doubt my son will be. Most adults wouldn't dare, and hence we need to change the whole system. My point isn't that you should squat anyway, again, the point is that we ignored the instinct to squat. And no, for most of us, I daresay ALL of us, we didn't _choose_ this way of pooping, we had it taught to us by our parents. How you can conceive of it being a choice is beyond me. I never chose it, no one I've ever met chose it, you're the first one I've ever met who when learning potty actually said to her mother something like, "well, of all the toileting choices I have, I feel the urge to squat, and you know what, I'm going to use a chair type toilet instead" and I fear you actually telling me that never happened so to prevent that, here's a hint, I'm being facetious.









In case you missed my point... you are confident that we don't ignore our instincts, we _choose_ to do something other than our instincts. I disagree, _*strongly*_. And I think most people reading would also disagree. I never chose one single thing in how I've ignored my instincts, it was how my society did it, so it was how I was taught, this is _*not*_ a choice. In no way does this fit the tiniest premise of "choice".

However I CAN chose to reclaim my instinctual self.

Sorry, must run for now back soon


----------



## spottiew

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
No idea if you're talking to me, or not. I don't like many of those books, for reasons completely different from what you're talking about. I don't like them, and don't like some posts here, for one reason. I _despise_ the attitude I see of "my kids don't cry because they don't need to" and "my kids don't cry because I'm a perfect mom" (although the ones saying that never actually say it. It's _not true_. Children are all different. Sure - maybe dd's issues did have something to do with the culture we live in...maybe they're related to pollutants, toxin, who know what. The _fact_ is that I could follow an AP checklist (if I'd ever seen one) like a rulebook, and dd still cried for hours every single night. DD was still unhappy, unsettled, and discontent for a large part of every day. DD still _never_ settled into any kind of nursing pattern (I was still leaking almost daily when she was 18 months old). It didn't work, if my goal was a baby who didn't cry - simply didn't work. Reading TCC, and the smug message from the author that if Western parents just did this, that and the other thing, we'd all have smiling, happy children 24/7, drove me around the bend. She even went one better, because nobody could have happy children in her world - it's not possible in western culture - that came through loud and clear. (FWIW - my parenting adapted to dd a lot...but all the things I was doing right out the chute with her produced...happy, smiling children with ds1 and ds2. Children are individuals, and I despise _any_ parenting label that claims, directly or indirectly, to be able to produce specific results with every child.)

that was always my impression reading doctor sears... 'just do AP and life will be so gentle and beautiful'... nor do i believe a non-crying baby is ideal- sometimes, just maybe sometimes, they do need to cry for a bit! for whatever reason, my kid has intense emotions, and i would rather him let it out. now why he has them i don't know, maybe it's cultural, but i tend to believe intense kids exist anywhere and that is just them.


----------



## felix23

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
can anyone give an example of when there is only one way of something being done safely? haven't encountered that yet.

Here's my example. Yesterday we were walking to down our road, dd running a little bit ahead of me, and I noticed a Rattlesnake lying in the road right in front of her. She had to stop running toward the snake, there was no other option. Because we live in an area that has a lot of poison snakes, she has learned that we I say freeze, she has to freeze right then, no discussion. Does she want to freeze, no, she wants to keep running and touch the snake, so this isn't consensual, this is me getting what I want (her to not run and touch a snake), and her not getting what she wants. She cried all the way back to our house because she wanted to run to the end of the road which we couldn't do because of the snake. She didn't want to run around the yard, or the porch, or the road in front of the house, she didn't want to pet a pretend snake, or draw a snake, or make a snake out of playdough, so she didn't get her way. This is me telling her what to do and for safety reasons she has to obey right away without question.


----------



## Whistler

This is an interesting thread and I wish I had time to read all of it. From the couple of pages I did read it looks like there are approaches all over the board. To me any serious thinking about parenting is going to produce better parenting practices no matter which route you choose as opposed to people who don't really care and don't think about it or try.

Someone once told me their approach to this that made so much sense I have thought a lot about it ever since. It has to do with a child's maturity level. When children are small they need a lot more guidance. They don't have very good judgement yet and can easily get themselves into danger. When they get older, they need to be able to make more decisions on their own in preparation for adulthood.

So I see it as a process that evolves over the child's first 20 years or so. When children are young I see my parenting as being on the more authoritarian side (as some would view it) in order to keep them safe, teach respect and learn social practices. My kids need to use a car seat, eat healthy food, brush their teeth, hold my hand in the parking lot, treat other people and animals with respect, not destroy property, etc. It takes a lot of training to teach them these things and they are not always things a child naturally wants to do, in my observation.

But as time goes along, I feel like more and more the child needs to be put in control of his or her own life and destiny. I want to unschool, for example, following the child's lead on what to learn and when. I do feel I need to add that I, as an adult with more experience and the overall "big picture", might need to offer a little guidance here and there in that respect.

Growing up, as I got older, because my parents had already taught me to make safe and healthy choices, they trusted me to make decisions for myself and I hope to do the same for my kids. I got to choose what to eat, when to sleep, who to have as friends, where to go, how much to spend. As my kids get older I hope to be able to entrust them more and more with those kinds of decisions until they come of age and are able to be responsible adults because they have had practice.

So I would say it evolves from some "control" when a child is little to "suggestions" or "guidance" when a child is older. By the time they are older teens, it would look very much like CL. When they are toddler, it looks much more like "authoritarian".

I observe kids of all ages and it seems to me that kids raised in this manner seem often to do really well. They know and observe enough of the social "rules" to do well in society but are self-confident enough to make their own decisions and make healthy choices. They also seem to have the least resentment towards their parents. There's no perfect "system" and no perfect people, but from my observation, either extreme (authoritarian, totally CL) has problems and the best turns out to be something of a balance in between.

Just my $0.02 and I don't really want to get into a debate about it at all.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
Here's my example. Yesterday we were walking to down our road, dd running a little bit ahead of me, and I noticed a Rattlesnake lying in the road right in front of her. She had to stop running toward the snake, there was no other option. Because we live in an area that has a lot of poison snakes, she has learned that we I say freeze, she has to freeze right then, no discussion. Does she want to freeze, no, she wants to keep running and touch the snake, so this isn't consensual, this is me getting what I want (her to not run and touch a snake), and her not getting what she wants. She cried all the way back to our house because she wanted to run to the end of the road which we couldn't do because of the snake. She didn't want to run around the yard, or the porch, or the road in front of the house, she didn't want to pet a pretend snake, or draw a snake, or make a snake out of playdough, so she didn't get her way. This is me telling her what to do and for safety reasons she has to obey right away without question.

but she got what she needed: to stay safe! You may not be able to meet whatever her need is right then and there, but you can meet it eventually. If it's a need for excitement or exploration you can meet that in other ways, that may have nothing to do with a snake. a pretend snake, a snake of playdough, etc would not meet the need of someone who is seeking a thrill. (if that's even what her need is) I'm just giving an example. but in the moment, you met her need and your own need - for her safety. But that is a great example where in the moment there were no other options... well of course she probably could have ran back to you, waited for you to catch up, walked back to you, walked backwards to get to you, etc. Not that you have to say "you can do this or this" but the choice is still there. If a child can't touch a rattlesnake that only covers what they can't do. There were many safe ways for her not to be near the rattle snake in the scenario, all of which I'm sure would have been acceptable to you? While she did not like that she couldn't touch the rattlesnake, she did have things she could do in not touching the snake that were okay with you, I'm guessing. For us in some cases the only thing they want to do besides the thing they can't (for safety reasons) is have a tantrum - and in my house that is an acceptable option.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Of course not. He'll transition to magazines. Then he'll move on to books, but just soft cover crappy ones first, then he'll move onto pooping on Shakespeare.

This is why I give you basics, SB, because it seems you aren't grasping even the smallest of them. My son is pooping on newspaper right now because he cannot get onto a toilet fixture (a platform that changes a western toilet into a squat one), he is too small. When he can do that, he will then use that.

If nothing else, at least I will have honoured his instincts for as long as possible before he has to sit to poop, should we be faced with a smaller bathroom for some reason.

Okay - that's great. I'm not arguing with it. But, in the long run, it has nothing to do with him not "ignoring" his instincts. Even if he has a squat toilet in your home, and then in his own home, he's going to have to use a public toilet sometime (or push his instincts back further, by just not pooping when he needs to in the first place). So, are you saying that if you raise him this way, and he uses a public toilet, even once, he's "ignoring" his instincts?

I'm not confused. I simply completely disagree with you about what ignoring our instincts actually _is_.

Quote:

I know all other toilets aren't like that, but we squat on them anyway, first we stand on the seat, then we squat down. My daughter is a master at it and so am I and no doubt my son will be. Most adults wouldn't dare, and hence we need to change the whole system. My point isn't that you should squat anyway, again, the point is that we ignored the instinct to squat.
And, once again - we differ on the fundamental point of what "ignoring" out instincts actually means. You're right - I wouldn't squat on a conventional western toilet. First of all, I'm obese, and I doubt that I _could_ - wouldn't fit. Second, I don't want to end up falling off and hurting myself, which happened to one of dh's coworkers. Those seats aren't built for that.

Quote:

And no, for most of us, I daresay ALL of us, we didn't _choose_ this way of pooping, we had it taught to us by our parents. How you can conceive of it being a choice is beyond me. I never chose it, no one I've ever met chose it, you're the first one I've ever met who when learning potty actually said to her mother something like, "well, of all the toileting choices I have, I feel the urge to squat, and you know what, I'm going to use a chair type toilet instead" and I fear you actually telling me that never happened so to prevent that, here's a hint, I'm being facetious.








Yeah - my parents taught me to use a toilet. That's not in doubt. They also taught me to go into another room if I wanted to play with my genitals. However, nobody ever suggested that this is/was anything but a cultural norm, or that it's the only way to do things, or the natural way to do things.

Quote:

In case you missed my point... you are confident that we don't ignore our instincts, we _choose_ to do something other than our instincts. I disagree, _*strongly*_. And I think most people reading would also disagree. I never chose one single thing in how I've ignored my instincts, it was how my society did it, so it was how I was taught, this is _*not*_ a choice. In no way does this fit the tiniest premise of "choice".

However I CAN chose to reclaim my instinctual self.
I truly don't get what you're talking about. If you _truly_ reclaim your instinctual self, and stop ignoring your instincts (ie. following certain cultural norms), you'll end up in jail. Our culture doesn't allow - even legally - for people to live in an entirely instinctual way. I'm well aware that my instincts and my gut often tell me something that I have to choose not to act on.

I was taught the consequences of violating cultural - and legal - norms. I can still choose to violate them, if I want to. That's a choice. I can choose to follow them, as well. I was not taught that those norms are necessarily "right", "natural" or "the only way".

In any case, while our society may have managed to suppress some instincts, and I do choose to override some others (eg. not groping dh in public, even when I want to), that wasn't actually my original point. I was _taught_ to listen to my instincts. Maybe my parents overrode a couple (eg. with toilet training)...but I was never, ever taught to ignore them. You're basically saying we all ignore our instincts, because that's what we do in our society, but _you_ are reclaiming your instinctual self, and teaching your children to follow their instincts...yet this entire conversation started with your rebuttal to the notion that my parents may have done the same thing. You really do seem to be saying two things at once...that we can teach our children to live by instinct, but that my parents couldn't have done so. So, yeah - I'm not getting it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *spottiew* 
that was always my impression reading doctor sears... 'just do AP and life will be so gentle and beautiful'... nor do i believe a non-crying baby is ideal- sometimes, just maybe sometimes, they do need to cry for a bit! for whatever reason, my kid has intense emotions, and i would rather him let it out. now why he has them i don't know, maybe it's cultural, but i tend to believe intense kids exist anywhere and that is just them.

Yeah - dd is/was very intense. She's hyper-sensitive, easily over-stimulated, very volatile - just not like any other baby I ever met.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Yeah...I tried a more consensual approach to the carseat with dd when she was little (didn't call it that, as I'd never even heard of CL at that point, but that's what we did). It didn't work. Bottom line is, she _hated_ the carseat. She finally stopped fighting and screaming when she realized that we had things we _had_ to do, and she _had_ to be in the seat - no choice in the matter. As long as I tried to address underlying needs, etc., we got nowhere. Her underlying need was to _not_ be strapped into the torture seat...and that wasn't negotiable. (I can relate. I've heard people talk about putting 5-point harnesses in adult seats, and I'll stop driving the day that becomes required, no matter how badly we need the car.)

I'm confused though. Her desire was eventually met? she didn't have to stay in the car seat, she was eventually removed from the car seat, and her need for safety (which is bigger then her desire to not be strapped into the car seat). You empathized with her I'm sure. For my kids, as long as they have had plenty of time to have their need to expending energy met, they are fine in car seats. My youngest actually loves being in a car seat while sitting outside. My DD was the one who hated car seats, now she doesn't mind and loves car rides.


----------



## felix23

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
but she got what she needed: to stay safe! You may not be able to meet whatever her need is right then and there, but you can meet it eventually. If it's a need for excitement or exploration you can meet that in other ways, that may have nothing to do with a snake. a pretend snake, a snake of playdough, etc would not meet the need of someone who is seeking a thrill. (if that's even what her need is) I'm just giving an example. but in the moment, you met her need and your own need - for her safety. But that is a great example where in the moment there were no other options... well of course she probably could have ran back to you, waited for you to catch up, walked back to you, walked backwards to get to you, etc. Not that you have to say "you can do this or this" but the choice is still there. If a child can't touch a rattlesnake that only covers what they can't do. There were many safe ways for her not to be near the rattle snake in the scenario, all of which I'm sure would have been acceptable to you? While she did not like that she couldn't touch the rattlesnake, she did have things she could do in not touching the snake that were okay with you, I'm guessing. For us in some cases the only thing they want to do besides the thing they can't (for safety reasons) is have a tantrum - and in my house that is an acceptable option.

She had to freeze and then follow my instructions to walk back to me. Snakes can move very, very fast, so I'm not going to discuss if she wants to walk back to me by hopping, or singing, or skipping. I don't care how she gets there, she just has to come as quickly as possible. Yes there were plenty of things for her to do away from the snake, but she didn't want to do them, she really wanted to pet the snake and them walk to the end of the road. In her three year old mind she doesn't understand that she doesn't need to pet the snake, in her mind I am not meeting her needs, I am taking away what she wants. And she can see through me trying to manipulate her into being happy by giving her other options. So in the end she went to her room and cried.

When I can I'll give her options, but she can't always get what she feels like she needs. I just don't see how me telling her what to do and her having to obey when she doesn't want to is consensual. That is why I don't think I'm a consensual parent.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
She had to freeze and then follow my instructions to walk back to me. Snakes can move very, very fast, so I'm not going to discuss if she wants to walk back to me by hopping, or singing, or skipping. I don't care how she gets there, she just has to come as quickly as possible. Yes there were plenty of things for her to do away from the snake, but she didn't want to do them, she really wanted to pet the snake and them walk to the end of the road. In her three year old mind she doesn't understand that she doesn't need to pet the snake, in her mind I am not meeting her needs, I am taking away what she wants. And she can see through me trying to manipulate her into being happy by giving her other options. So in the end she went to her room and cried.

When I can I'll give her options, but she can't always get what she feels like she needs. I just don't see how me telling her what to do and her having to obey when she doesn't want to is consensual. That is why I don't think I'm a consensual parent.

I know you aren't going to discuss that at a time like that! what I said was, that any of those options would have been okay with you. A child doesnt need the choices spelled out for them to make a choice. She could have skipped back or ran back or walked back. I'm sure you wouldnt have said "I told you to WALK back. not skip!!" and at the end, when she couldn't pet the snake and the other options weren't good enough, she had a tantrum - AND YOU ALLOWED THAT TANTRUM and YOU EMPATHIZED with her. The tantrum was an okay alternative to petting the snake.

she gets what she needs, not what she wants - but you understand her wants. Just like Storm Bride - who DID see her childs desire not to be in a car seat as a valid desire. Her child probably needed to be comfortable. She wanted not to be in the car seat. Both were vaid needs and desired, that were eventually met, they just couldn't be met in that exact moment because there was a STRONGER need - the need for safety.

Im not trying to convince you that you are consensual, because I dont know the thought process behind how you are parenting, but I can see plenty of CL mama's handling the situation the same way you did. I've read several CL books lately and I what I see is them seeing the child's feelings and desires are VALID - not something they have to do. If you read my other posts you will see some quotes that explain it better, I dont want to retype them.

My point is, my child isn't going to get bit by a snake because I am CL or because I'm going to waste time giving choices till their ears fall off. And I'm not going to sit in a parking lot for 3 hours because my child doesn't want to be in car seat and I'm not going to drive around with them in my lap. And to some here that means I am not living consensually, but in other threads those same people will say my ideas don't work for them because I DO live consensually and that doesnt work for them. Kind of confusing, but as I said not really all that important. I don't care if you think I'm CL or think you aren't or don't want to be or don't want me to be - just try to understand that living consensually does not mean being bitten by a snake, jumping off the roof, or driving without a seat belt.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
= I've read several CL books lately and I what I see is them seeing the child's feelings and desires are VALID - not something they have to do. .

I think if you asked the question "Do you believe your dc's feelings and desires are valid?", the huge majority of posters would say yes--CL or not. Validating feelings (especially when you are not meeting the desire) is AP parenting 101, right?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I have gotten more in depth on that thought in other posts in this thread, explaining the difference, but yet to me, a lot of CL seems to be AP common sense, unfortunately it was not common sense I was able to fully understand until recently. And apparently, some of that common sense means people think I'm nuts because I respond to my crying baby and my tantrumming child with the same thought process. My child who is mad they can't jump off the roof I see their request for adventure just as important as a crying babies request to be held 'just because'... its like an extension of AP, taking that respect to the next level... I mean obviously what I am saying here ISNT AP parenting 101, because so many people are telling me they wouldnt do a lot of the things I suggest.

I am done debating this though. It's more important to some people that I'm not CL or that their approach that isnt CL is the same as my approach that is CLish or whatever, frankly, its annoying. I don't understand the hostility or why is so very very very very very important that either I am not CL or that if I am CL then that means my children are tyrants. Whatever helps a person sleep at night at this point I suppose! I think I've pretty much covered it in all my other posts and be willing to read something besides internet pages of *personal* CL families before making a blanket judgment - I mean if one REALLY cares to understand it. Otherwise I can only assume one only wants to argue about it, or be hurtful to others to feel better about themselves.


----------



## transformed

Super Glue: I think I yell too much to be CL. LOL


----------



## ernalala

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
There is a difference between ways to ride happily and ways to ride safely. The only way to ride safely or legally is for the child to be strapped into a car seat. Period.

Yes. But the consensual way of looking at it is that it definitely is OBLIGATORY to be buckled, but to adress the athmosphere around the 'getting buckled in'- time.

In our car, one car seat can be moved to another seat. And our kids fit in both so they can change seats occasionally when we encounter an 'I can't be buclked in!!!' problem.

We have been postponing going, or stopped at the side of the road to adress the issue with our spirited Ds2. Getting somewjere in time is much lower on our list of priorities than being/driving safely and happily in the car.

We have once missed out on a wedding evening feast while I was nursing our little one in the car the whole evening. When we were finally all ready to join, we had the opportunity to taste some of the party and say hello to everyone, actualy BE there (how short it even was, too noisy/crowded for our child) and that was ok, too. Now we got a story about this to tell our firstborn .

I think you can count us in on the mostly consensual, but LITTLE structure or combo list, despite my husband being less consensual than I am at times. Fully consensual wouldn't match us since dh is not on the ideologic cl train and since I personally feel that 100 percent consensual for me personally is an ideal, not nescessarily an achievable or required goal to BE(come) a consensual parent/being.

Yes there are things that are unnegotiable, especially with very small chidren involved. What makes ME deal with it consensually is finding the most consensual way to get towards that goal without resorting to threats or manipulation. The focus is most of all on the way to achieve the goal, not just the result.

NOT saying that all parents who do not do the cl approach are manipulative etc. just saying that is the way I try NOT to be by doing cl ways.

I also find that compromising on a topic does not mean that everyone is unhappy of the final solution, oh no! Imo, it is about reaching a state of mind where you consider everyones needs and your own, and by adressing yours and others needs is what makes you can be happy about the consensus even if it wasn't what you initially had in mind/planned.
I find that working on this in myself really makes a huge difference in finding peaceful and satisfactory harmony in (tough) descisionmaking.

Also, I do not expect everyone else around me to have to be consensual either since it is not a total family concept for us right now.

And yes, sometimes I struggle with certain situations to find the most happy or consensual solution. It's not always the easiest one either







. And so thankful for cl groups for advice when needed. There's always another perspective on things even when you think you'd thought it all through already and didn't find a way.

Oh yeah I was much much less consensual about many parenting issues some time ago (wanting too much control OVER others, and/or situations and not being at all happy like that cfr. our family). It is very hard to condition oneself towards more consensuality, or any other parentng approach when you come from a place that's been (largely) different. There MAY be a time when I'll say that my personal approach may undergo some changes because it 'didn't really work for us', and there may not be so much drifting away from cl ever again, I mean, doing cl or any other way doesn't make that a 'cl dictatorship' for me nor others (since that would go way past cl lol) and I want to be open to other ways when needed. Cl is a way of being. But there are ALWAYS descisions made by parents only or initially (eg to have children, to breastfeed, how to parent . I do not think it's exclusive of one another either.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ernalala* 
Yes. But the consensual way of looking at it is that it definitely is OBLIGATORY to be buckled, but to adress the athmosphere around the 'getting buckled in'- time.

Yes, I understand that. I was merely pointing out that there is indeed only one way to ride safely and was interested to hear how a CL parent would address the issue if a child WOULD NOT comply despite all the sining of songs and offers of snacks and attempts to address whatever the underlying need might be because in some cases that need might just be to not be in the seat but there is no way around getting strapped in the seat if the child is going to ride in the car.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I think that falls in the catagory that Alfia Kohen says is time to put your foot down and empathize.

As for yelling, I do yell sometimes. Maybe that means I'm not mostly CL - but I see it as I am human and I make a mistake. I dont think I have some right to yell that my children don't have. When I yell I apologize, and it's okay for my children to let me know its not okay for me to talk to them that way - to remind me to talk to them like they are someone I love. Different from a parent who yells and doesn't apologize, or thinks they CAN yell because they are the parent (or a parent who hits their child and thinks its okay to do so, but it wouldnt be okay for their child to hit them)

Raising Our Children Raising Ourselves, has been challenging more then any other book on the self determination issue. However, it reads, p42:

"Sometimes parents confuse being loving with letting a child do whatever he wants. No one gets to do what they want all the time... (gives example where this is true for an adult, such as when you drie you have to obey trafic rules)... There are considerations for the needs of others that limit our freedom as well as protect it.... Bending the world to fit a child's every whim can hinder the natural development of his emotional resilience. The child is born into a real world and into your social community. He wants to belong and be part of the real social web of family and friends. Treat him as eq2ual WHILE BEING CONSIDERATE OF HIS LIMITATIONS. He may not have the ability to wait or share yet, BUT THAT DOES NT MEAN HE CAN TRASH YOUR HOUSE, GET EVERY TOY, OR PULL YOUR HAIR. Loving him, therefore, is finding considerate ways to meet his needs and being empathic and empowering when life does NOT provide his every desire."

and someone is going to say that means that evey parent is consensual. Maybe so. But let me say I was DEFINITELY AP and GD but now I am more consensual and things look very different in our home. I'm learning to join my child in their world more. To not see dry spagetti all over the floor as a problem, or chalk writings all over the house as an issue. People are more important then things. I give them their need for exploration and expression, and then I meet my need for a clean house by cleaning it up. They will join in in cleaning sometimes, but not others. sometimes they will clean it up themselves. "letting go" of some of the unnecessary control does not mean they don't get buckled into car seats, or that if you do then you aren't CL. Perhaps some CL families would say "then I wont make them use the car seat" but that does not reflect what CL "is" it only reflects what CL is for THAT family. And if they saw it as dangerous and did it anyway, then that would not be CL. I can see how come can confuse CL with permissiveness. I can see how CL wouldn't work for some people. I can understand why some people try to be consensual where they can, but its more of an ideal then a reality.

I dont think CL and AP are the same.
I dont think CL and permissiveness are the same.

I do think that CL builds off AP, and that with CL a family will "permit" more when safe to do so, that they perhaps take "picking their battles" a step farther (if its not hurting anyone, its okay for the child to be self determined), that CL families operate on a "how can I meet this need" basis and less on a "how can I get them to do what I say" basis. Sometimes the actions a CL family may be the same as other families who are not CL, but its the mndset behind their actions and the overall message being sent to the child through out the course of their life that is different. That despite their age and size they are equal and deserve equal respect. No, they do not yet have the same knowledge and understanding of things as we do, they have different truths then we do, and we are still their parents. But we are not "more" then them because of that. We do not say "you can't do that because I don't like it" we say "you can't do that because its not safe for you or someone else" Or if its not respectful of someone else (you can't eat food from our neighbors fridge)

Self determining means letting the child make decisions that effect them when it doesn't interfere with someone else's life in a negative way. They can decide to have a messy room - but they cant break into their neighbors house and trash it. That wouldn't be self determining, that would be neighbor-determining. It's what CL avoids teaching: doing things that effect ourselves or protect the safety of others.. . controlling ourselves, not others. We don't refrain from controlling our children only to let them turn around and control us or others. We control ourselves without controlling others, and teach our children to do the same. We treat our children with the same respect we would treat any adult. I insist anyone in my car have a seat belt on, regardless of age.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I think that falls in the catagory that Alfia Kohen says is time to put your foot down and empathize.

See, I guess that is where the issue with CL lies for me. If parents can ultimately "put their foot down" then that directly conflicts with the definition of CL:

"It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone's wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties."

To me, it seems disingenuous to say that one values their child's wants and needs equally just to then say well expect for when it is really inconvenient. I mean if one was truly committed to CL, then they would never put a child in the car seat against their will, right? They would go to the ends of the earth to figure out a way around it. But wait, then _their_ needs and wants wouldn't be getting met, right? So it is just all to illogical for me. I understand the intention and agree with a lot of it, but I guess I am just more comfortable and it feels more honest to me to say my husband and I are at the top of the hierarchy and push come to shove, our word goes. I think that is the part that bugs me about CL is that by definition it is made out to somehow be a bad thing for parents to own and accept their role a the top, but really there is no way to get around having that role regardless of how much one doesn't want to accept it. No matter how CL anyone thinks they are, it is just not possible from a logical standpoint to be so. At least to me. This is all about how I see CL as it relates to *my family* and why I won't use the term to define *my family*.

Anyway, I'm all for doing whatever works best for you and labeling yourself however you want







. Just pointing out why even some people who might appear pretty darn CL don't accept the label.


----------



## Theoretica

I think that's exactly where I split off from the CL tribe too. Sometimes things just have to happen, and there's no getting a kid to agree with it. I can validate until the cows come home, but sometimes they HAVE to be in the car seat. Sometimes they HAVE to be buckled. Sometimes they HAVE to leave a store/park/restaurant, and no amount of validating or bargaining or bribing is going to convince them.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

""It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone's wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties.""

I dont see how that says that you have to do what they want though? You can still consider the child's desire and address it. You then also have a need for safety, which is more important then the need for being comfortable in a car seat, for example. the underlying need, even if the child doesn't yet understand, for all parties is the need for safety in some cases. those are the cases where you "put your foot down" it doesnt mean their feelings arent valid or arent addressed. So no, it doesnt conflict with the definition to me. As I said though, even by the definition of CL as written on the website and described through all the books they recommend on that website, I do am not totally CL. I aspire to be, but I still find a hard time "accepting" spagetti strewn across the floor. LOL

but I see what you are saying about why you don't use CL for your family. I really think its all about the mindset though. Sometimes, Children will be the ones who will ultimately put their foot down as well







I strive for equality. And the underlying need of safety will take precedence. I am meeting the underlying need of safety by having my child ride in a carseat/ Some CL parents may not feel that carseats provide more safety so an acceptable option to them is not riding in one, but when you feel safety is an issue, you are not "not practicing CL" because you are meeting the childs need instead of their desire. That does not conflict with any of the definitons of CL as presented, other then the definitions of CL be presented by people who DONT practice CL and havent read anything about it other then how SOME CL families practice CL...

What it comes down to do me, is I try to be CL as I think it's the best for *my* family. When trying to live more consensually, I have gotten a lot of insight from other CL mamas, the definition of CL, books on CL, etc. It's a shame so many people think they understand CL when they don't, and are unwlling to open their eyes.

If you don't want to practice CL thats fine - but you can practice CL and put a child in a carseat, stop them from jumping off a building, and not let them play baseball on the highway. A child isn't more prone to death just because you practice CL. And keeping your child Safe does not mean that you aren't practicing CL.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

also, CL doesn't use bribes. and it doesn't mean preventing your child from having feelings. Read the quote I posted from Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves - which so far has been more "challenging" to me the UP.


----------



## Theoretica

But see, that's exactly the thing...there are times there IS no 'mutually agreeable solution' BECAUSE the parent has to put their foot down and the child has to do something they just don't want to do.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

but the underlying need is still met - the need for safety. then what you can do is work outside the situation to prepare for the future in attempts to acheive a mutually agreeable solution for the future.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I dont see how that says that you have to do what they want though? You can still consider the child's desire and address it. You then also have a need for safety, which is more important then the need for being comfortable in a car seat, for example. the underlying need, even if the child doesn't yet understand, for all parties is the need for safety in some cases. those are the cases where you "put your foot down" it doesnt mean their feelings arent valid or arent addressed. So no, it doesnt conflict with the definition to me.

"It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone's wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. *Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created* or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties."

See I can't past the fact putting a child in the car seat against their wishes is in no way a mutually agreeable solution.

Also, I think I have a different idea of what an underlying need is. Yes, putting a child in a car seat meets the child's need for safety but to me that's not really their _underlying_ need. To me, an underlying need is something from within, same as a want or a desire really. It's the thing you look for when the tantrum over getting in the car ensues. Are they hungry? Tired? Need a diaper change? But sometimes that need is not identifiable or it's just not possible to meet at that time. I don't think my child who doesn't want to get in the car seats underlying need is to buckle up.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
If you don't want to practice CL thats fine - but you can practice CL and put a child in a carseat, stop them from jumping off a building, and not let them play baseball on the highway. A child isn't more prone to death just because you practice CL. And keeping your child Safe does not mean that you aren't practicing CL.

I've heard people say they will wait as long as necessary for the child to be ready to get in the seat or that they would just not go somewhere, not that they would allow the child to ride in car without being in the seat.

(Again this is a friendly discussion about parenting philosophy. I'm not debating or criticizing anyone's choice. I know there have been some hurt feeling here but no attacks from me....promise.


----------



## felix23

RiverScout, I think that your experience with CL is about the same as mine. The people I know who practice CL do not make their child do anything that they don't want to. They would never force their child to ride in a carseat, they would just not go places. If this means missing, weddings, funerals, appointmens, then they miss them. My cousin who practices CL used to live with her parents. When she bought a house, her ds didn't want to move, so she didn't make him. He still lives with her parents and comes to visit her whenever he wants to. There is never a time when they put their foot down and what they say goes. It works for them and they are happy, he is happy, so CL works for their family.

So according to them I do not practice CL since, when it comes to certian situations, I make the final decision, regardless of my childrens wants/desires. But according to you I do practice CL since I try to give choices whenever I can, but I am willing to put my foot down and make her do things that she doesn't want to. I guess I have never heard CL defined like you define it.


----------



## Theoretica

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
"It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone's wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. *Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created* or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties."

<snip>

I've heard people say they will wait as long as necessary for the child to be ready to get in the seat or that they would just not go somewhere, not that they would allow the child to ride in car without being in the seat.

Well and how is it supposed to work out when child A has to get to soccer practice by 4, and child B refuses to get into the car seat because they've decided they don't want/need to, so then what? Maybe when a kid is an only the parents have the luxury of just doing everything on the kiddo's timetable, or not doing anything the kiddo doesn't consent to, but when you have more than one kid....or four kids....sometimes consent isn't possible.

I'm not disagreeing with saying hey, I'm with you, I wouldn't like it either, I support your feelings, but....you gotta do it. I'm probably annoyingly empathetic to my kids, but that doesn't change that they HAVE to do some things some times.

And it's not CL. Because as much as I involve them and encourage their consent in whatever possible, there are times I just have to be the mom and direct the show.


----------



## karina5

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
RiverScout, I think that your experience with CL is about the same as mine. The people I know who practice CL do not make their child do anything that they don't want to. They would never force their child to ride in a carseat, they would just not go places. If this means missing, weddings, funerals, appointmens, then they miss them. My cousin who practices CL used to live with her parents. When she bought a house, her ds didn't want to move, so she didn't make him. He still lives with her parents and comes to visit her whenever he wants to. There is never a time when they put their foot down and what they say goes. It works for them and they are happy, he is happy, so CL works for their family.

.


I always wonder how people that don't make their kid do anything ever at all pay their bills. I have to work. That means I have to put DS in his carseat. Now I can make try to make it pleasant (and I do) but there have been a small handful of times that he HAD to get into that carseat whether he wanted to or not, or I could lose my job.

Or what about if there are 3 or 4 kids. One wants to do this, another wants to do that, and #'s 3 and 4 want something different yet. How is that handled?

How does that work for people who have jobs and more than one kid?

Also, it seems in a situation like this the child gets what they want but the parent does not. Wouldn't "consensual" be a misnomer then?


----------



## karina5

LOL, I see Theoretica wondering the same thing!


----------



## felix23

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karina5* 
I always wonder how people that don't make their kid do anything ever at all pay their bills. I have to work. That means I have to put DS in his carseat. Now I can make try to make it pleasant (and I do) but there have been a small handful of times that he HAD to get into that carseat whether he wanted to or not, or I could lose my job.

Or what about if there are 3 or 4 kids. One wants to do this, another wants to do that, and #'s 3 and 4 want something different yet. How is that handled?

How does that work for people who have jobs and more than one kid?

Also, it seems in a situation like this the child gets what they want but the parent does not. Wouldn't "consensual" be a misnomer then?

I don't know other people do it, but with my cousin, her mom works from her house and there is also a big extended family all living nearby. So if he doesn't want to go somewhere and they have to be somewhere, then they call a relative to come stay with him while they are gone. When he was a toddler he didn't go anywhere they couldn't walk, because he didn't want to get into a carseat. I don't know how they would have managed without the family to take care of him.

They only plan on having one child so they they won't have to deal with children having conflicting needs. I have no clue how people with more then one child handle these situations.

I agree with you that it sounds like he gets his way and the parents never do, but they say that they are happy living this way. There is no way that I could live like that, because I believe that I am the adult and I'm the one who gets to make the final decision. I'll give choices when I can, but when I can't, my children will have to do what I say, regardless of what they really want. I'll make it as pleasant as I can, but sometimes in life they have to do things that they don't want to do.


----------



## waiflywaif

This thing about the "underlying need" bugs me precisely BECAUSE it seems so authoritarian and hierarchical. It may be gussied up in consensual language, but it is definitely about the superior wisdom of the parent.

A tiny baby has simple needs. To be held, to be fed, to be changed, to have a comfortable body temperature. But put yourself in the position of an older child for a minute. I want (you might even say I NEED) to do the dangerous thing. My parent circumvents my need and explains (in perhaps not so many words) that my "real" "underlying" need is for safety.

How is the parent a mind-reader? How can the parent say, "Oh you don't really NEED that, you NEED this?" That just annoys me. Much easier to swallow if a parent says (gently, lovingly) that I can't do X because X is unsafe, and a parent's job is to keep me safe.

I know the adult = child equation is not always valid, but I can only imagine how irritated I'd be if someone stopped me from doing something by explaining that I don't really need to do that, I must need something else deep down inside.


----------



## 2xy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
RiverScout, I think that your experience with CL is about the same as mine. The people I know who practice CL do not make their child do anything that they don't want to. They would never force their child to ride in a carseat, they would just not go places. If this means missing, weddings, funerals, appointmens, then they miss them.

I don't think this is CL at all. What you're describing sounds like TCS.

CL takes everyone's desires into consideration. TCS only takes a child's desires into consideration. And if there is more than one child, it appears that the one who acts out the most is the one who is catered to. If the 4yo doesn't want to ride in a carseat, the whole family has to miss the trip to the zoo.

I practice mostly CL, but we're not extremists. Sometimes my kids hear the words "no," or "you have to." They're kids. They need guidance and boundaries. If they have all the answers, then what are parents here for? I strongly feel that I'm more than just a wallet and a ride.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
"It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone's wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. *Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created* or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties."

See I can't past the fact putting a child in the car seat against their wishes is in no way a mutually agreeable solution.

Also, I think I have a different idea of what an underlying need is. Yes, putting a child in a car seat meets the child's need for safety but to me that's not really their _underlying_ need. To me, an underlying need is something from within, same as a want or a desire really. It's the thing you look for when the tantrum over getting in the car ensues. Are they hungry? Tired? Need a diaper change? But sometimes that need is not identifiable or it's just not possible to meet at that time. I don't think my child who doesn't want to get in the car seats underlying need is to buckle up.

I've heard people say they will wait as long as necessary for the child to be ready to get in the seat or that they would just not go somewhere, not that they would allow the child to ride in car without being in the seat.

(Again this is a friendly discussion about parenting philosophy. I'm not debating or criticizing anyone's choice. I know there have been some hurt feeling here but no attacks from me....promise.
















If we didn't have to drive where we were going, we could walk. I do plan outtings to include time to handle a child not being ready to move on to the next thing. So I do agree with that, but I don't think it means that if we lived 20 miles from a grocery store and HAD to drive there and didn't have a farm with food to harvest for ourselves that we would get to the grocery store, with children in carseats. It's not like they would starve in those cases. It seems like some see CL to be unreasonable, but in practice it's really not.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2xy* 
I don't think this is CL at all. What you're describing sounds like TCS.

CL takes everyone's desires into consideration. TCS only takes a child's desires into consideration. And if there is more than one child, it appears that the one who acts out the most is the one who is catered to. If the 4yo doesn't want to ride in a carseat, the whole family has to miss the trip to the zoo.

I practice mostly CL, but we're not extremists. Sometimes my kids hear the words "no," or "you have to." They're kids. They need guidance and boundaries. If they have all the answers, then what are parents here for? I strongly feel that I'm more than just a wallet and a ride.

I agree there is a huge confusion between CL and TCS. I think even some TCS's call themselves CL not realizing they are really TCS, and this adds to the confusion.

Also, I think perhaps in reasonable practice, one may only be able to be consensual 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time either the child OR the parent may make the decision and while all needs will be met, and most desires will be met (but sometimes these things are met later, not at the exact moment) that perhaps the other 10% is still consensual because its still equal in the sense that sometimes the parent will pout their needs on hold, and sometimes the child will. Perhaps you might not be able to be consensual in the moment, but you are consensual over all because you are in an understanding that sometimes the child will have to wait for you to pour them a cup a juice because you are mid pee - even though they want the juice NOW. OR sometimes you may have to wait to eat dinner because your baby is crying for a diaper change. Even if in the moment your need isn't met, and even if in the moment one family members doesn't "mutually agree" to put their need on hold, they do mutually agree that sometimes they do have to wait, and sometimes someone else will have to wait.


----------



## Theoretica

Eeeeeenteresting!

I just read through that TCS website and one of the phrases is this:

"TCS is everyone getting what they want"

"TCS is no one deferring to or giving in to anyone."

How does 'everyone get what they want' when 'no one defers or gives in to anyone'?????

The logic doesn't even work there!


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I agree there is a huge confusion between CL and TCS.

I'm not even going to touch the issue of TCS







. But I'm definitley not confusing them but rather pointing out that I don't see how CL logically works due to the whole "mutually agreeable" thing amongst other things. It just seems to be a flawed and overreaching idea. To me it's one of things that works great...until it doesn't.


----------



## karina5

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Theoretica* 
Eeeeeenteresting!

I just read through that TCS website and one of the phrases is this:

"TCS is everyone getting what they want"

"TCS is no one deferring to or giving in to anyone."

How does 'everyone get what they want' when 'no one defers or gives in to anyone'?????

The logic doesn't even work there!


Yeah. That doesn't make any sense at all. Someone want to explain?? I'm genuniely interested.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Also, I think perhaps in reasonable practice, one may only be able to be consensual 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time either the child OR the parent may make the decision and while all needs will be met, and most desires will be met (but sometimes these things are met later, not at the exact moment) that perhaps the other 10% is still consensual because its still equal in the sense that sometimes the parent will pout their needs on hold, and sometimes the child will. Perhaps you might not be able to be consensual in the moment, but you are consensual over all because you are in an understanding that sometimes the child will have to wait for you to pour them a cup a juice because you are mid pee - even though they want the juice NOW. OR sometimes you may have to wait to eat dinner because your baby is crying for a diaper change. Even if in the moment your need isn't met, and even if in the moment one family members doesn't "mutually agree" to put their need on hold, they do mutually agree that sometimes they do have to wait, and sometimes someone else will have to wait.

I saw this addition after I posted. I think if one was willing to accept it wouldn't work all the time, I could see how it would work for them. Me, it would drive me nuts to set a goal I couldn't reach 10% of the time







.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

it's not a flawed and over reaching idea to me, its something to aspire towards.

So, I say you need to stay in the car seat. Or my child says 'I need you to change my diaper before dinner' (in not so many words lol) and while obviously that is conflicting needs that both can't be met simutaniously, all needs will be met. as for the need not being met in the moment, its still mutually agreeable because you are at the understanding that sometimes adult needs get put on hold and sometimes child needs get put on hold, and all needs are always met, and all needs are met as soon as possible, and all needs are equal. The child doesn't have to be buckled into the car seat because my need it more important then their need. The diaper isn't changed because my need is more valid then theirs. Both needs are met, both are valid, both are equally important. One need being a priority over the other at a given time does not make the need more valid or important. And in the car seat example, the need for safety is a priority over the need for not sitting in the car seat. Both of those are needs of the child. neither need is more important or more valid - but one is a priority in the moment. Both of those needs will be met though.

To give example of this : its equally important to pay the electric bill as it is to pay the water bill. It's the 1st of the month. The electric bill is due the 3rd and the water is due the 10th. I cannot pay them both right now, for whatever reason, and so I pay the electric bill now and will pay the water bill later. Not because the water bill is less valid or important. And so we can apply that to the parents needs and childs needs. Sometimes we have to "pay" the childs needs first, sometimes the parents needs. Ideally, we can pay all needs at the same time.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
I saw this addition after I posted. I think if one was willing to accept it wouldn't work all the time, I could see how it would work for them. Me, it would drive me nuts to set a goal I couldn't reach 10% of the time







.

but like I said, even when you aren't meeting the goal of the moment, it still meets the overall goal. You are still living consensually 100% of the time, even if only 90% of "situations" can be mutually agreeable "in the moment" because our family mutually agrees that sometimes, even though all needs are valid, one need will have to be put on hold until later. Which need that is, is not determined on age, but priority. Sometimes its the parents need on hold, sometimes its the child's need. It's not automatically the childs need, because the child is equal to the parent.







and something being a priority, as I explained above, does not mean its less valid or important.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I don't understand TCS. All I know is the way some peopel explain CL in their families sounds more like TCS to me. And the way some non-CL families think of CL sounds more like TCS to me. I don't practice it though so I'm not going to knock it.


----------



## webjefita

Quote:

"TCS is everyone getting what they want"

"TCS is no one deferring to or giving in to anyone."
I'll take a stab. I spent some time awhile back studying up on TCS. I think the idea is, you can decide to want something that you didn't want before, because the other person / people want it. I know it can get sticky because nothing is 100% all the time, right? But I think people will take into account the fact that you also want your family members to be happy. Otherwise you're just assuming that everyone is naturally greedy or doesn't care about other people's feelings.

So during the negotiations, you can change your priorities and decide this time you want what the other person wants, too. Just my take on things, and I'm definitely not a TCS'er







Although I can see the good points in all of these approaches.

One thing I struggle with is: which is the right approach for making it more likely that the child will internalize the moral/lesson? My DH would say, the more often you make them do it, the more consistent you are with your authority and your example, the more likely they will internalize the habits/morals/values you want them to have. Others would say, if you have to "make them" do something, you cannot also "make them" feel something (eg in the case of forcing an apology). and that by having required something of them, they attribute the reason they acted in a certain way to having been made to do it, and not an internal reason. So they will be less likely to make that choice on their own in the future, possibly when mom or dad aren't there to make it for them. Which is where I have a problem.

I definitely feel that unless they also have the choice *not* to do or feel something, they do not really have the choice *to* do or feel the "right thing". If it's not their choice. I want my kids to pick up their toys once a day or when I ask them, whatever, but if I make them and they do it without wanting to, then they also can't have made the decision to do the right thing by helping take care of the house and cooperating with the family... they only did it because they had to.

Sigh. I don't know where I stand exactly on it. I know there is some stuff about internal/external motivation in Unconditional Parenting, it just confuses me sometimes.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I learned to apologize from my mother forcing me. I learned contrition on my own though, and probably at a delayed age because I only knew apologies for self gain, I never knew them for consideration and true compassion towards the other person. So, in my own life experience, which is all I can speak for, I find that we internalize habits, morals, and values more when we are allowed to experience them then when we are forced to experience the actions attributed to them.


----------



## ann_of_loxley

Quote:

RiverScout, I think that your experience with CL is about the same as mine. The people I know who practice CL do not make their child do anything that they don't want to. They would never force their child to ride in a carseat, they would just not go places. If this means missing, weddings, funerals, appointmens, then they miss them.
But that might actually be CL to _some_ people - but not _all_. Maybe to the person who missed a wedding because their child did not want to go into the car seat, missed the wedding as the mutual agreeable solution. They were happy and okay with that solution just as much as their child was. Some things are like this for us, some things are not. We have not gone swimming before because my son did not want to get dressed and leave the house - he just wanted to play all day at home by himself. That day, that was fine - that was a mutual agreeable solution for the both of us. We were both happy with that solution. Other days, that may not work for me - so we come up with something different. Maybe a different activity. Maybe DS just doesn't want to wear clothes that day (has nothing to do with not wanting to go swimming) or something else that we can come up with some consensual solution with. This is why CL does not look the same in all families. Because what you would be happy with, I might not be and what we would be happy with, you might not be. You might look at our 'solution' and think '_that_ would _never_ work for _me_!' - and thats fine! If the same problem came up for you, you could find a different solution that would work for _your_ family (and that solution might not work for us!). If any of that makes sense.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Makes sense to me Ann


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Can I just say, as much as this conversation seems to go in circles at times, I think everyone has been really mature about it - 12 pages and no one has broken terms of service. It's a good debate. I wonder if anyone at any point will be willing to see things differently then when they came into it though lol


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I'm confused though. Her desire was eventually met? she didn't have to stay in the car seat, she was eventually removed from the car seat, and her need for safety (which is bigger then her desire to not be strapped into the car seat). You empathized with her I'm sure. For my kids, as long as they have had plenty of time to have their need to expending energy met, they are fine in car seats. My youngest actually loves being in a car seat while sitting outside. My DD was the one who hated car seats, now she doesn't mind and loves car rides.









DD was _not_ fine in a car seat - ever. She hated getting into the car until we switched her to a booster...hated it. Her desire was met, when we got out of the car. That was it.

I personally have my doubts that her need for safety outweighed her need (not desire - emotional _need_) not to be strapped into a carseat. However, I'm not in agreement with our culture's acceptance of emotionally abusing children on a regular (sometimes daily) basis, in the name of maybe keeping them safe, in the event of a possible accident. I realize I'm in a minority on that one, though. It's against the law. I can't afford the fine (probably could now, but ds2 doesn't care, anyway). She went in her seat. It wasn't "mutually agreeable" in any way. It didn't meet any underlying need of dd's. It was simply necessary...and unpleasant, all around. Yeah - I empathized. I'd consider that to be hellish. I hate even a shoulder and lap belt with a passion. However, all the empathy in the world didn't/doesn't change the fact that I deliberately strapped my dd into a seat that she _hated_ being in, for reasons that she didn't understand, and couldn't comprehend...except that they mattered to me more than she did. It wasn't CL, by any definition, be it the more TCS-based one, or the more practical one that you're talking about.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Can I just say, as much as this conversation seems to go in circles at times, I think everyone has been really mature about it - 12 pages and no one has broken terms of service. It's a good debate. I wonder if anyone at any point will be willing to see things differently then when they came into it though lol

I'm so turned around at this point that I can't remember what I was thinking when I came in...and I'm not even sure what I'm thinking now. It's been an interesting conversation, though. And, I may measure my bathrooms and see if the platform would fit in one of them. DH and ds1 will probably think I've lost my mind, but that's okay. DH has read about some of the penalties involved in using a seated toilet, so he'll at least get _why_ I've lost my mind. I'm pretty sure ds2 would like it, too...


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
DD was _not_ fine in a car seat - ever. She hated getting into the car until we switched her to a booster...hated it. *Her desire was met, when we got out of the ca*r. That was it.

I personally have my doubts that her need for safety outweighed her need (not desire - emotional _need_) not to be strapped into a carseat. However, I'm not in agreement with our culture's acceptance of emotionally abusing children on a regular (sometimes daily) basis, in the name of maybe keeping them safe, in the event of a possible accident. I realize I'm in a minority on that one, though. It's against the law. I can't afford the fine (probably could now, but ds2 doesn't care, anyway). She went in her seat. It wasn't "mutually agreeable" in any way. It didn't meet any underlying need of dd's. It was simply necessary...and unpleasant, all around. Yeah - I empathized. I'd consider that to be hellish. I hate even a shoulder and lap belt with a passion. However, all the empathy in the world didn't/doesn't change the fact that I deliberately strapped my dd into a seat that she _hated_ being in, for reasons that she didn't understand, and couldn't comprehend...except that they mattered to me more than she did. It wasn't CL, by any definition, be it the more TCS-based one, or the more practical one that you're talking about.

thats what I meant







it sounds like in your case though, it wasnt a matter of your desire trumping hers - you both didnt want her in the car seat and neither of you felt it was necessary, but you felt you had to do it anyway. the law was included in your consensus, you felt that both yours and her need had to be put on hold. Something being a priority, as I explained above, does not mean its less valid or important though. I do suppose that some CLers would have asked what it would have meant to ride without the carseat. what would it mean not to wear the car seat. what if you got a ticket - what would paying the ticket mean you couldnt pay? what would it mean if you got a ticket and didnt pay it? someone who practices CL might ask themselves these questions, and may still decide the best way to meet everyone's needs is to strap the child in, or may decide to not strap them in. What is more important - Your child being strapped in, or your child not being unhappy? and those answers would be different for every CL family - but for a CL family the goals aren't just about how things effect us, its about how it affects our family and community as a whole. An example of something of CL I havent embraced is messes. I hate messes. I don't like spagetti all over the floor. That is not my childs need, that is mine, and I need to evaluate why I am letting my need be more important and valid then their need. I need to change my mindset to be less about them doing what I want them to, and more about me wanting to meet the needs of my family as a whole, and treat all my family members equally, and let them all have equal say.


----------



## choli

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
""It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone's wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties.""

I dont see how that says that you have to do what they want though? You can still consider the child's desire and address it. You then also have a need for safety, which is more important then the need for being comfortable in a car seat, for example. the underlying need, even if the child doesn't yet understand, for all parties is the need for safety in some cases. those are the cases where you "put your foot down" it doesnt mean their feelings arent valid or arent addressed.

But the child doesn't have an underlying need for safety that requires a carseat. The parent has created that "need" through their desire to drive the child in the car. So car seat use is not really a need of the child, it's a "want" of the parent's that is being enforced.

Not that I am a CL parent, I am not. As another poster said, our family is a benevolent dictatorship, and that was especially true when the kids were younger.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

its not that CL cant work in some families, it's that some families have a way they want their family to work in mind, and CL doesn't give them that result. CL is a way of living, not a way of getting a certain predetermined result. And that is OKAY. 'm just saying that the families who want to be CL and accomplish that in a way that feels practical to them its because they don't have a certain "end result" in mind. they aren't looking for xyz.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
But the child doesn't have an underlying need for safety that requires a carseat. The parent has created that "need" through their desire to drive the child in the car. So car seat use is not really a need of the child, it's a "want" of the parent's that is being enforced.

Not that I am a CL parent, I am not. As another poster said, our family is a benevolent dictatorship, and that was especially true when the kids were younger.

which is why I would not use a car if I didnt have to, but like in an earlier example if you had to go get food for your family, and it was too far to walk, and you didnt already have a farm in your backyard because it was never a problem taking the car in the past, and you were, perhaps a single parent who couldn't find a baby sitter, then you might have to take a car. I'm just saying if really and truly you have to take a car (in order to meet ANOTHER need of the child - such as the need for food) then you would take the car. Really the car seat thing is hard for me to relate to. I am okay walking somewhere if needed though - I don't drive anyway! I usually catch a ride from someone I know or walk - so I know that there is life beyond cars!


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
which is why I would not use a car if I didnt have to, but like in an earlier example if you had to go get food for your family, and it was too far to walk, and you didnt already have a farm in your backyard because it was never a problem taking the car in the past, and you were, perhaps a single parent who couldn't find a baby sitter, then you might have to take a car. I'm just saying if really and truly you have to take a car (in order to meet ANOTHER need of the child - such as the need for food) then you would take the car. Really the car seat thing is hard for me to relate to. I am okay walking somewhere if needed though - I don't drive anyway! I usually catch a ride from someone I know or walk - so I know that there is life beyond cars!

I didn't have a driver's license until I was 37. I know about life without cars. I also know that it doesn't work well when a family has no car at all, and kids are going to activities and things. DH doesn't drive, so I'm the only possibility. Without a car, we couldn't have gone to watch ds1 compete in the Provincial Gymnastics Championships last year (no problem this year, because it was local) and various other things. Life without a car is great - mostly. Mind you, I can't imagine doing a grocery shop for a family of 6 without it. That mile and a bit to the grocery store is nothing...when I'm not carrying a bunch of stuff.


----------



## felix23

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
But that might actually be CL to _some_ people - but not _all_. Maybe to the person who missed a wedding because their child did not want to go into the car seat, missed the wedding as the mutual agreeable solution. They were happy and okay with that solution just as much as their child was. Some things are like this for us, some things are not. We have not gone swimming before because my son did not want to get dressed and leave the house - he just wanted to play all day at home by himself. That day, that was fine - that was a mutual agreeable solution for the both of us. We were both happy with that solution. Other days, that may not work for me - so we come up with something different. Maybe a different activity. Maybe DS just doesn't want to wear clothes that day (has nothing to do with not wanting to go swimming) or something else that we can come up with some consensual solution with. This is why CL does not look the same in all families. Because what you would be happy with, I might not be and what we would be happy with, you might not be. You might look at our 'solution' and think '_that_ would _never_ work for _me_!' - and thats fine! If the same problem came up for you, you could find a different solution that would work for _your_ family (and that solution might not work for us!). If any of that makes sense.

The more I read this thread the more I realize that I am CL in a lot ways. For example yesterday I really wanted to go to Walgreens. Lilly really wanted to stay at home and play with her new Legos, so instead of making her go (which would have resulted in her being miserable, which would in turn make the whole trip miserable) I just waited till her dad got home and then I went alone. I didn't want to take a whiny child shopping, so I was okay waiting. I also know that she hates going to the grocery store, so I try and arrange my trips so that I don't have to take her. Sometimes this doesn't work out and I do have to take her even if she doesn't want to go. During those trips I try and make it as fun as possible, but she still hates the trips.

So I guess the majority of the time I practice CL, with the occasional moments where she has to do what I say no matter what.

It does sound like my cousin is practicing either a more extreme version of CL or TCS. She says she is CL and I'm not since I do make my children do things that they don't want to, but to me it is just a label and I don't care enought about it to argue with her. She does what works for her family and I do what works for mine.


----------



## felix23

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
thats what I meant







it sounds like in your case though, it wasnt a matter of your desire trumping hers - you both didnt want her in the car seat and neither of you felt it was necessary, but you felt you had to do it anyway. the law was included in your consensus, you felt that both yours and her need had to be put on hold. Something being a priority, as I explained above, does not mean its less valid or important though. I do suppose that some CLers would have asked what it would have meant to ride without the carseat. what would it mean not to wear the car seat. what if you got a ticket - what would paying the ticket mean you couldnt pay? what would it mean if you got a ticket and didnt pay it? someone who practices CL might ask themselves these questions, and may still decide the best way to meet everyone's needs is to strap the child in, or may decide to not strap them in. What is more important - Your child being strapped in, or your child not being unhappy? and those answers would be different for every CL family - but for a CL family the goals aren't just about how things effect us, its about how it affects our family and community as a whole. An example of something of CL I havent embraced is messes. I hate messes. I don't like spagetti all over the floor. That is not my childs need, that is mine, and I need to evaluate why I am letting my need be more important and valid then their need. I need to change my mindset to be less about them doing what I want them to, and more about me wanting to meet the needs of my family as a whole, and treat all my family members equally, and let them all have equal say.


To me leaving food all over the floor is a sanitation issue since it will attract bugs. So not having food all over the floor is a family need since no one here wants wants to live in a roach infested house. If dd wants to dump food on the floor that is fine, but she has to clean it up afterwards.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

it's dry spagetti, not cooked, but I am not suggesting leaving it all over the floor to sit there for weeks on end. I'm just saying I can look at it from a childs perspective, before having them assist me in cleaning it up (or cleaning it up myself if necessary, since I'm the one who wants it cleaned up)


----------



## felix23

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
it's dry spagetti, not cooked, but I am not suggesting leaving it all over the floor to sit there for weeks on end. I'm just saying I can look at it from a childs perspective, before having them assist me in cleaning it up (or cleaning it up myself if necessary, since I'm the one who wants it cleaned up)


I guess this is a situation where I am not CL. In my house if you make a mess, you clean it up. That goes for me, my dh, and my dd. I don't want to clean up a mess, we can't live in a house that is covered with food (dry food will still attract bugs and rodents), so the person who made the mess has to clean it up. If I caused the mess, I'll clean it up, and I'll help if someone needs me, but the person who caused the mess has to clean it up.


----------



## webjefita

Really? I wish that were the case, but if it were a rule it would have to go for the whole family. My husband sometimes makes dinner but doesn't clean up afterward. He leaves his clothes lying around. I don't know how to "make him" pick up his things, and I find if I just pick them up as I'm straightening it's not a big deal. Sometimes I leave glasses and plates where I finished using them, and I appreciate it when my DH picks them up for me and doesn't nag me about it.

It would certainly be nice if everyone picked up after themselves, and I think it's something we're trying to teach, but making them do it doesn't work for us in the long run ... and what do you do when they stand there and cry and refuse to do it? How do you make them then? You get into a huge power struggle and the next time they don't want to pick anything up.

I also don't want to be a maid or a martyr and I do get tired of picking up and cleaning up... but I think that doing it cheerfully when possible and matter of factly will help over the long run. If I'm grumpy and complaining, they learn that picking up is an arduous chore. Sometimes I'll tell them to sit near me while we're cleaning up or comforting a sibling who got pushed, at least they are witnessing the solution to the problem and hopefully learning something by my example. My problem is that I'm never consistent for very long... I'll go back and forth between more control and less control and I wonder if that's not worse than just sticking to one approach!


----------



## felix23

Quote:


Originally Posted by *webjefita* 
Really? I wish that were the case, but if it were a rule it would have to go for the whole family. My husband sometimes makes dinner but doesn't clean up afterward. He leaves his clothes lying around. I don't know how to "make him" pick up his things, and I find if I just pick them up as I'm straightening it's not a big deal. Sometimes I leave glasses and plates where I finished using them, and I appreciate it when my DH picks them up for me and doesn't nag me about it.

It would certainly be nice if everyone picked up after themselves, and I think it's something we're trying to teach, but making them do it doesn't work for us in the long run ... and what do you do when they stand there and cry and refuse to do it? How do you make them then? You get into a huge power struggle and the next time they don't want to pick anything up.

I also don't want to be a maid or a martyr and I do get tired of picking up and cleaning up... but I think that doing it cheerfully when possible and matter of factly will help over the long run. If I'm grumpy and complaining, they learn that picking up is an arduous chore. Sometimes I'll tell them to sit near me while we're cleaning up or comforting a sibling who got pushed, at least they are witnessing the solution to the problem and hopefully learning something by my example. My problem is that I'm never consistent for very long... I'll go back and forth between more control and less control and I wonder if that's not worse than just sticking to one approach!









If my dh wants his clothes washed then he has to put them in the hamper. It only took a couple of times with him wanting to wear a certain shirt and it not being clean, for him to start putting his clothes in the hamper. I have way too much to do to wander the house picking up clothes.

If my dd makes a mess and refuses to clean it, I don't make her, but in the future she will not be allowed to make such a mess. We actually just dealt with this. She wants to drag her Legos all over the house, that is fine as long as she picks them up at the end of the day. Yesterday she wouldn't pick them up at the end of the day, so today she had to keep them in her room. She did whine a little bit about this, but I explained to her the reason behind the rule (someone could get hurt stepping on them in the middle of the night). And she seemed to understand and was okay with it. If she wouldn't keep them in her room I would put them away for a short time until she was willing to obey. As I stated before this is one area where I am not CL.


----------



## aprons_and_acorns

Quote:


Originally Posted by *webjefita* 

I also don't want to be a maid or a martyr and I do get tired of picking up and cleaning up... but I think that doing it cheerfully when possible and matter of factly will help over the long run. If I'm grumpy and complaining, they learn that picking up is an arduous chore.

Wow I agree with this so much.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *webjefita* 
I also don't want to be a maid or a martyr and I do get tired of picking up and cleaning up... but I think that doing it cheerfully when possible and matter of factly will help over the long run. If I'm grumpy and complaining, they learn that picking up is an arduous chore.

I've been really trying to do clean up cheerfully, but I'll admit I'm failing miserably. I'm pregnant, have been anemic, and just don't have the energy for it. I get really upset when the messes are bad.

Mind you, I'm at a complete loss with ds2. I just don't know how to deal with him when he gets going...


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I encourage the children to help me clean up, but I don't force it. It's really a non-issue since they help or do it on their own anyway.

Dry spagetti (that they were only able to spill because it was in an open box anyway) if its going to attract rodents, will do so whether its on the floor for 20 minutes or whether its sitting in the lazy suzan.

Thats how I feel about it, but I didnt always, and I understand your point of view and see nothing wrong with that if it works for your family. I don't make them help, but they help 95% of the time. If they didn't, seeing how im not 100% CL it would probably bother me. I am trying to get to the point where it wouldn't bother me.


----------



## webjefita

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
If my dh wants his clothes washed then he has to put them in the hamper. It only took a couple of times with him wanting to wear a certain shirt and it not being clean, for him to start putting his clothes in the hamper. I have way too much to do to wander the house picking up clothes.

If my dd makes a mess and refuses to clean it, I don't make her, but in the future she will not be allowed to make such a mess. We actually just dealt with this. She wants to drag her Legos all over the house, that is fine as long as she picks them up at the end of the day. Yesterday she wouldn't pick them up at the end of the day, so today she had to keep them in her room. She did whine a little bit about this, but I explained to her the reason behind the rule (someone could get hurt stepping on them in the middle of the night). And she seemed to understand and was okay with it. If she wouldn't keep them in her room I would put them away for a short time until she was willing to obey. As I stated before this is one area where I am not CL.

Okay this actually makes a lot of sense. Sometimes I think I am too black and white about things. I didn't see other options than "they pick it up because i make them" and "I pick it up because I don't care if they don't" neither of which feels right to me.

Storm Bride--I'm so with you on being pg and also anemic and tired and grumpy









Super Glue--I'm also trying to get to the point where it doesn't bother me. But sometimes I can't shake that they--well one of them--will always be happy with not helping to pick up







: I wish I had more faith in him sometimes, but he does seem to be okay with everyone else doing all the work.


----------



## Calm

I so desperately wanna chime in on the CL discussion but I first want to make sure the instinct stuff is clear. I'm ETA titles to make such a long post easier to navigate (I don't get on here enough).

*Is the reason why we ignore instinct even relevant?*

Just in case my communication has gone awry for others also I'll clarify I have an understanding of what SB is saying.

Quote:

Okay - that's great. I'm not arguing with it. But, in the long run, it has nothing to do with him not "ignoring" his instincts. Even if he has a squat toilet in your home, and then in his own home, he's going to have to use a public toilet sometime (or push his instincts back further, by just not pooping when he needs to in the first place). So, are you saying that if you raise him this way, and he uses a public toilet, even once, he's "ignoring" his instincts?

Quote:

Yeah - my parents taught me to use a toilet. That's not in doubt. They also taught me to go into another room if I wanted to play with my genitals. However, nobody ever suggested that this is/was anything but a cultural norm, or that it's the only way to do things, or the natural way to do things.

Quote:

I truly don't get what you're talking about. If you truly reclaim your instinctual self, and stop ignoring your instincts (ie. following certain cultural norms), you'll end up in jail.
You seem to be stating that it is not ignoring an instinct if there is no choice. For example, if our culture, law, or society dictates we _must_ do something that is against our instincts, then it is not _ignoring_ our instincts, it is a kind of choice, en mass. Your example being that my son will follow his toileting instincts when possible, but if he uses a public toilet, he is forced to sit, not squat. Therefore he isn't ignoring his instinct to squat, he is just doing what is _possible_.

Have I understood so far?

I have followed, I think, what your point is, and that you are saying that due to these constraints, it isn't ignoring an instinct it is just doing things how we do them.

I am saying that just because it is due to societal constraints that we learn to ignore them does not negate that we _do_ learn to ignore them.

WHY we are taught to ignore them is irrelevant.

THAT we are taught to ignore them is the point.

Plus, most importantly, we must know how to identify the instinct before we can say we are choosing to do an alternative.

*Is it a choice if it is done due to lack of an alternative?*

You've said it is a choice to do something other than instinct (such as sit on a toilet rather than squat), because of a law or social constraint. However, I do not call this choice. I call this _*forced compliance*_.

How I came to _choose_ to ignore certain instincts, is first knowing I _was_ ignoring them. For example, toileting. I did not know until ten years ago that the natural way to poop is in the squat position! And I'm a naturopath, so that's saying a lot. We learn a lot, so the finer details get missed sometimes.

Once I learned how to toilet naturally, I was able to identify the signals my body had been giving me all my life. I tried to squat where possible, but I also _chose to continue to ignore this instinct_ when faced with a public toilets. _Now_ it is a choice. Before that, it was a _learned behaviour_ I did without knowing an alternative or questioning it at all. Before I knew it was an instinct, it was one I had _been taught to ignore_. Society forced it on me, it gave me no choice; At no point was I asked by anyone if I would prefer to squat, I just got potty trained and then shown a toilet and that's what I _*learned*_. It was not a choice to ignore it. _Now_ I can say I "choose to ignore it" occasionally.

The fact is, _most_ of us are like I was, they don't know, and until told, will never know.

If there is no alternative, there is no choice. If there is an alternative but we don't know there is, there is still no choice.

*Teaching From Birth To Ignore An Instinct*
This may clear it up... the dog has an instinct to kick his legs after a poop. If he is prevented from doing so for some reason (someone holding his legs for instance) then he won't be able to. Using the logic you've used in your posts, you would say that this is not _ignoring_ his instincts; it simply isn't possible to kick his legs so he doesn't. You have a point there, I agree. But I disagree that it is choice, it's forced compliance. But at least in this example he is in touch with the instinct, and can and will go back to it when it is possible again.

Now, if you taught the dog from birth not to kick his legs after a poo, he would get to the point where not only does he no longer even get the urge to kick, he can't even remember ever having that urge in the first place. I would say he has been _taught to ignore his instinct_. Is this not obvious? If you respond as though I've just stated something "everyone knows", first go back and check what you've been saying first.

*How Instilling Our Norms can Stunt our inherent unlimited potential AND our Instincts*
From birth we are unlimited potential, we could see in the dark if taught or if it were a need, we could hear like a wolf, we could be unlimited beings. But we only switch areas of our DNA on or off depending on _*needs*_, and _*what we are conditioned into*_. A human raised by wolves can't walk on two legs and won't hug you if you're sad but they can smell you 10 miles away and know exactly how much fear you feel and they will howl at the full moon for reasons only they know.

As we raise our children we repeat certain behaviours over and over and if it is in direct opposition to an instinct in our children then the new learning will trump the instinct, and will also trump the potential for something greater than that which has been taught.

Back to the dog, if he could talk, then we could explain to him that he has an instinct to kick his legs after he poops, and that he has learned to ignore it. This would be the _first essential step_ in pup reclaiming this instinct, _*if he should want to*_. He first needs to identify the instinct _before_ he can say that he is choosing to ignore the instinct.

*How Does That Relate To A Human Parent?*
Translate that to a new mother. She has been raised in a culture where she sees babies in prams and cribs and who are left crying for seconds, minutes, or even hours before being held and nurtured. She sees this everywhere she goes - friends, family, TV, movies - and this dictates her "social conditioning". Upbringing has resulted in some women in such emotional poverty or such circumstances that she does _not_ feel that tug to pick up her child at all.

Many of us, gratefully, at least had a tug, a sensation, that something just wasn't "right" when our babies cried. But the story of the mother watching on the monitor is ignoring her instinct, yes... and yes, she has been taught to do so by culture etc, but what of the poor woman who does _not_ feel that while watching her baby scream? I can attest to there being tons of women like that, TONS, and it breaks my heart for both the mamas and the babies. She doesn't know it's better to squat to poop, better to pick up a crying baby, move her child away from a person who has "paedophile" written all over them... and a mix of other instincts she has long ago buried deep beneath a pile of new learned survival mechanisms.

*My Own Reclamation of Parental Instinct*
So I cannot see how we are choosing any of this. I will admit to not identifying my mothering instinct with my first baby. I had to be de-schooled in conditioning and re-schooled in instinct and nature. My baby cried and all I felt was "how do I stop this?" I did _not_ feel any sense of "pick her up and it will stop" and this was also confirmed by the fact that when I picked her up, she didn't stop crying. No one told me that the longing, aching feeling of dread and hopelessness was from lack of contact with my baby. _*No one*_. And I didn't know how to "hear" my body tell me either. I could only feel, and all I felt was misery.

It was another culture that finally showed me how and why to hold my baby and why not to let her cry if at all possible - and the feeling lifted, and my life changed. This is why I am familiar, intimately, with the plights of Western families everywhere and why I help. If we could identify and listen to our instincts, MDC would become instantly defunct because no one would need the advice here.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

RiverScout, I think that your experience with CL is about the same as mine. The people I know who practice CL do not make their child do anything that they don't want to. They would never force their child to ride in a carseat, they would just not go places. If this means missing, weddings, funerals, appointmens, then they miss them.
I could be wrong, but didn't Pat (the amazing WuWei) actually coin the term and start the CL "movement"? If not, I know that she has a website on it, "the" website I believe, and it is pretty clear in that what you are saying here is true. Pat has stated that she will not make her child leave the house. All going well, she will still be able to leave, however, if she can't get a sitter or whatever, she won't leave. So yes, she would miss events if her child didn't want to go.

I personally don't think this is going to model great things for a child. Children, as mentioned, run on feelings, not logic. Especially young children. Nature didn't design it so they engage their logic at every turn of events and "discuss".

I can attest that if our bond is weak, my daughter's behaviour is off. The only way to say jump and have her ask how high is if we are bonded well. This has always been true, but especially the last year. With the new baby, the bond got very shaky and so did her behaviour. She moved out of the room to her own room by choice, but it was still a big move to add to the new baby taking over in a major way in our lives. All considered, she has done very well but her behaviour can get horrendous. I find it really hard to get the bond back sometimes, even though I have all the tools to, it is more a case of desire. No one told me this happens with the first child after the second one comes. It hit me right off balance and it is the only source of stress in my life (the lack of motivation to rebond with her).

I command great authority when we are bonded well. But dear God when we aren't, she argues every little detail and takes issue with everything, my choice of words, an oversight, anything and everything. When well connected, I don't have to negotiate a thing, she just responds to me organically and life just flows in a way that feels "right", as me, Mama and her, child-follower. It's not that I feel in charge, it's that I feel we are all in "place", if that makes sense, no one is struggling for a promotion on the hierarchy.

I think this is how nature intended it to be. I don't think I was ever even _*meant*_ to have to meet her consensually half way, as that isn't even required due to our strong bond. She learns from me when connected. She seeks my approval and seeks to maintain our bond. I say grab the tomatoes and she grabs them. She respects me. I say we have to go and she says ok. And we are both so much happier. It's so EASY with the connection with absolutely _*no need for negotiation*_.

*So I wonder if all the CL guidelines and all these negotiations are in fact better off as plan B, not plan A. Engage plan A (connect with child) but failing that, engage plan B (negotiate with child).*

Children start off completely self absorbed as babies (huh, no kidding?), and over the next decade they learn through stages that they are not the center of the universe, and that other people feel just as they do. I mean, many adults still don't grasp this concept fully until they are in their thirties. Children are certainly still learning this. So to expect this empathy is premature and unfair on them. That is why they are programmed biologically to respond to the parent as an authority/guiding figure. Like the newborn chicken bonds with the first thing it lays its eyes on and follows it, humans have a type of programming like that but it relies heavily on the natural connection that is meant to be in place. If it isn't there, the child no longer seeks the approval/authority of the parent and seeks it elsewhere and they start to show behavioural problems.

This is where it loses me, and I would like help with this area, and perhaps I should call Pat to the thread. I can't shake the notion that it is doing a disservice to our children to do things like defer to their preferences (such as staying home when you want to go out) or engage their logic (such as in negotiations) in regards to their development. I think that is addressing a symptom, not the cause.

*Storm Bride*, I hope my info about instinct doesn't seem to be too pointed at you. I'm using your quotes for it as I often think that if one person sees something a particular way, then I am probably confusing people. My communication ain't what it used to be, this has been a tough year and my memory seems totally shot and so does my ability to concentrate... and to find words, too. That really annoys me. I can sit here for ages trying to remember a simple word and end up using some crap word instead.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
My baby cried and all I felt was "how do I stop this?" I did _not_ feel any sense of "pick her up and it will stop" and this was also confirmed by the fact that when I picked her up, she didn't stop crying. No one told me that the longing, aching feeling of dread and hopelessness was from lack of contact with my baby. _*No one*_. And I didn't know how to "hear" my body tell me either. I could only feel, and all I felt was misery.

It was another culture that finally showed me how and why to hold my baby and why not to let her cry if at all possible - and the feeling lifted, and my life changed. This is why I am familiar, intimately, with the plights of Western families everywhere and why I help. If we could identify and listen to our instincts, MDC would become instantly defunct because no one would need the advice here.


I understand better where you are coming from.

I have to say that in my highly Western and Westernized family, we have all - generations - understood that holding a baby and wearing a baby is tickety-boo. We have pictures and stories to prove it. That's family in Michigan, NY State, Quebec, Toronto, B.C., and Florida. There have been cases where nurses have told people idiotic things - I was a preemie and the nurses told my dad not to let my mother bond with me because I wouldn't survive, whereupon he wheeled my mother down the hall to demand her kid.









So that's one reason I'm a little skeptical that people's intuition has vanished forever.


----------



## webjefita

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Children, as mentioned, run on feelings, not logic. Especially young children. Nature didn't design it so they engage their logic at every turn of events and "discuss".

I can attest that if our bond is weak, my daughter's behaviour is off. The only way to say jump and have her ask how high is if we are bonded well. This has always been true, but especially the last year. With the new baby, the bond got very shaky and so did her behaviour. She moved out of the room to her own room by choice, but it was still a big move to add to the new baby taking over in a major way in our lives. All considered, she has done very well but her behaviour can get horrendous. I find it really hard to get the bond back sometimes, even though I have all the tools to, it is more a case of desire. No one told me this happens with the first child after the second one comes. It hit me right off balance and it is the only source of stress in my life (the lack of motivation to rebond with her).

I totally get this. Both parts. I'm still trying to figure out how to best deal with it.


----------



## momofmine

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I command great authority when we are bonded well. But dear God when we aren't, she argues every little detail and takes issue with everything, my choice of words, an oversight, anything and everything. When well connected, I don't have to negotiate a thing, she just responds to me organically and life just flows in a way that feels "right", as me, Mama and her, child-follower. It's not that I feel in charge, it's that I feel we are all in "place", if that makes sense, no one is struggling for a promotion on the hierarchy.

I think this is how nature intended it to be. I don't think I was ever even _*meant*_ to have to meet her consensually half way, as that isn't even required due to our strong bond. She learns from me when connected. She seeks my approval and seeks to maintain our bond. I say grab the tomatoes and she grabs them. She respects me. I say we have to go and she says ok. And we are both so much happier. It's so EASY with the connection with absolutely _*no need for negotiation*_.

This thought process makes a lot of sense to me, and we all have to go with what resonates with us,







, but my only problem is HOW to do this. The way you describe your dd is EXACTLY the same with my first child, except it is basically all the time. He argues every last little detail with me, Mr. Loophole Attorney, is very black and white, will say I didn't give him enough warning that something was going to happen, etc. He also talks a lot and has to have your attention. It is very tiring at times, because I want to meet his need. I feel very strongly that unmet needs in childhood don't go away, they just come back in a different form. And if I do the empathy with him, it just fuels his fire and it makes it worse, it keeps going and going and going, until he's just so worked up.

So how do you go about re-bonding, Calm? What's in your toolbox there? Because I feel like we are already really well bonded, this just seems to be part of his temperament. My younger child, the empathy works really well, and he seems relieved and comforted by it. We are all different!


----------



## webjefita

That's interesting because that's exactly the way I feel with my firstborn, and not at all what happens with the 2nd born. I noticed right away after the second's birth, that I had a completely different relationship--healthier, I think. I am extremely attached to the first, and he to me, but almost in an unhealthy way, we push each other's buttons, and we butt heads easily. The second, I felt from the beginning that he was his own person, and I can see him objectively, and respond to him more calmly and with more patience. With the first I just feel like our identities were/are so wrapped up and that what he did was such a reflection of me and my parenting.

Anyway, I sometimes find it hard to enjoy being with him when he's in a difficult phase. It's almost like he acts in ways that he thinks will cause us not to want to be around him. It's really, really, hard to reconnect with him then because I feel like he's doing it on purpose. The next day I can usually start over.

What we try to do, and just did yesterday, and works, is to make the decision to be more accepting and affectionate with him, to not focus on any misbehaviors, not to nag him-- but not to do anything special, either. It's not about paying him special attention, or asking him what he wants to do, but for us the key is emphasizing that we are a family and everyone is part of this family and we work together. Yesterday, for example, we needed to reconnect with him, and we (DH and I) took them outside to ride their bikes, had dinner, then we told them we had a project to get started on (cleaning the walls in prep for painting them) and we were going to do it together, then DH and I had some reading from HypnoBirthing to do and we let them be near us and listen, but we never made a fuss over them. It worked really well, they were near us and participating and had our attention if/when they needed it. Their behavior was great all night, and has been today.


----------



## Theoretica

Quote:


Originally Posted by *webjefita* 
That's interesting because that's exactly the way I feel with my firstborn, and not at all what happens with the 2nd born. I noticed right away after the second's birth, that I had a completely different relationship--healthier, I think. I am extremely attached to the first, and he to me, but almost in an unhealthy way, we push each other's buttons, and we butt heads easily. The second, I felt from the beginning that he was his own person, and I can see him objectively, and respond to him more calmly and with more patience. With the first I just feel like our identities were/are so wrapped up and that what he did was such a reflection of me and my parenting.

I wonder if this is a normal feeling towards a first vs a second etc? My oldest and I are like this completely, then less so with my second, even less with my third (although she and I are SO much alike), and my fourth is a year next week but I really don't feel that I'll even be that enmeshed in her identity, I almost expect her to be...her...(??? not explaining it well), although she is a supremely and totally attached boobie baby LOLOL


----------



## ann_of_loxley

Can I just say that...

Whether or not one can be 100% CL 100% of the time will _always_ be debatable. But one can _try_ to be 100% CL 100% of the time - which I think is the point. Whether or not we are 100% CL 100% of the time is not my goal (and I dont spend hours thinking if it is even possible or not) - but that does not stop me _trying_ to be CL with my 100% _all_ (100% of) the time. ...once again, if I am making any sense! lol

(and I only wanted to say that - because what I am seeing in a lot of arguments here is that one can not possibly be 100% CL 100% of the time - so one should not even try...when I don't feel, for me at least, that that is the point at all about trying to be CL. I don't measure my worth (value, productivness, 'good', etc) as a parent by how CL we are - I measure my worth (and all that other stuff) as a parent by how CL I am _trying_ to be - because that is what matters to me (the key is in the word trying really). I never find myself thinking 'You know, my DS is going to have to sit in this car seat regardless if we are ever going to go anywhere that requires the car, so screw trying to be CL' - I am always thinking 'How can we go about this in a CL manner - and if something just 'must be' (like sitting in a car seat or wearing some sort of clothing out in public or not running out into the motorway, etc), how can I ensure my sons emotional health and our trust and connection...which always results in a CL solution because otherwise, I could not ensure any of those things.)


----------



## Magella

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
*How Instilling Our Norms can Stunt our inherent unlimited potential AND our Instincts*
From birth we are unlimited potential, we could see in the dark if taught or if it were a need, we could hear like a wolf, we could be unlimited beings. But we only switch areas of our DNA on or off depending on _*needs*_, and _*what we are conditioned into*_. A human raised by wolves can't walk on two legs and won't hug you if you're sad but they can smell you 10 miles away and know exactly how much fear you feel...

Actually, this is incorrect. Our sight, smell and hearing are limited by our physiology. It is a fact of our _physiology_, not epigenetics, that we cannot hear as many frequencies as dogs can hear. There are limits to what a human body is capable of, regardless of the fascinating fact that our genes can be switched on and off depending on environmental factors. A human raised by wolves would not be able to hear the same sounds the wolves hear, and would not smell a person in the same way a wolf smells a person.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
If we could identify and listen to our instincts, MDC would become instantly defunct because no one would need the advice here.

I disagree. There are no perfect cultures out there who perfectly follow instincts, and thus need no advice, ever. I think parenting and being human are much more complicated than that, regardless of which culture you are living in. And I will say that I also suspect that not all instincts are of the sort that would be beneficial to our children if we were to listen to them. Not all instincts are warm, fuzzy, altruistic instincts. I think that to say motherhood would be perfect if only we could all listen to our instincts is a romanticization of motherhood that is dangerous. (I do think attachment and attunement between mother and child are vital, for the child's development and for a healthy mother-child relationship. I don't dispute that at all, ftr.)

There is an excellent book that is an exploration of motherhood throughout history and in many cultures, which I would recommend that all women read. Unfortunately the title escapes me at the moment.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
Can I just say that...

Whether or not one can be 100% CL 100% of the time will _always_ be debatable. But one can _try_ to be 100% CL 100% of the time - which I think is the point. Whether or not we are 100% CL 100% of the time is not my goal (and I dont spend hours thinking if it is even possible or not) - but that does not stop me _trying_ to be CL with my 100% _all_ (100% of) the time. ...once again, if I am making any sense! lol

(and I only wanted to say that - because what I am seeing in a lot of arguments here is that one can not possibly be 100% CL 100% of the time - so one should not even try...when I don't feel, for me at least, that that is the point at all about trying to be CL. I don't measure my worth (value, productivness, 'good', etc) as a parent by how CL we are - I measure my worth (and all that other stuff) as a parent by how CL I am _trying_ to be - because that is what matters to me (the key is in the word trying really). I never find myself thinking 'You know, my DS is going to have to sit in this car seat regardless if we are ever going to go anywhere that requires the car, so screw trying to be CL' - I am always thinking 'How can we go about this in a CL manner - and if something just 'must be' (like sitting in a car seat or wearing some sort of clothing out in public or not running out into the motorway, etc), how can I ensure my sons emotional health and our trust and connection...which always results in a CL solution because otherwise, I could not ensure any of those things.)

you put that beautifully!!! I also think sometimes peopel give up too soon on the validating step and that effects the ability to move forward in reaching solutions. Well, really I can only speak for myself - that I do that sometimes.


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Magella* 
Actually, this is incorrect. Our sight, smell and hearing are limited by our physiology. It is a fact of our _physiology_, not epigenetics, that we cannot hear as many frequencies as dogs can hear. There are limits to what a human body is capable of, regardless of the fascinating fact that our genes can be switched on and off depending on environmental factors. A human raised by wolves would not be able to hear the same sounds the wolves hear, and would not smell a person in the same way a wolf smells a person.

Did you know that in certain institutions in the world they have been able to make blind people see with their tongue? They also were able to make one blind person see with his hands.

I have to totally disagree that we have any idea whatsoever about our limitations physiologically or otherwise. Science, once it discovered quantum physics, pretty much had to stand back and say they were not only wrong about most of everything, but they have no clue where to begin with such information.

Quote:

I disagree. There are no perfect cultures out there who perfectly follow instincts, and thus need no advice, ever. I think parenting and being human are much more complicated than that, regardless of which culture you are living in. And I will say that I also suspect that not all instincts are of the sort that would be beneficial to our children if we were to listen to them. Not all instincts are warm, fuzzy, altruistic instincts. I think that to say motherhood would be perfect if only we could all listen to our instincts is a romanticization of motherhood that is dangerous. (I do think attachment and attunement between mother and child are vital, for the child's development and for a healthy mother-child relationship. I don't dispute that at all, ftr.)

There is an excellent book that is an exploration of motherhood throughout history and in many cultures, which I would recommend that all women read. Unfortunately the title escapes me at the moment.
I concede that MDC would not be defunct. That statement was for impact







. However, I'm not sure how it would be dangerous to run on instinct as a parent. No doubt not all instincts are warm and fuzzy, after all, aggression is on the list of instinctual reactions to certain stimuli. However, they are vital instincts, hardwired into us for reasons that were important in the natural setting.

Please come back if the title of the book comes to you, it sounds like something I'd love to read. I devour anthropological and historical studies, from any perspectives.


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *webjefita* 
That's interesting because that's exactly the way I feel with my firstborn, and not at all what happens with the 2nd born. I noticed right away after the second's birth, that I had a completely different relationship--healthier, I think. I am extremely attached to the first, and he to me, but almost in an unhealthy way, we push each other's buttons, and we butt heads easily. The second, I felt from the beginning that he was his own person, and I can see him objectively, and respond to him more calmly and with more patience. With the first I just feel like our identities were/are so wrapped up and that what he did was such a reflection of me and my parenting.

Anyway, I sometimes find it hard to enjoy being with him when he's in a difficult phase. It's almost like he acts in ways that he thinks will cause us not to want to be around him. It's really, really, hard to reconnect with him then because I feel like he's doing it on purpose. The next day I can usually start over.

What we try to do, and just did yesterday, and works, is to make the decision to be more accepting and affectionate with him, to not focus on any misbehaviors, not to nag him-- but not to do anything special, either. It's not about paying him special attention, or asking him what he wants to do, but for us the key is emphasizing that we are a family and everyone is part of this family and we work together. Yesterday, for example, we needed to reconnect with him, and we (DH and I) took them outside to ride their bikes, had dinner, then we told them we had a project to get started on (cleaning the walls in prep for painting them) and we were going to do it together, then DH and I had some reading from HypnoBirthing to do and we let them be near us and listen, but we never made a fuss over them. It worked really well, they were near us and participating and had our attention if/when they needed it. Their behavior was great all night, and has been today.

I feel you. I can relate.

I have asked, btw, several other women of more than one child and apparently this is a common phenomenon. I feel that parenting number 2 is easy already, compared to DD. With DD it was an all consuming process, a completely life changing thing. And most of that I put down to parenting itself. But this thing with the bond shifting to my son ... it doesn't seem natural and it is such an effort to re engage it where it never used to be. Perhaps it is nature's way of protecting the new baby, much like they way they wake if you have sex, like they are tuned in to pheromones or something so you won't reproduce.

For ideas on how to rebond, I suggest the book Hold On To Your Kids by Gordon Neufeld. Amazing read, should be recommended reading for all parents. For those who don't like books much, I'll come back later in the day with some ideas, just have to rush off at the moment.


----------



## webjefita

Quote:

Hold On To Your Kids by Gordon Neufeld
I've really wanted to read this book since it first came out and I totally keep forgetting to look for it. Thanks!


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *webjefita* 
I've really wanted to read this book since it first came out and I totally keep forgetting to look for it. Thanks!

This is the only parenting book I've read that actually made me feel good about what I'm doing and how I do it. He came at a lot of things I've always felt (and worked with) from angles I hadn't considered (an example early in the book about a teacher's relationship to his/her community is a good example). I really liked it.


----------



## riverscout

I think I am going to have to eat my words about parenting books because I want to read that one now







. It's been sitting on my Amazon wish list for while now.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
Can I just say that...

Whether or not one can be 100% CL 100% of the time will _always_ be debatable. But one can _try_ to be 100% CL 100% of the time - which I think is the point. Whether or not we are 100% CL 100% of the time is not my goal (and I dont spend hours thinking if it is even possible or not) - but that does not stop me _trying_ to be CL with my 100% _all_ (100% of) the time. ...once again, if I am making any sense! lol

That makes sense and I think that is similar to how SGM said it works for her too. I think if that works for you, great...and I mean that sincerely. What I have said here regarding CL is more about how it relates to me and why it wouldn't work as a goal or philosophy for me. Whatever anyone else does is okay by me.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
(and I only wanted to say that - because what I am seeing in a lot of arguments here is that one can not possibly be 100% CL 100% of the time - so one should not even try...

I can't speak for anyone else, but that it certainly not what I have trying to say. It's not about not bothering to try because it won't work 100% of the time but more wondering about that other percentage of time that it doesn't work. CL doesn't seem to address that. I guess the best way to say it is I think CL feels incomplete. That said, I think the ideals of it have some mertit. Id' be willing to bet most people here who don't identify as CL would say the same.


----------



## WuWei

Quote:

RiverScout, I think that your experience with CL is about the same as mine. The people I know who practice CL do not make their child do anything that they don't want to. They would never force their child to ride in a carseat, they would just not go places. *If this means missing, weddings, funerals, appointments, then they miss them.*

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
*I personally don't think this is going to model great things for a child.* Children, as mentioned, _run on feelings_, not logic. Especially young children. Nature didn't design it so they engage their logic at every turn of events and "discuss".

This pulled me in. I saw this thread but have tried not to jump in, as life is hectic right now. My mom was diagnosed with stage IV pancreatic cancer two weeks ago and we've been having doctors appointments, blood tests, biopsy, pericentesis, IV ports, endoscopy, etc all week. She is in a lot of pain, suddenly.

The irony is that my fiercely independent mom has become so dependent upon us. And we "twist ourselves into a pretzel", some would say, to consider her feelings, along with our own and our child's. And amazingly, ds generously does the same. Dh has juggled work and appointments all week so that I could participate. Ds has struggled with my extended absence and the change in our routine, and the energy of it all. And today, I really wanted to stay home and relax. And ds had "Pokemon Club", which is his huge passion at the moment. I talked with him to see how important it was to go today, so we went.

And my sister was at the hospital, despite her full time job, since she has chosen/agreed/wants to be the primary caregiver. Similarly, I choose to be a caregiver of ds.

Today, ds willingly came along as he and I drove 20 miles to pick up the pain med prescription at my sister's house, to take it to the pharmacy across town, and he waited patiently for 30 minutes as it was filled, and then we took the medication 20 miles back across town in 5 o'clock traffic, to my mom. A three hour excursion, all in all, before we returned home. And dh was going to reschedule a business appointment to help get the medication, if we couldn't get to the pharmacy before closing, as sister couldn't pick it up until tomorrow, etc. We all work together to find a solution that is agreeable to everyone.

Tomorrow, my sister has a wedding she wants to attend which is important to her. She is my mom's primary caregiver and she told me she wants to go to the wedding. She *could* leave mom alone. She could drag mom along. She could stay home. She could get an alternate caregiver. We consider everyone's feelings and needs; and although our family "already has plans", we adjust to help each other out. We consider each member's feelings valid, even when we may not understand their priorities or needs.

Last Wednesday, dh and I went to a restaurant, which we always enjoy. But, on the heels of all of this news, and the chaos and research, my head was about to explode with the NOISE of the restaurant. AFTER we'd already been seated, given our menus and greeted by the wait staff, I didn't want to stay due to the assault of the noise. We left. Despite dh's concern that it was 'a bit strange' to up and leave, he listened and honored my needs. Similarly, we've left environments without need for "understanding", when ds felt it necessary to leave. We give the same consideration to each other, he gives it back.

Probably, a half dozen times a year, we have some conflict of needs regarding scheduled events. Usually, dh comes up with a sudden need to travel out of town, although I already have something planned, in the evening he'd be gone. Another half dozen times a year, I'll have something I need or want to do and dh will juggle his calendar to make it happen. About a half dozen times a year, ds will accommodate one of our "important" outings. And we do the same for him. I recall a couple of trips out to get some special food from the grocery, or time when he really wanted to stay home and we just work it out.

I don't believe that children learn to regard other's feelings, when we choose not to regard theirs.

Pat


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I don't believe that children learn to regard other's feelings, when we choose not to regard theirs.

Pat

That may be true....but, in my life, things aren't as black and white as "regard feelings" and "not regard feelings". If I recall correctly, your dc is about the same age as my dd--8ish? My dd is pretty great about regarding the feelings of others now, but was less so at 2 or 3. And, she learned to regard the feelings of others _even though_ we routinely insisted that she get in the carseat (against her desire) at 2 or 3.

I think that is my biggest issue with CL, especially with younger dc (who are still very self-centered in a developmentally appropriate way). It seems like a lot of work (to me) to model and promote behaviors that _I believe_ will develop naturally with maturation under reasonable circumstances.

I am truly sorry to read of your mother's illness and pain.


----------



## ernalala

How it has been going in our family regarding extreme car-seat issues.
(The less extreme situations could be mostly consensually resolved by eventually riding with the child safely and willingly buckled in seat)
If my youngest child is unwilling to sit in his carseat he is not going to sit in the carseat. I mean, its impossible. In (t)his case, this means unwilling to the extent that there's NO way he will stay seated in the carseat, or even car - because if he is UNwilling, he is so extremely upset that he will get out of his mind and out of the seat mid-ride having serious tantrum or else before we could even leave (and we rather have that than during the rides tbh...) . Which means that, if we can, we wait it out untill he calms down and can be happily seated again. Another solution is all changing plans and not going by car but other means. Or Someone stays home with him while the others go. Or Someone will go with him by other means (if he wants that) while the others go by car (ı do not think we've done that one ever but it is an option . Or we stop at the side of the road, and if he would really be very upset that we couldn't drive home that way, there might be another way to get him home with one of us parents.

Note that we avoid going out with him and one parent only if possible (by car or other means) because he is extremely spirited/explosive at times and very hard to deal with by one parent, especially when both kids are on the trip (ds1 also often gets upset/contrary when ds 2 is and there you go







).

Because we know are son we are always considering the unexpected needs of our (un)predictably extreme child. 'We will attend the wedding unless he is not happy going therebeing there'. Fine by us. Another solution may that one or two of our family attend the event. I learned that letting go of what I want and how I want it all of the time is not realistic. Our children learn that we consider their wants/needs and they are sill young but learning how to consider ours. I expect that when they are older they will learn to understand their parents' and siblings and other peoples needs better.

I am sure that this is not exclusive to consensual families but it is just the way we do it in our family because it fits us best (at the moment).


----------



## Calm

Pat! Thanks for coming. I'm so so sorry about your mum, firstly, and I will send you my website page on cancer, should anything be helpful on there. If I forget, you have the address, just click on cancer on the home page. And feel free to take as long as you need to answer my questions because I have been there with my dad and understand how hard it is to meet all expectations.

Quote:

I don't believe that children learn to regard other's feelings, when we choose not to regard theirs.
In some cases this may be true, but I wouldn't consider it a rule or even a possibility in most circumstances. I have known some lovely children who have been seriously abused and neglected. The very antithesis of regard has been afforded them and yet they do not follow your formula above. Human nature is a curious thing, and it isn't easy to make a formula about it.

Obviously, it is best to model empathy and regard, I couldn't and wouldn't dispute that. But to say that they do not learn to regard feelings unless xyz has no evidence to support it. Even if we soften that statement to "often children do not learn..." or "CL helps children learn..." regarding empathy and regard, it is still untrue. That would mean I didn't learn regard, nor any of my four brother nor, actually, anyone I know at all, including you (unless you were raised consensually yourself).

My mother was consensual but only after we matured to a point where she felt we could bear the logic involved. As a teen, she gave me so much rope I hung myself regularly and this is where I learned my own parenting style which is to let my children learn about their environment themselves, which entails them being hurt and disappointed frequently.

She had four sons under the age of 5 and always had comments on how sweet and "well behaved" they were... four boys! She is a master though, and we adore her. My brothers are still, in not just my opinion but the opinion of others, the sweetest, most loyal, intuitive people you could meet, and yes, full of regard for others. This regard was evident very early in their youth. As was mine.

Yet we were raised in a hierarchy and for my mother's sanity to survive so many kids, she called the shots. But we were always strongly connected so we didn't argue. From my perspective it wasn't fear that created such compliance but respect and connection.

Gotta run at the moment but I have some questions I'll come back with.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

We are mostly consensual and we get the same compliments on how well behaved our children are (at resteraunts, on airplane rides, in shopping centers, and grocery stores - at the park, etc) - and also how exuberantly happy they are.

Friends admire my children's behavior (even though they think my parenting is a little wacky) and my son's teachers, therapists, and doctors all comment on the progress he is able to make and have made it clear that they attribute this to my efforts with him and my parenting which they do not frequently see. It has even been commented to me by people on the school board that I should teach classes - though I don't feel qualified because I know at home how they can really explode over some issues that arise.

I agree there is more then one way to accomplish goals, I prefer a more respectful equality and some prefer a respectful dictatorship. All I know if my son would not be who he is today and would have a lot more hardships to deal with if we were less consensual. I see his progress evolve as our family becomes more and more consensual. When I start to get "controlling" again is when I see things get harder for him and those who work with him. They don't know what goes on at home, but his school reports always directly correlate, to the point I now know these things are not coincidence.

Also - have to share this but I just found out what kind of parenting brought up our beloved mothers helper. She is extremely successful in life, getting excellent grades in college, her 2 sisters and brother are also extremely successful, they have an amazing relationship with their parents and feel they can tell them anything. She described her parents to me friday and they were consensual. She like working for us because our family is like her family







They shared their feelings with their children and left all choices up to them and supported them in anything they chose.

I am sure other ways work, but I know what my mom did wasn't good, and I know what I am doing is good, so I'll just stick with this for my family


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Yet we were raised in a hierarchy and for my mother's sanity to survive so many kids, she called the shots. But we were always strongly connected so we didn't argue. From my perspective it wasn't fear that created such compliance but respect and connection. .

This is how I would love my kids to remember their childhood









eta...it is also how I would describe my childhood, at least before adolescence.


----------



## ~PurityLake~

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
We are mostly consensual and we get the same compliments on how well behaved our children are

Friends admire my children's behavior and my son's teachers, therapists, and doctors all comment on the progress he is able to make and have made it clear that they attribute this to my efforts with him and my parenting which they do not frequently see.

Wow, I never get compliments on my parenting, EVER.

Here's a little story for you:
Yesterday we all went to the grocery store together. Abigail was helping put items in the cart. Sophia was angry that I made her sit in the cart, buckled in, so we let her help toss things in the cart, too, which made her happier about having to be in the seat. Well, Abigail started getting restless and no longer staying as close as I would have preferred. When my husband and I were looking for one item, she decided it was boring (understandably) and began pointing out all the other noodles and saying a bunch of numbers (since to her that's what it looked like my husband and I were doing). Other shoppers were trying to pass, but she was in the way. So I told Abigail to look out for the other people who were trying to get past her. She then noticed them, but was really into her jumping around yelling numbers game. She did move, and say 'oooohhhh', like she got it, and smiled and said hello to the other shoppers as they passed through the aisle (and giggled at those that smiled at her). Well, one lady tells me, 'it's okay, we have kids, too'. Well, of course it's okay, I'm just teaching my daughter to be conscious of other people. I didn't want to change anything else about what she was doing, the jumping, the talking, the imitating us, I didn't think any of that was 'wrong'. I wasn't punishing my daughter, just pointing out the other shoppers to make her aware of their needs, too. She moved out of the way for them to pass when she realized that's what they needed, with a little guidance from me. I don't know why, but 'it's okay' implied something was off, and I didn't think anything was off. Well, needless to say, I certainly didn't feel complimented, just sympathized with (I think that was the intent of the shopper who said, it's okay - but I didn't feel I needed sympathy cause I didn't think anything was wrong, but I think she was just trying to be polite, or kind, or something).


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong, perhaps those who have witnessed your parenting look on with silent awe (that is what I usually do) but yes, we get it often - people next to us in the resteraunt, people behind us on the place (we've gotten - oh you had kids with you?! and also once someone gave my son $20 at the end of a plane ride cuz they thought he was a cool kid.) My kids save it all up for at home - they know home is a safe place to express their emotions. When ever we leave the house it's great though, they walk holding my hand or eachother's hands, they have never run into the street, the list goes on - but this is not a reflection of them *at home*. My autistic son is also very sensitive, they both have big emotions and are very determined individuals. I give the credit to them, they deserve it









I am sure they didn't mean it in a bad way to show sympathy, sounds more like empathy to me, but I agree you were doing just fine.
Personally I would prefer people just not talk to me in public. makes me really uncomfortable.


----------



## sewchris2642

I voted combo. I've been thinking about this poll for a while now. Looking back at how we raised the girls and how we are raising Dylan now, we used hierarchy when they were children and slowly as they grew and matured in their thinking and understanding and self control, we went into consensuality. Little kids don't want nor do they understand or have the ability to make the decisions. That's what parents are for. But teens need the practice of negoiating, debating, and standing up for their decisions and beliefs. And that practice needs to come in the security, familiarity, and love of the family.


----------



## Ceinwen

Definitely hierarchy with soft structure here.

As a mother, I lean more towards the CC'ish way of parenting.

Actually, I'm not very consensual at all.







If I say do it, you do it. The things that dd1 (age six) is old enough to get input on (what she wants to wear, what she wants for breakfast, what bedtime story to read) we definitely give her that decision.

However, I'm not a game player. I do my adult things throughout the day and she helps out or goes and plays on her own (or with her toddler sister); I remember reading these panicked threads in the parenting forum 'OMGZ! I don't play with my kid - what'll happen?'

Anyway, I remember feeling safe and secure with my very much hierarchical structure growing up. And I also remember the feeling of validation that came when I was a teen and my parents started allowing me more adult decisions. I felt I'd earned them, and I'd proven myself.

Much like the example Calm used re: sitting in the front seat. We never questioned the fact that my mother sat in the front. Actually, I don't think I would have ever wanted to! lol Today, I'm the oldest sib in my family - I get shotgun just because.

Ahhh, the perks of being a grown-up.


----------



## Calm

I got lucky with my daughter. I don't know if her behaviour can be more than half attributed to parenting. Friends and family attribute it to DH and myself and we used to but since DS was born, and we've seen just how chalk and cheese they are - they even look like chalk and cheese - we're not so sure it isn't largely just her.

I would perhaps not have considered this if it weren't for the arrival of my son. She's an extraordinary person and not just intellectually - I still can't believe she came out of me.

It's very easy to take credit for that. And I'd love to be able to, and I used to. But I can't do that anymore and hold my head high. It's not me. It's her.


----------



## ~PurityLake~

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I am sure they didn't mean it in a bad way to show sympathy, sounds more like empathy to me, but I agree you were doing just fine.

Whether sympathy or empathy, she was being kind to me. but....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Personally I would prefer people just not talk to me in public. makes me really uncomfortable.

yes, me too, especially when I'm with my children and am already HIGHLY distracted from whatever they may being trying to talk to me about.







oh well, most social situations I think I misread or misinterpret so I'm already socially anxious enough without an actual conversation being thrown into the mix.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

However, I'm not a game player. I do my adult things throughout the day and she helps out or goes and plays on her own (or with her toddler sister); I remember reading these panicked threads in the parenting forum 'OMGZ! I don't play with my kid - what'll happen?'
Oh my gawd, I think I love you.

I have considered starting a thread about this very topic, and I may well do so I won't take up too much effort with it here. But I did want to say that I HATE GAMES!!!! It just doesn't seem "right" to me. I've BTDT when I was a kid, I have no interest in doing it again. This is again a topic I think we have messed up in our culture - I don't think parents were meant to play dress ups! My parents never played with me, probably cos they were in their forties when I was born but whatever the reason, that's the way it was. And I would never have had it any other way. I was like an only child as my youngest brother is 11 years older than me, so the "only child" argument doesn't fit either. I still managed to play, I used my imagination. My daughter survived 6 years without a playmate and I don't play games with her. It may be why she was the only one not crying on the first day of school, it was like, see ya mum, don't hurry back.







But hey, I gotta be authentic and I can't stand kid games, BLEH! I connect in other ways, usually with laughs and stupid songs.

ETA:

Quote:

As a mother, I lean more towards the CC'ish way of parenting.
Yes. Me. Nail. Head. Bang. I think CL and CC clash at significant points.


----------



## Calm

Ok, Pat, or whoever might like to have a shot...

*Logic*. What about that? Should children of a tender age call upon their logic, which is required for a reasonable negotiation?

*Empathy*. This is not developed in a child until a certain age. They are very egocentric at birth, and this s.l.o.w.l.y tips toward a more worldcentric view but again, at a tender age you can get empathy out of them, but like logic - is it a disservice to their emotional development? Is it false empathy (they do what pleases us)? Do they understand empathy even if we disregard those two issues?

*Age*. Is CL age appropriate, or does the whole premise stand from birth onwards? For example, taking in to account the desires of a baby and weighing that against the desires of a 14 year old sibling - although both are equally valid, do they both carry equal weight? Ie, 10 month old does not want to go in car; 14 year old wants to go somewhere that requires lift. Baby must be forced into car, yes? Either that, or the teen must, perhaps for the 10th time that day, defer to a _baby_ due to the inability to engage logic, discussion, negotiation or consensual _anything_ with a baby. At what age do we engage the child's cooperation in family decisions?

*Instinct*. A child has an instinct to first connect with, then seek the approval of, then emulate a parent. As noted by the research of Gordon Neufeld and more recent docs, this connection will transfer to peers if the connection with the parent fails. There are other instincts and behaviours that strongly suggest that the child looks for direction and guidance and boundaries. A newborn looks for these things physically (eg, legs and arms flail out looking for physical boundaries when feeling too far out in space, they get comfort from closed in spaces they can feel) but older children seek them more emotionally. How does this fit in line with conceding in such matters as wanting to go out when the child wants to go home, and the adult concedes. The adult will have to concede almost every time and this is normal 2 and 3 year old behaviour unless you have an exception to the rule - which, no disrespect, that doesn't count. Is conceding to a child constantly teaching anything but reverse hierarchy?

*Connection first*, consensuality second. Shouldn't this be the preferred model? If well connected, a child will follow and seek the approval of the object of that attachment. If this connection is lacking, the first sign is the _need_ for negotiation. I say jump, my kid asks how high (with a willing smile!)... unless the connection is shaky, even slightly. Then it's anything from a grimace in response, or a comment or an outright "I don't want to." Could we fairly say that CL is effective _when the connection has failed_, however temporarily?

*Needs vs wants*. I've heard it mentioned that CL is about needs. Is this correct? Needs seem to be subjective, as the way some of us define needs is not how some others of us do. One person's need is another person's desire. How does one define a need in the family? Once defined, is a desire dealt with differently? Making sure everyone's needs are met is, imo, easy peasy. Dealing with the desires of a whole family who live together (esp when one is as large as mine, which involves mother, father, child A, child B, grandma, uncle A and uncle B!) is another matter entirely.

*Emergencies*. Is this a case where CL is trumped, even for the most hard core CLer? For example, child gashes leg, needs stitches, doesn't want to get in car or go to hospital, doctor won't do home visit. How to approach this situation consensually, remembering you have about 30 seconds to decide.

Ran out of time, AGAIN! Anyway, have a play around with those so far... gotta feed and water some small people...


----------



## webjefita

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Oh my gawd, I think I love you.

I have considered starting a thread about this very topic, and I may well do so I won't take up too much effort with it here. But I did want to say that I HATE GAMES!!!! It just doesn't seem "right" to me. I've BTDT when I was a kid, I have no interest in doing it again. This is again a topic I think we have messed up in our culture - I don't think parents were meant to play dress ups! My parents never played with me, probably cos they were in their forties when I was born but whatever the reason, that's the way it was. And I would never have had it any other way.

Ceinwen and Calm, I love both of you









I'm getting a lot out of this discussion.

ITA re games. I decided a long time ago to let go of the guilt about not playing with my children all day. Just now it's gotten easier that they are 3 and almost 6, not that they ever depended much on me for playing, but I really am okay now with saying "I'm busy," "Go play," or "Help me here."

My parents also did not play much with me, and we (sibs) played a lot unsupervised with cousins and neighborhood kids, which is the way I think it should be.

But I do remember very specifically feeling "crushed" at times when I really wanted to help out and my parents wouldn't let me--one time when they were hanging new wallpaper in our bedroom and one time when I wanted to help clean tables on a busy night at a restaurant we ran. Those feelings of hurt and left out have never gone away. So I'm very open to my children helping out in whatever we do, and we connect that way, through doing things as a family. It's never, "leave me alone, this is for adults to do."

As for logic, I agree with those schools of thought that say 7 is the age of reason. One of them is Waldorf, although there is alot I *don't* agree with in that school of thought, the part about 0-7 years being led by their will and limbs --I give a big







So that is something I've thought about when trying to understand CL for those younger ages.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~Purity♥Lake~* 
Whether sympathy or empathy, she was being kind to me. but....

yes, me too, especially when I'm with my children and am already HIGHLY distracted from whatever they may being trying to talk to me about.







oh well, most social situations I think I misread or misinterpret so I'm already socially anxious enough without an actual conversation being thrown into the mix.

I can totally relate to what you just said!



Calm said:


> Ok, Pat, or whoever might like to have a shot...
> 
> *Logic* My children have logic, while it may not be as mature as my own logic, to be honest sometimes their logic is more "logical" sometimes it helps to step back and look at things through a child's eyes. We both bring our needs and thoughts to the table. We are all given the chance to hear the logic of others, to learn.
> 
> *Empathy*. My children's empathy is genuine. They were born with it. Are they egocentric, yes. More so egocentric then empathetic but they evolve to have more empathy as they are allowed to experience it naturally.
> 
> *Age*. I find consensual living to just be the next step. I respect my babies cries. I respect my babies needs. Then I do the same for a toddler and child and so forth. Instead of confusing my child by treating their needs as valuable then determining their needs are not valuable. They spend their infancy being treated like all their needs are valuable, then when they are toddlers their feelings suddenly take a back seat. I realize now how this way not gentle towards my children, how confusing it must have been. We have always leaned towards consensuality, now knowing what it was at the time, but there were also times that I felt I was "the one in charge"... had I the same mindset towards and infant I would be letting them CIO.
> 
> *Instinct*. I agree, connect, seek approval, emulate. We get to emulation quicker when they are always accepted. they learn quickly that they do not need to seek approval, it is always there. and so they go from connection to emulation. Consensual Living does not mean not connecting, I am unsure where you are getting that idea from. Children will form connections with all kinds of people in their life, I hope to be their primary connection. There is guidance and boundaries in consensual living, just as us adults have boundaries we follow to be able to be accepted and thrive in this world. Personally, I don't agree with child centered parenting. That is not what consensuality is though. However, I think its a more gentle transition. Instead of going from infant led parenting to parent led toddler hood, we slowly bridge that gap, so with time they learn to take into consideration the needs of others. Something they have limited skills with from a young age that develop over time.
> 
> *Connection first*, consensuality second. We do connect first. ore importantly, we remain connected, though yes sometimes we do need to reconnect. Wanting your needs met is not due to lack of connection I can assure you. CL is effective when connection is established, or reestablished. You must connect first. Always, always, connect first. We never, ever, move forward until connection is achieved. It wouldn't work. This is how CL works, not how to make CL work or why it does not work. CL works because once you are 1)connected and 2)healed of your own personal feelings you then feel respected and are willing to work with the other person.
> 
> *Needs vs wants*. I don't have a hard time figuring out the needs of my family, and often even our desires can be met mutually. If I find myself struggling with this, I take a step back. My child isn't feeling equal, and needs some support. Then we can move forward, together, hand in hand, side by side, as a team.
> 
> *Emergencies*. Safety First. I think ann of loxely explained this pretty well. I dont know any parent who follows any line of parenting 100%, 100% of the time. We all aim for that, but sometimes there are exceptions or set backs. We could learn from that experience and find a mutually agreeable solution to have "on hand" for the next time, should a next time occur. Such as deciding we need to switch to a dr who will do home visits, learning how to do stitches ourselves (in our case, my husband knows how he learned from his friends wife who is a nurse), etc. there are many options, that we might not be able to figure out in the moment, but can in retrospect to prepare ourselves for the future.
> 
> If you have found a fool proof method of parenting that you are able to do 100%, 100% of the time, without fail, then that is wonderful for you! I realize I aspire to something more then what I may ever achieve, but I know that it keeps me at my best and enables my children to be their best.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
The more I read this thread the more I realize that I am CL in a lot ways. For example yesterday I really wanted to go to Walgreens. Lilly really wanted to stay at home and play with her new Legos, so instead of making her go (which would have resulted in her being miserable, which would in turn make the whole trip miserable) I just waited till her dad got home and then I went alone. I didn't want to take a whiny child shopping, so I was okay waiting. I also know that she hates going to the grocery store, so I try and arrange my trips so that I don't have to take her. Sometimes this doesn't work out and I do have to take her even if she doesn't want to go. During those trips I try and make it as fun as possible, but she still hates the trips.

So I guess the majority of the time I practice CL, with the occasional moments where she has to do what I say no matter what.
.

I wanted to come back to a couple posts....

I think what the above poster is describing is typical parenting. I think most compassionate, bright parents will sometimes wait until another parent comes home (if that is an option) so that they don't have to drag an unwilling child to the store (unpleasant for everyone). Certainly my parents made those choices without being AP or even reading a single parenting book. It is just common sense to make life as easy as possible.

To me, the CL difference is that the parent is not philosophically comfortable saying, "sorry kiddo--we gotta go, so let's make the best of it." I am perfectly comfortable saying that when the trip needs to be done (in my opinion, of course), and there isn't another option readily apparent. But, just because I am not CL does not mean I go dragging my kids around just because I can, lol! If I can leave them home with dad, I will do that. If I can entice them to come with me and see the toys at Kroger, I will do that. If I can just wait until tomorrow and scrounge fromt the cupboard, I will do that. But if I really need to go, I am comfortable asking my dc to take one for the team. I think of it as an opportunity for them to build resilience.

Another poster (sorry, can't find the post) talked about a child that really hates the car, and so they work around that in a way that affects the whole family. I think there is a big difference between an extreme aversion of the child and a more common dislike, and I trust the parents here to know the difference. My dd was unready to go to school at 4, 5, 6....and I knew that about my dc. She was terrified to be without me, so we changed our whole lifeplan and homeschooled







. By 7, with some professional support, she was ready and excited for school, so off she went. I am not CL, but I also don't force my terrified dc to go to school, kwim? The opposite of CL is not sadistic.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

sunnmama - I dont think you are the opposite of CL. nor do I think the opposite of CL is sadistic, but since you kinds of shared your own parenting experience (by sharing an example of a time you WERE being consensual) it am a little lost on the point of the comment in that context.

I am not so sure of your idea of the philosiphical difference. Seems a but oversimplified, then again I am not completely CL, but every book so far that I have read that is recommended on the CL website shares that there are times where "things have to be done". I don't think that makes a person less consensual. I can see the difference clearly, but perhaps that is because I have lived it and I have read the information so I understand it more fully.

Or, as one argues, that those books are only recommended by the CL website but are not books about CL, then I am not really sure there is a name for my parenting. It is certaintly not what I hear described here by those who consider themself a heirarchy (though they seem to think it is one and the same) now is it what the non-CLers consider to be CL. If I were to join a parenting group of likeminded mothers, I suppose we would be the "Unconditional Parents who talk to kids so they will listen and listen so they will talk who possibly have siblings without rivalry and keep things between parent and child while raising their children and raising themselves including sensitive and explosive children to which point they and their children are liberated Parenting"

Or, since those are all books recommended by the CL website, perhaps its easier to just call it CL







in which case, yes, its CL to sometimes have the child put their need on hold and sometimes the adult put their need on hold, and do your best to meet all needs as quickly as possible, and to perhaps in the earlier years have the parent be the one whose needs get put on hold more often and as the children get older and mature and learn these life skills by emulating their parents then things will be "more" consensual. Really if you truly understand CL you will neither think it is the same as "regular" parenting, a "heirarchy" or "child calling all the shots" (or else it isn't CL)...

It's okay if you don't understand it, or its not for you for whatever reason. Before you make an assumption about something you don't understand though, I say it would be fair to read a little more about it... find where CL parents find their inspiration... realize that CL is different in every family. Otherwise, it just seems that one is out to insult a type of parenting that they either look down on or are upset they feel they cannot acheive. If you really wanted to understand, you would be willing to read about it instead of keeping on insisting you understand and then in the next statement saying you don't understand but you aren't willing to read anything about it - but those of us who have read about it, and live it, are wrong OR are not truly CL.

honestly, it all makes my head spin just explaining this kind if debate tactic, I can't imagine carrying it out lol. I personally don't debate things I don't understand, or enter a debate I think I do understand without being willing to read resources provided by the opposing party. I find debate more engaging when both sides are deeply educated on the subject in which they are debating. Otherwise, if you just want to understand from a CL mama's point of view, it would not make sense to debate with them what they say...


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
This pulled me in. I saw this thread but have tried not to jump in, as life is hectic right now. My mom was diagnosed with stage IV pancreatic cancer two weeks ago and we've been having doctors appointments, blood tests, biopsy, pericentesis, IV ports, endoscopy, etc all week. She is in a lot of pain, suddenly.

The irony is that my fiercely independent mom has become so dependent upon us. And we "twist ourselves into a pretzel", some would say, to consider her feelings, along with our own and our child's. And amazingly, ds generously does the same. Dh has juggled work and appointments all week so that I could participate. Ds has struggled with my extended absence and the change in our routine, and the energy of it all. And today, I really wanted to stay home and relax. And ds had "Pokemon Club", which is his huge passion at the moment. I talked with him to see how important it was to go today, so we went.

And my sister was at the hospital, despite her full time job, since she has chosen/agreed/wants to be the primary caregiver. Similarly, I choose to be a caregiver of ds.

Today, ds willingly came along as he and I drove 20 miles to pick up the pain med prescription at my sister's house, to take it to the pharmacy across town, and he waited patiently for 30 minutes as it was filled, and then we took the medication 20 miles back across town in 5 o'clock traffic, to my mom. A three hour excursion, all in all, before we returned home. And dh was going to reschedule a business appointment to help get the medication, if we couldn't get to the pharmacy before closing, as sister couldn't pick it up until tomorrow, etc. We all work together to find a solution that is agreeable to everyone.

Tomorrow, my sister has a wedding she wants to attend which is important to her. She is my mom's primary caregiver and she told me she wants to go to the wedding. She *could* leave mom alone. She could drag mom along. She could stay home. She could get an alternate caregiver. We consider everyone's feelings and needs; and although our family "already has plans", we adjust to help each other out. We consider each member's feelings valid, even when we may not understand their priorities or needs.

Last Wednesday, dh and I went to a restaurant, which we always enjoy. But, on the heels of all of this news, and the chaos and research, my head was about to explode with the NOISE of the restaurant. AFTER we'd already been seated, given our menus and greeted by the wait staff, I didn't want to stay due to the assault of the noise. We left. Despite dh's concern that it was 'a bit strange' to up and leave, he listened and honored my needs. Similarly, we've left environments without need for "understanding", when ds felt it necessary to leave. We give the same consideration to each other, he gives it back.

Probably, a half dozen times a year, we have some conflict of needs regarding scheduled events. Usually, dh comes up with a sudden need to travel out of town, although I already have something planned, in the evening he'd be gone. Another half dozen times a year, I'll have something I need or want to do and dh will juggle his calendar to make it happen. About a half dozen times a year, ds will accommodate one of our "important" outings. And we do the same for him. I recall a couple of trips out to get some special food from the grocery, or time when he really wanted to stay home and we just work it out.

I don't believe that children learn to regard other's feelings, when we choose not to regard theirs.

Pat

Very inspirational! I am sorry for what you are going through with your mom at this time


----------



## Calm

Thanks for answering SGM, I appreciate it. I like some things you said, food for thought. There are some things I'd still like to discuss.

Quote:

Logic My children have logic, while it may not be as mature as my own logic, to be honest sometimes their logic is more "logical" sometimes it helps to step back and look at things through a child's eyes. We both bring our needs and thoughts to the table. We are all given the chance to hear the logic of others, to learn
I didn't mean to imply children _couldn't_ use logic. I am implying they _shouldn't_ engage logic too early as it hampers their development, and until proved otherwise it isn't worth the risk. There is too much evidence socially that this is a problem in our people that starts in childhood by this very forcing of logic upon our children. I recommend the classic Magical Child to really change one's perspective and even change one's life. I recommend few books (although I've read tons, I'm an avid reader of fiction and non-fiction), and that is one of them. In fact, the blurb on the amazon page sums it up:
_
"The human mind-brain system is designed for functions radically different from and broader than its current uses..."_

Brilliant.

I find it hard to articulate where I'm coming from when someone hasn't read that book. It's like trying to talk to someone about the continuum concept when they haven't read it - how would they even attempt to understand why you can trust a child to play near a fire pit without that background info? Same problem with Magical Child just with different subject matter.

I expect Pat has read it, and whether she agrees or not she will know where I'm coming from and can answer from that space. If she hasn't, I'm interested in anyone answering that has read it, or who has knowledge in this area (Waldorf schools avoid academics until after the age of 7 for this reason, so perhaps a Waldorf mama can help me?).

Quote:

Empathy. My children's empathy is genuine. They were born with it. Are they egocentric, yes. More so egocentric then empathetic but they evolve to have more empathy as they are allowed to experience it naturally.
In the meantime? A two year old, for example is not going to give a rat's about someone else. And that's fair enough cos they're not meant to and they certainly don't _need_ to. By the age of four it seems children can carry and take care of a baby in continuum cultures, so perhaps by then they can become "caretakers" instead of just the "taken care of". But it should develop at their own pace, and who is to really know what that pace is? That they _can_ do something isn't an indication that they should. I can think of a list of things a child can do that they probably shouldn't do, such as sex, and only that child can determine when they are ready for the next step (even though we generally think we know what is best for them, or think we can tell when they are or aren't ready for something, such as sex, empathy, negotiations or logic).

Quote:

Age. I find consensual living to just be the next step. I respect my babies cries. I respect my babies needs. Then I do the same for a toddler and child and so forth. Instead of confusing my child by treating their needs as valuable then determining their needs are not valuable. *They spend their infancy being treated like all their needs are valuable, then when they are toddlers their feelings suddenly take a back seat.* I realize now how this way not gentle towards my children, how confusing it must have been. We have always leaned towards consensuality, now knowing what it was at the time, but there were also times that I felt I was "the one in charge"... *had I the same mindset towards and infant I would be letting them CIO.*
Well said, I like all this. Esp the last line, very thought provoking. Where you have said that in infancy their needs are important but then we expect their feelings to take a back seat as they mature... just wondering if by "feelings" you mean "needs", or if perhaps as toddlers their needs _are_ still met, but now we also have to consider new _feelings_ that arise, new _desires_ and this is where we have to start evolving in our interactions with them. And this is what I meant by age... surely CL doesn't expect a parent to try to negotiate with an illogical, feeling-driven toddler and put our desires behind that of the child's simply because it _seems_ "fair".

Quote:

Instinct. I agree, connect, seek approval, emulate. We get to emulation quicker when they are always accepted. *they learn quickly that they do not need to seek approval, it is always there.* and so they go from connection to emulation. *Consensual Living does not mean not connecting, I am unsure where you are getting that idea from.* Children will form connections with all kinds of people in their life, I hope to be their primary connection. There is guidance and boundaries in consensual living, just as us adults have boundaries we follow to be able to be accepted and thrive in this world. *Personally, I don't agree with child centered parenting.* That is not what consensuality is though. However, I think its a more gentle transition. Instead of going from infant led parenting to parent led toddler hood, we slowly bridge that gap, so with time they learn to take into consideration the needs of others. Something they have limited skills with from a young age that develop over time.
I also disagree with child centered parenting and I don't think CL need be that way, although it certainly has the most risk of being so than any other parenting style I've ever encountered.

However, we don't learn to not seek approval unless we have lived in a monastry for half our lifetimes or we become some kind of independant zen master or something. That kind of enlightened living, where we do not seek to blend with another, to mirror them, to seek a nod from them is mostly not existant on our planet - although it does exist. I fear that this is another case of unless a particular book has been recently read, my concern won't be fully understood. I haven't read it recently actually, but Hold On To Your Kids is the book this concern comes from, and Pat is the reason I read it to begin with so I know she'll also know my concern here. I was extraordinarily connected to my parents and one of the markers of this was that I sought their approval - another way of putting this is to say, their joy was my joy and I liked my joy to be theirs. I was never peer centered, always parentally centered. My parents kept me emotionally close with an open relationship and lots of communication. If we ever learn to let go of this need for acceptance (as also defined in Maslow's hierarchy of needs) then it certainly won't happen in childhood.

Security in a child will make them relax, no doubt. But when they look up at you, their face alight with joy and you look back on them with displeasure - mark my words, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about _then_. They cannot learn to _not_ seek this approval, they don't even know that they are seeking it. And _approval_ is a crap word for it really, but I can't get my brain to function on my behalf and give me the words I need. Dammit.

Quote:

Connection first, consensuality second. We do connect first. ore importantly, we remain connected, though yes sometimes we do need to reconnect. Wanting your needs met is not due to lack of connection I can assure you. CL is effective when connection is established, or reestablished. You must connect first. Always, always, connect first. We never, ever, move forward until connection is achieved. It wouldn't work. This is how CL works, not how to make CL work or why it does not work. CL works because once you are 1)connected and 2)healed of your own personal feelings you then feel respected and are willing to work with the other person.
I agree.

Quote:

Needs vs wants. *I don't have a hard time figuring out the needs of my family*, and often even our desires can be met mutually. If I find myself struggling with this, I take a step back. My child isn't feeling equal, and needs some support. Then we can move forward, together, hand in hand, side by side, as a team.
needs as you define them. I might call them wants. My child wants to stay home, I want to go out. There is an underlying need... and maybe there's not. The younger the child, the more often they just say "no" cos it sounds good. Have you ever had a conversation with a toddler that goes something like:
- want to go for a walk?
- No!
- want to stay home?
- No!
- want to say no?
- No!

Etcetera. There's no rationality there, they are testing life, and that's the fun part! They are testing language, responses, their power and control, how to get reactions, and eventually all that moves into them actually asking instead of engaging with their environment to learn these things. The famous "why" stage.

It also sounds like needs trump wants, and this is where it can get sticky. We can get subconsciously manipulative without even realising it, depending on how much you believe in your power to create your own reality. For instance, my child wants to go to the park, I don't. I will create a headache, or sore feet, or whatever, and then here's this legitimate need to stay home that trumps her want to go out.

I hope you don't mind me responding like that. I am getting to the finer details and perhaps CL is best taken by those who need to learn to be more consensual... and perhaps for those of us on MDC who largely already do, it is a moot point? Perhaps I shouldn't get bogged down on the details.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

it's not about forcing logic, its about allowing logic. CL isn't about pushing a child beyond their limits. at a very young age when the child cannot think of solutions, ideas are offered to them. It just gives them the freedom to use logic. When their logic is "illogical" we do not say to them it is wrong or to guess again. we don't push them. we will say "well thats one idea, can we think of anything else? how about this?" and when we review our options we will say "well, this one isn't going to work for me"

no, my 2 and 3 year old do care about others. My 3yo has shown this since he was 6 months old. by time they outgrow infancy they are pretty good at showing what empathy they have. And most cases where parents feel their needs "trump" over their childs, are they not doing the same thing? being egocentric? When my childrens needs are met, and they feel connected, they do very much so care about others involved. That is one of the known benefits of having connection with them from birth.\

With infants it is BOTH needs and feelings. Otherwise I would say "diaper is dry, I've shown them love today, they are tired, I'll just let them cry" etc. so it is both they get consideration towards when they are infants. We consider their feelings based on needs, same as adults. but for some reason in between infanthood and adulthood this gets lost.









seeking to blend with others (which does happen with CL) I think is different then needing acceptance. Children learn their parents acceptance exists always, and can move past that with them. They are already connected to us. When they find others who accept them, they will connect to them as well. I'm sorry I did not elaborate this in my original reply, it was kind of a lot to go over at once! I think all parenting styles have "risks". For me CL is not a risk I take with my children it is a gift I give to my children. There are also a TON of risks avoided with CL. I'll take what you think is a risk over what I think the risks of the alternatives are. It's just about preference. Isn't all parenting usually connected to some risk? life in general even? It does still happen in childhood. It happens in infancy. The need for acceptance is still there. I believe this is explained well in raising our children, raising ourselves, not that anyone who isnt CL would be willing to read that lol. I can't quote the whole book ya know!

Yes I think a HUGE HUGE HUGE part of CL is connection. So perhaps CL always, connection is the first step in CL, and mutually agreeable solutions (consensus/consensuality) second. but consensual living, always, as connection is such a huge part of that.

I have that convo with my son and daughter frequently. I;ve learned quickly it is not yet time to try to solve the problem. It's time to listen. It's time to sit with them, checking in verbally occasionally, being physically available. Eventually we get to the point where we can figure out everyone's needs, but NOT if you rush it. Rushing it is where people get sticky IMO. Unconditional Parenting I think addresses more on what to do when you "arent getting anywhere" which is pretty much what I already do. How to talk so kids will listen also addresses it.

Consensual Living does not mean we are no longer the parents. We are still the parents. We just don't see being parents as a more important place on the totem poll. We may "specialize" in parenting, while our children "specialize" in childhood. Both places at the table are equal in importance and value, but when it comes to childhood our children are more knowledgeable, and when it comes to adulthood the parents are more knowledgable and in consensual living we all blend together and our children teach us what they know and we teach them what we know - and we do this in a way that respects every one as equal, just having different strong points.

Just curious but when you say you will create a headache - does that mean you will get a headache? or that you will pretend to have one? if so, you don't have an underlying need. If you don't like going to the park, perhaps you are an introvert who needs more time at home to recharge. Your need would be the need to be home for energy to get through the day. This is just an example - I dont know your real reason for not wanting to go to the park, but you'd first have to know what you REAL underlying need is. You dont want to go to the park regardless of whether your feet hurt - so that is not an underlying need, thats an excuse. We learn a lot in raising our children raising ourselvse (which is the "most" CL book I have read so far) about how to figure out these things so we don't become subconciouslly manipulative. to learn why we are thinking what we are thinking, where is the truth in what we are saying. I know at times I manipulate my children out of trying to get my needs met. I don't think this is consensual and I dont think its right. It's exactly what I try to avoid with CL. I stop myself when I catch myself doing it now.

I have more to say but its probably pointless so I'm off to spend some time with my wonderfully patient children.


----------



## transformed

*I* think the only way to have total peace and consensuality (Because "Peace" is the word I would use to describe what I think CL is all about) is if you, yourself are able to put yourself into a place of peace.

When I get a little nuts (Which I do often!) thats when my kids get a little nuts. They kind of follow along with my mood.

I often feel like there isnt enough to go around, and they mirror that back to me.

I think that if I was in a place of knowing that there was plenty of love, playing, joy, time, etc. Than our family would just float right along smoothly.

The reason I have not achieved CL in my family is because I have not achieved it in myself.

Pat







You are in my thoughts. Love and Light.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I think that is very true Jenny, yet I do think that a person can make their goal to live consensually - but it is true that in getting there it involves a lot of work on yourself. The focus becomes inward, where in my opinion it belongs, instead of outward. I was a big "my life will be better when" kind of person until recently. My life can be good where it's at, with the people in it how they are, if I so choose.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Before you make an assumption about something you don't understand though, I say it would be fair to read a little more about it... find where CL parents find their inspiration... realize that CL is different in every family. Otherwise, it just seems that one is out to insult a type of parenting that they either look down on or are upset they feel they cannot acheive. If you really wanted to understand, you would be willing to read about it instead of keeping on insisting you understand and then in the next statement saying you don't understand but you aren't willing to read anything about it - but those of us who have read about it, and live it, are wrong OR are not truly CL...

I've read every single book you listed in that post, with the exception of siblings without rivalry (I haven't had that problem yet) and liberated parenting, plus many CL websites--and discussed CL with posters here for a number of years. If all of those books are CL (in entirety, written from that perspective), then that is a surprise to me. I love those books, and they inform my parenting (and Kids are Worth it! and the complete Kurchinka collection). But my kids still know I have the final word, and I am comfortable with that heirarchy, so I am obviously not CL.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
But my kids still know I have the final word, and I am comfortable with that heirarchy, so I am obviously not CL.

Adding, me getting comfy with the heirarchy has improved relationships in our home. This may be the point where "every family is different". I was not always comfy with it, but I am now. Dd does better with very clear structures, including in our family.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

my son needs routine, boundaries to operate within, and guidance. He is very willing to 'comply' with any guidance that he actually needs









AS I said, I don't know that those books are written by people who subscribe to a parenting style called "CL" but they are all books on the CL website, and none of them have inspired a heirarchy in my family but to be more consensual, so it's easier to just say we are mostly consensual then anything else. From what I have read in those books, from what I have seen on the website, and from what I have read from other CL mama's the 3 seem pretty weaved together to me, and is the best fit for my family. Im not saying I think if people read those books that they will think its the best fit for their family, just that those who have read those books that anything I am saying here about CL is my understanding of it through a combination of websites, those books, and other CL families, and all seem tightly weaved together for me, with people having different family values that lead to different consensus'.

My kids know that a resolution that respects everyone will always be met. They know that sometimes their needs will take precedence and sometimes some one elses need will, but all needs will be met, and all are equally important, and all are valid.


----------



## Ceinwen

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
This is again a topic I think we have messed up in our culture - I don't think parents were meant to play dress ups! My parents never played with me, probably cos they were in their forties when I was born but whatever the reason, that's the way it was. And I would never have had it any other way.

Yes. Me. Nail. Head. Bang. I think CL and CC clash at significant points.

My mother was a SAHM and I'm the oldest of five kids. I think it would have never occured to her to 'play' with us in the sense that she stopped what she was doing and did kid games. We were welcome to bake and cook with her, help with household chores - or to go outside and play with eachother.

YMMV, but again, I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. There was a mysticism to adults when I was growing up. We were taught to have our own opinions and to be strong individuals, but within the structure of our home. For example, once I was past preschool age I never would have interrupted my parents when they were speaking - unless my hair was on fire.

Now I see kids who interject randomly (and I'm talking ten year olds here) because they've been told they're whole life that whatever they have to say, at whatever moment, is as important as the conversation currently going on. IME, that's not how the real world works - when I'm at my place of profession, unless I have something astoundingly important to convey, I would never randomly interrupt a conversation (I'm an RN, so it does happen)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *webjefita* 
ITA re games. I decided a long time ago to let go of the guilt about not playing with my children all day. Just now it's gotten easier that they are 3 and almost 6, not that they ever depended much on me for playing, but I really am okay now with saying "I'm busy," "Go play," or "Help me here."

Yep. I have friends who don't enjoy it at all, but spend hours playing trains or doll house or imaginary games with their kids because they honestly believe that's what is expected of them. Or worse, that if they don't their children will have some lack of childhood memories or joy or what have you... My sixteen month old (for obvious reasons) currently requires more intensive parenting. Again though, she follows 'me' around the house while I work, not the other way around.

My six year old comes and goes throughout the day, but there are definitely times I say to her - I'm gating you and Rue in the playroom, you need to watch her for mummy while I do xyz. Or, I need her to dry some dishes or match socks - she almost never bats an eye at these things. She'd rather be near me and working than separated from the family.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
Adding, me getting comfy with the heirarchy has improved relationships in our home. This may be the point where "every family is different". I was not always comfy with it, but I am now. Dd does better with very clear structures, including in our family.

ITA. I used to read the TCS and CL threads and get this hot, nervous feeling like 'Eek, I am screwing everything up'; then I'd back up and look at my children and examine what they needed. For them, it sure wasn't more negotiation, it was for me to take a strong lead and set boundaries. My six year old is infinitely calmer and more comfortable and outgoing when she looks to me as her both her rock and her soft place to fall.

Calm - this is an amazing discussion, thank you so much for starting it!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

from my experience, it really doesn't matter how you parent most kids will interupt conversations, and its good to teach them this is unkind to do to both adults AND their peers.

I am also my children's rock and soft place to fall. I think that has a different meaning for our family though







I am not a rock of discipline/punishment, I am a rock of support.


----------



## ambdkf

Pat forwarded this to me and so I'll take a stab at your questions. I do think there is a misconception of CL being a "parenting method". CL is how *I* want to be in the world, how I want to treat people, who I want to be. It's about listening, creative problem solving and engagement.

*Logic and Empathy.*
My children have been capable of great thought and empathy from a very early age. I think expectation plays a role here. Our cultural *assumes* that children are not capable and so therefore they aren't. My degree is in "child development" and so I have read the studies and heard many thoughts on the subject of the brain. But what I learned from my own child, who had a severe brain injury, is that we know NOTHING about the brain - LOL! It is amazing!!! So I think it's a cop out to say that they are too young so we will just assume they should have no say or that they need to be controlled. It hasn't been my experience at all. I think children learn from their environment and experiences. If we are saying one thing - be compassionate with others, share, don't yell, etc. but our *actions* say "I know best, I'm in control" , I can imagine that atmosphere of dissonance would be hard to reconcile.

*Age.* There are SO many potential solutions to the 14 year old and the baby, I won't even go there. If I were in that situation I would also look at the core and make sure that no one's needs were being constantly thwarted. Age is not relevant to me, in that I want to treat *all* people how they want to be treated, that is just important to me.

*Instinct.* My children are learning that we can solve problems by listening, being creative and working together. I don't see how that equates to a "reverse hierarchy". I do see how arbitrarily deciding that a child's POV is irrelevant is teaching them that the parent has power over them and potentially that might makes right. When our behavior is reflected in a child, it was can be pretty powerful. I'd hate to see my children judging another's needs as irrelevant. Instead, because judgment isn't a part of our paradigm, they immediately go into problem solving mode - how can we make this work?

>>>*Connection first*, consensuality second. Shouldn't this be the preferred model? <<<
I don't see these as mutually exclusive ideas. The foundation of my relationship with my children is connection. Interacting with people in a consensual manner is how *I* want to operate when dealing with other people. I don't want to judge their needs, I want to help facilitate us both getting our needs met. Having a connection makes it easier but I can do it with the person at Costco too and we don't have a connection. Again, I think this is where there is some confusion about it being a "parenting method". It's more of a personal philosophy and a process.

*Needs vs wants.* I've heard it mentioned that CL is about needs. Is this correct? Needs seem to be subjective, as the way some of us define needs is not how some others of us do. <<<
I do not judge someone's need or wants or even whether they are "needs" or "wants". I trust that the person knows what they need just as I know what I need and we work from that point - to find common ground and solutions that work for us all.

*Emergencies.* We have had many "emergencies" over the years and it's never been an issue. There seems to be an assumption that children are unreasonable and I would say, again, you'll get what you expect. My children have just instinctively understood emergencies and I believe, because we have a foundation of trust, they know that when I'm feeling urgent and needing their help, they are happy to give it. I am a trusted advisor, not someone who thwarts or ignores their feelings, so there is no need for them to "rebel" or not listen to me. There is nothing to push against. It is a partnership, not a hierarchy.

We are heading out to enjoy the pretty day.

~Anna


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
He is very willing to 'comply' with any guidance that he actually needs








.


*That* is different from my experiences, for sure!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
*That* is different from my experiences, for sure!


I probably should have added "as long as parent and child are connect or have reestablished any recent waiver in their connection" when my son isn't 'complying' with something he 'needs' its usually because there is ANOTHER underlying need that needs to be met first.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ambdkf* 
Pat forwarded this to me and so I'll take a stab at your questions. I do think there is a misconception of CL being a "parenting method". CL is how *I* want to be in the world, how I want to treat people, who I want to be. It's about listening, creative problem solving and engagement.

*Logic and Empathy.*
My children have been capable of great thought and empathy from a very early age. I think expectation plays a role here. Our cultural *assumes* that children are not capable and so therefore they aren't. My degree is in "child development" and so I have read the studies and heard many thoughts on the subject of the brain. But what I learned from my own child, who had a severe brain injury, is that we know NOTHING about the brain - LOL! It is amazing!!! So I think it's a cop out to say that they are too young so we will just assume they should have no say or that they need to be controlled. It hasn't been my experience at all. I think children learn from their environment and experiences. If we are saying one thing - be compassionate with others, share, don't yell, etc. but our *actions* say "I know best, I'm in control" , I can imagine that atmosphere of dissonance would be hard to reconcile.

*Age.* There are SO many potential solutions to the 14 year old and the baby, I won't even go there. If I were in that situation I would also look at the core and make sure that no one's needs were being constantly thwarted. Age is not relevant to me, in that I want to treat *all* people how they want to be treated, that is just important to me.

*Instinct.* My children are learning that we can solve problems by listening, being creative and working together. I don't see how that equates to a "reverse hierarchy". I do see how arbitrarily deciding that a child's POV is irrelevant is teaching them that the parent has power over them and potentially that might makes right. When our behavior is reflected in a child, it was can be pretty powerful. I'd hate to see my children judging another's needs as irrelevant. Instead, because judgment isn't a part of our paradigm, they immediately go into problem solving mode - how can we make this work?

>>>*Connection first*, consensuality second. Shouldn't this be the preferred model? <<<
I don't see these as mutually exclusive ideas. The foundation of my relationship with my children is connection. Interacting with people in a consensual manner is how *I* want to operate when dealing with other people. I don't want to judge their needs, I want to help facilitate us both getting our needs met. Having a connection makes it easier but I can do it with the person at Costco too and we don't have a connection. Again, I think this is where there is some confusion about it being a "parenting method". It's more of a personal philosophy and a process.

*Needs vs wants.* I've heard it mentioned that CL is about needs. Is this correct? Needs seem to be subjective, as the way some of us define needs is not how some others of us do. <<<
I do not judge someone's need or wants or even whether they are "needs" or "wants". I trust that the person knows what they need just as I know what I need and we work from that point - to find common ground and solutions that work for us all.

*Emergencies.* We have had many "emergencies" over the years and it's never been an issue. There seems to be an assumption that children are unreasonable and I would say, again, you'll get what you expect. My children have just instinctively understood emergencies and I believe, because we have a foundation of trust, they know that when I'm feeling urgent and needing their help, they are happy to give it. I am a trusted advisor, not someone who thwarts or ignores their feelings, so there is no need for them to "rebel" or not listen to me. There is nothing to push against. It is a partnership, not a hierarchy.

We are heading out to enjoy the pretty day.

~Anna

I just learned a lot from your post. I like the way you put it. My children also seem to understand any sense of urgency I have. OH and I also agree its not a parenting method, its a way of life


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I probably should have added "as long as parent and child are connect or have reestablished any recent waiver in their connection" when my son isn't 'complying' with something he 'needs' its usually because there is ANOTHER underlying need that needs to be met first.









Yes, with your addition, that is my experience.

And I agree with your addition about another underlying need. But I've also had the experience of the other underlying need being something that I can not meet--not in the moment, that day, or even that week or month. That is a really tough position to be in, you know? But there you are, and you still have to function as a family.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I feel blessed to have not yet been in that scenario with there ever being an underlying _need_ I was not able to meet within a reasonable time frame.


----------



## sunnmama

Big stressful life changes....moving, divorce, death of a loved one....for us it was a move, and she was seriously pissed for about 6 months. Other kids may be more naturally resilient.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

oh yes of course. We had a tough time during our move as well, but definitely a childs natural disposition will play a role in how things work out in different families. I think its always possible to live consensually, _if_ that is what you _want_, but in doing so its okay to accept that sometimes there will be set backs and challenges. As ann said it's an ideal. As with any way of life, we all aspire, but rarely do we reach our "ideal" place, and when we do, the best of us usually change our ideals because we prefer to be in constant growth.


----------



## Calm

Hi Anna









Quote:

Our culture *assumes* that children are not capable and so therefore they aren't.
I have to disagree _*wildly*_ here. The very fact that we put them into school is evidence that we expect children to be able to funtion on that level. We do, as a culture, assume they should be thinking and rationalising and able to understand a massive amount of data at too tender an age and we negotiate with these kids who just spilled mayonnaise all over the floor instead of backing off and letting children just BE.

As I said in my futher post to clarify, I didn't say they _weren't_ capable. I said they shouldn't _have_ to think in that space. We should leave well alone is my point. I am a CC parent, most strictly of all the "styles" if I had to classify myself. And there are areas in which CL and CC clash. This is one of them. I also spoke of our unlimited potential here, against the beliefs of others on this thread. However, that does still not address it. In fact, it is the very reason we thwart our potential, the way we treat our children, and CL more than any other style unfortunately - with it's insistence that children can and should engage their negotiation and understanding/empathy and logic. Society says they can, and they send them to school to do just that at the age of 4 and 5 and most parents argue with their kids or negotiate or discuss solutions. That ain't nuthin' new, much as CL says it is. I am saying that this is damaging, and the responses I always get to that is that "kids can, my kid could from birth..." which is repeating that they _*can*_. What about the aspect of if they _*should*_?

Quote:

There are SO many potential solutions to the 14 year old and the baby, I won't even go there. If I were in that situation I would also look at the core and make sure that no one's needs were being constantly thwarted.
this assumes we wouldn't. Yet we would. And say we found no one was being constantly thwarted, and it was a case of a selfish little child (who can be expected to be no different at that age) who didn't know any better and couldn't be negotiated with? We just want to go on a simple drive for the teen... unless I coerce from the teen a solution other than the one she really wants then there are two solutions - the baby's or the teen's.

Quote:

I don't see these as mutually exclusive ideas
No, but I'm suggesting that if the connection is strong, then the hierarchy is natural and there is _*no need*_ for consensus or negotiation: I say jump, kids ask how high. I suggest that C: is only useful if the connection is poor, because when the connection is strong, I have NEVER needed to negotiate. And in my practice, which also entails parental counselling, this is how I do it and for many other families (all of those I have dealt with) the same is true. Connect, and the children naturally follow, like magic. So no, they aren't exlusive, they are _*one*_, they become one unit when connected to the child because the consensus is instantly the parent's, as nature designed. When not connected, CL becomes a formula, and negotiations and consensus become noticable and worked with instead of natural. This is true for all families I have worked with and my own.

Quote:

I do not judge someone's need or wants or even whether they are "needs" or "wants". I trust that the person knows what they need just as I know what I need and we work from that point - to find common ground and solutions that work for us all
But is CL about needs? No one is answering that. If so, then there is a new question. If not, then one _must_ judge whether something is a need and not a want.

As a strong CC parent, I buck against some ideas as they are not "natural" in continuum families. Negotiations, as mentioned, being the strongest point, but there are others. How does a CL family consolidate the CC aspects in their life? CC cultures are hierarchical, so before someone says they are not mutually exclusive, let me assure you they are in certain ways.


----------



## WuWei

Calm, you know I love you! Have you read at the CL website or yahoogroup? No one says children "have to" _negotiate, use logic, find consensus, be capable, empathize, think and rationalize and be able to understand a massive amount of data_ _etc._ The choice to find solutions is a personal philosophy, the effort isn't "expected" of another. These are actions *I* choose, in order *for me* to treat people as they wish to be treated. There is no onus on the children or anyone to be other than they are.

Ftw, many families unschool and certainly trust children to learn by following their passions, not have it "poured into an empty vessel", such as the school dynamic. I would argue that school _doesn't_ trust children to learn.

I hope you'll consider reading more about the practice of living consensually from the 900 families, many of whom have 3, 4 and more children. Several of the families have 6 and 7 children.

Living consensually is a personal philosophy, which Anna actually first shared with me about 8 years ago, and together we've hashed out how we want to be in the world. The term "Consensual Living" implies a process, a mindset of which anyone could choose to embrace, or not. It isn't "done to" children. The children are not "expected" to find consensual solutions. We've found that isn't necessary, in order to find mutually agreeable alternatives. *I* listen for needs, wants, desires, without judging their value or priority for them. And I honor *my* needs/wants/desires as I want to be treated, also. We use critical thinking skills and problem solving (basically inquiry, reflective listening, validation, brainstorming) to find solutions which honor everyone's preferences.

I agree, connection is vital. Connection doesn't imply a hierarchy, ime. I'm connected with dh and we don't have a hierarchy.







I'm connected with my friends, again no hierarchy needed for mutual respect. Someone had a sig line from CC, something along the lines of 'If you have to demand/impose authority, you don't have it.' We honor each others wishes, by choice. We both seek to find solutions which treat the other as they wish to be treated. But, I could do that solely. I don't need dh to "negotiate" for him to get his needs/wishes/desires/wants considered and honored. Neither do I.

Perhaps, it is the self-awareness which is nurtured, when another listens reflectively without expectation of "you have to give up something to get what you want". "Negotiation" and "compromise" do have that connotation in our culture, I agree. I remember the cognitive dissidence when my feelings were not regarded as important as a child. Yes, I still turned out compassionate, lol. But, it took a lot of years to unlearn the 'what's in it for me' conditionality paradigm. The sense of being disempowered to get what I want, IF someone doesn't "give in". I trust I can get what I want, without *expectation* of another. And that another can get what they want, win-win!

Perhaps it is regard for other's feelings which is nurtured when someone models regard for your own feelings. That is how I learned it, as part of a marriage of mutual respect. We've been married 26 years, together since 1979! Perhaps it is authentic communication and conflict resolution skills which are nurtured by modeling them.

Ds told me the other day, "When grandma dies, I don't want to go to the cemetary when she is burried. I know you want to go and Dad wants to go. So, I'll need someone to stay home with me." I trust his instincts, I don't expect my "logic" to know more for him than he knows for himself. *I want him to remain connected to *himself*!* He is respectful of our needs and articulates his own. Not perfectly. But, neither do I. We are learning all the time.

Consensual Living website: http://www.consensual-living.com/
Consensual Living yahoogroup: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consensual-living/
Here are links to a bunch of threads on the yahoogroup (post 33-37): http://www.mothering.com/discussions...s#post13224984

ETA: You don't need "permission" to have a hierarchy in your family. Nor does your process of interacting with others have to agree with anyone else's family process. Pretty much everyone will agree with you, either way.









Fondly,

Pat


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Pat you have such a beautioful heart, thank you for sharing your insight. A lot of what you said makes so much more sense to me now then it did several months ago.


----------



## Calm

Pat! You're here already, with all you're going through! Naughty girl. Thank you for taking the time. Please know it can wait, the thread will be here... maybe with more questions







but it will be here.

Ok, your post cleared some things up for me. Thank you! I was very concerned about engaging a child's logic and then when expressing this concern, my fear was that someone would tell me exactly what they told me... that a child has logic etc. But you saying that it isn't necessary has relieved me. I simply couldn't even contemplate going further with this if logic was needed in a young child.

Ok, so now we know that, perhaps you can help me with some hypotheticals. Actually, we did have a run in recently, I'll use that one first. DD (7yo) wants to be at the autumn harvest breakfast at 7.30am, I want to be at the breakfast at 8am. I suggest that, "there is a perfect solution for all of us, can you see what it is?"

"Yes. Get there at 7.30am"

"Hmm. That is almost half way. How about something where we both get a little of what we want? 7.45am is right in the middle."

"I want to get there at 7.30."

"And I want to get there at 8am. This is fair for both of us. Are you having trouble seeing it as half way?"

"No. I just want to be there at 7.30."

"Hmm. Ok. Let's look at a clock." We looked at a clock, she pointed out half way, definitely sees it is fairest, but feels it is unfair because she wants to be there at 7.30. I don't want to budge either cos I'm tired and just cos. So we strike this balance and she is still disappointed and I can't make it better without compromising beyond that which I want to on that day for personal reasons, none of which are needs, in my definition.

What could I have done better? More consensually? This need to negotiate arose because we were disconnected that day due to the day apart and heavy schedules. I know that if we had been connected, harmony would have been naturally there and she would have happily gone at 8am without even considering another option, but at the very least would have been happy about 7.45. Hence why I see CL as step 2 should the connection fail.

Quote:

I agree, connection is vital. Connection doesn't imply a hierarchy, ime. I'm connected with dh and we don't have a hierarchy. I'm connected with my friends, again no hierarchy needed for mutual respect
I've always like this sneaky point, I like to say I wouldn't put my DH in time out, it shakes people up a bit, like heeeeey, that's clever. But in this case, I have to say that a connection between parent and child is different to a connection between anyone else. Nature has provided that the caretaker is an adult, and the newborn is extraordinarily helpless,esp in humans, who are the most immature at birth. There is a reliance and need inherent in the parent/child relationship that is not there with the marriage/adult partnership.

DH and I have been married 10 happy years, and I put it down to communication and there is also no hierarchy between us (although, we do "defer" to one another depending on the areas of concern, so I think there is a kind of heirarchy with all well functioning partnerships). But ultimately, the bond for my children is with me, and a different type of connection with DH and them. Which is usually the case. Mother/child bond is the natural order, as the hormones, birth, bfing and so on is set up to create and strengthen this bond. The child is naturally meant to follow, and when the bond is highly functioning, it just *happens*, and that is when there is no conflict or need for consensual guidelines - nature rules.

I often liken it to animals because well, we are one and though we like to think we are above mammalia, we ain't. If you study dolphins -

Quote:

compared to the dolphin, I am almost blind, almost deaf, can hardly swim, have a smaller brain, and a shorter evolutionary history
Dolphins, Therapy and Autism
Love that quote. They are smarter than us, no doubt. They also have midwives for their births, and when they attend the birth of human babies and push them to the surface. They compare to humans vividly. You will see in dolphins that which you will see in gorillas, meerkats and other mammals - they lead the children, the children follow, there is little conflict. This is undoubtably the natural order.

Is this part of the philosophy of CL? Is CL in agreement that equal does not = same? That although all members of a family are equal, not all are the _same_? (I have this issue with the feminist argument when they strive for equality, they tend to go with the "we are the same as men" argument, and we are NOT the same! I wouldn't even want to be! I can be president and not wear a feakin' pants suit, ok? I can think AND wear a pretty dress, whodathunkit?







)

I trust nature, I don't trust nurture. I watch nature, always have, and I see those who are most in touch with nature, living literally in, on and with it, be it human or not, the family has a structure. It is hard to tell if this is an imposed structure or "organic", but it's definitely there. And it's beautiful.

Age... still unsure on that. I have to treat my two children differently. I have to refuse DS some things (I have a zen home, so it happens here rarely). Again, it isn't about hierarchy between the children, I don't give preference due to being younger or older. It is just a consideration that must happen in certain circumstances. I remember one time when my daughter was screaming from chicken pox issues and my son was also upset by chicken pox issues (he was only 2 months old!)... what a helluva week that was. Getting everyone's needs met was a feat on its own, meeting wants was almost impossible to do consensually. At 3am one night I tried to strap DS to me while I tended to DD, but putting lotion on every inch of her body required I put DS on the bed. He had never been off a body, so I made sure his leg was still laying on mine. Acrobatics aside, he was very upset at not being held right then, and deciding priorities at that time was an act I daresay not even the General of any army has had to endure. So much for no need for "judgment"! Reality dictates otherwise.

Because everyone was crying, I also daresay some, if not all of our wants and needs did not get met that night, nor that week perhaps.









Got an assignment, being naughty... must run... don't let me back here today! BANISHED


----------



## ambdkf

Pat really covered so much. I'll just add that I believe we all decide who we want to be in the world. I'm really comfortable with my relationship with my children and others in my life. My choosing to live consensually is about *me*, it isn't imposed and the other person doesn't need to be engaged or logical







I can still meet that person will love and kindness. I can still choose not to impose my will on another person. That is just a choice that is important to *me*. You will find much support for imposing on others, adults and children. I'm assuming there is something about that idea that is rubbing or you would just be doing it and not trying to sort through the iterations. I trust your journey and know you will find what feels right for you.

Anna - heading out of here too because I have bunch on my plate and no time!!


----------



## Calm

This isn't all for me. I live largely consensually. I was there when the website started because Pat and I met years ago due to our parenting similarities and we often met on threads requiring a certain brand of perspective, esp regarding discipline. I've read everything and I'm a part of the yahoo group. My questions are the questions many people confused by CL has. I believe we could find good answers to these questions.

Usually, any time CL fails in my life, I know why it has failed. I am not trying to get _sold_ CL here. I want to be able to _sell_ it. I want to be able to give good answers to reasonable questions, questions that keep being repeated by people and not being satisfactorily answered. Through my work I often deal with parents and I have always had a hard time defining CL to them.

I think SGM did an amazing job on this thread, for instance. But it was from the context of "needs". So I have grabbed the main issues as I've seen them on this thread and others and condensed them. I also have a few of my own problems with CL, having lived it for years and struggled with a few things and come full circle to a kind of hierarchical-consensuality that I feel is based on continuum cultures.

Quote:

I can still choose not to impose my will on another person. That is just a choice that is important to *me*. You will find much support for imposing on others, adults and children.
Yes. This is the point I am trying to get across here, that if we are connected to our children, hierarchy or not, you say jump and they ask how high. That isn't an imposition, even though it is my will. If I want something, I get it because of that connection.

So far, my own kids have never wanted anything more than a strong connection with me. Everything else is secondary. My daughter happily sits with me while I read, she just sits there, seemingly thinking, sometimes reading. She wants for nothing else, UNLESS our connection is faulty.

I think consensual guidelines are therefore helpful _when the connection is faulty_. When you say jump, if they do _*not*_ ask how high but react in some other manner - then this is the time for consensus, and also a symptom of a need to strengthen the connection.

This is all assuming that a parent already has most natural parenting down pat, such as attending to _needs_, which is the very basic requirement of any kind of natural/instinctive/attachment parenting philosophy. A baby has obvious needs and there isn't much guessing involved. They also have preferences and desires, and this is trickier but doable (for some!). A toddler can be redirected, and although coercive, it is also (debatably) necessary for keeping them safe and away from other people's things.

So when I say we live consensually-hierarchically, this has been the effortless result when the connections are strong. I have trouble calling it consensual when there is no consensus really, there is no permission given me by my children and there is no mutual agreement - just as there isn't with a newborn. They are just _with_ me, so very _with_ me. I'm not sure I'm making sense, hence I'm describing this in every conceivable way, in one last big effort.

I sling my son and I go. He doesn't care _*where*_ we go, as long as it is with me. I don't ask him if he wants to go. This is a type of consensual living, even though it is devoid of consensus. Same with my daughter, only it is done less physically and more verbally. This is the power of connection. It is also a hierarchy, as it is _my_ will they are following, it is my lead - and when we go walkabout, it is me they follow, literally. As I lead them down rocky cliffs to the swimming hole or through snake territory in the bush, my son on my back, my daughter behind (we live in Australia), there is little room for a battle of wills, and we all rely on the natural order of things.

Nutshell... CL tends to make people think it is permissive, lacking structure or hierarchy and lacking leadership. I personally don't think CL needs to lack any of that or be permissive. Having everyone's needs met is a given, but having all their desires met isn't always possible, and yet we can still all being in consensus about things. And none of that is even necessary if we are strongly connected to our children, where most of their emotional needs are being fed by us. As Neufeld points out, if our children are not connected to us, they will connect to someone else and that is usually their peers which can be devastating for their growth. They will become more and more adversarial and less and less available as they seek the approval of their _*peers*_ instead of _*you*_ - and the _*need*_ for consensus will escalate directly in line with that.

the need for consensus, therefore, is a symptom, not a goal.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I don't agree that consensus is only needed when the connection has failed, and I do not think a consensus should tried to be reached (with your children) when the connection is failed. Fix the connection first.

As another person pointed out, connection isn't needed to meet a consensus, you can reach a consensus with anyone. At the same time, a connection can be strong and the need for a consensus still present. My children are confident enough in our connection to know its okay to want something different then I do. So its not a sympton of anything other then their trust in my unconditional love for them.


----------



## webjefita

I have got behind on the thread but I wanted to make a comment and a question. I am rereading Unconditional Parenting and I found it very interesting that in (ch. 7, I think) he uses the term _taking children seriously_. Does anyone know if he meant to reference the Taking Children Seriously philosophy, or if he just likes that term? I mean the words themselves make sense and I think are important, but the TCS philosophy is something else entirely.

I'm also interested in where CL and CC intersect... what I'm reading in UP makes a lot more sense to me the second time around, although I don't agree with everything in it. But also in CC there is the concept of not imposing one's will on anyone else... which does line up with CL and even TCS. Remember the boy who went on the trip with Leidloff to another village and then decided he didn't want to go home? And the five year old who had a panic attack over whether to go hunting with the chief or not? I don't know, I just see that there was a tremendous respect for children making their own decisions and a lack of coercion, although there was also tremendous cultural pressure that doesn't exist in our individualistic society... so it was rare for children not to want to follow their elders. Sometimes I have a hard time squaring up those two things.

Quote:

Adding, me getting comfy with the heirarchy has improved relationships in our home. This may be the point where "every family is different". I was not always comfy with it, but I am now. Dd does better with very clear structures, including in our family.
Sunnmama, ITA. I've gone through this same process with the result of much more harmony and peace in our family.

There's a very thought-provoking book I read awhile back that first got me thinking about this concept of adults feeling comfortable with the authority they have, called Worried All the Time: Overparenting in an Age of Anxiety. He talks specifically about people who became parents during/after the 60's, when there was this huge cultural shift from adult-centered to child-centered because parents who lived through the 60's and felt that they themselves had not respected authority (rebelled) had no right to expect their children to respect authority. I can see how this is true with my parents. They basically never taught me and my siblings anything about their values and what they thought was right vs wrong. We had their example, of course, but they were so hands off and gave us so much freedom that I felt lost as a young adult with everything I hadn't learned. Anyway, there is a lot in the book but this concept is covered in detail which was one of the more interesting parts I found. He basically argues that adults need to be comfortable with being grown ups and expect that our children will respect us and look to us for guidance; very similar to what is argued in TCC.

Calm--I would love to read Magical Child but I started it and could not finish it, it was so dry and not very easy to read! I will have to try again.

Quote:

YMMV, but again, I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. There was a mysticism to adults when I was growing up. We were taught to have our own opinions and to be strong individuals, but within the structure of our home. For example, once I was past preschool age I never would have interrupted my parents when they were speaking - unless my hair was on fire.

Now I see kids who interject randomly (and I'm talking ten year olds here) because they've been told they're whole life that whatever they have to say, at whatever moment, is as important as the conversation currently going on. IME, that's not how the real world works - when I'm at my place of profession, unless I have something astoundingly important to convey, I would never randomly interrupt a conversation (I'm an RN, so it does happen)

Ceinwen--Tell me how this happens! I teach my children not to interrupt but we still deal with it on a frequent basis. I can't stand rudeness but boy do my children know how to be rude, even when I consistently tell them that it's not going to work to say "Get me water. Now." Holy cow.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Fix the connection first.
Not always possible. To reconnect with someone, it takes time and effort, and sometimes a decision must be made now or an issue crops up and must be dealt with. But yes, fix the connection first where possible. Unless a disconnect with a child has happened to someone, I don't think they can ever understand how painful it is for both parent and child and how much it can take to reestablish.

Quote:

My children are confident enough in our connection to know its okay to want something different then I do.
It has nothing to do with confidence. My _baby_ is not lacking confidence, my _baby_ does not want to be with me because he lacks confidence in our connection. I noticed you have mentioned several times that children do not want acceptance by their parents (or peers, or whomever they are connected to) "if the connection is strong" but this is false to begin with. It's ok, it isn't a symptom of a problem that humans do this. We seek to connect, to bond, with our parents, with someone to follow and we engage in behaviours that _reestablish_ or _maintain_ this bond/connection regularly. Babies are even programmed to do this.

My daughter is not backward in coming forward. She has absolutely no problem in telling me what she wants. What you say makes it seem like kids like mine are shaking in the corner fearing to say, "no, mama, please don't hit me, but I don't want to go with you." She certainly does not happily jump in the car when I want to go out because she is lacking confidence in our connection! It is precisely _because_ she is emotionally connected to me that she is like putty in my hands, and it is precisely _because_ the connection is shaky that she will oppose my will with her own. Although, I think I'm being extremely unclear, I think it's official cos I keep saying the same thing over and over.

DD will ask for things, or want to do things, of course. She isn't sitting there waiting for her next instructions. What I'm saying is that she trusts in my lead, in my "plan", seems to have more respect for me or something when we are strongly connected; there is minimal fuss between us. I show other parents how to achieve this, how to reestablish their place in the home when they feel overrun by children who are walking all over them, who are adversarial and distant and hard to manage. I show them how to reclaim leadership without ever having to become authoritarian or imposing their will. Natural leadership cannot be forced.

Quote:

Calm--I would love to read Magical Child but I started it and could not finish it, it was so dry and not very easy to read! I will have to try again.
It is one of the hardest reads out there, very textbook in delivery. But I find that once you get into it, that falls away and you jive with his method of writing and then it is a better read.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
The term "Consensual Living" implies a process, a mindset of which anyone could choose to embrace, or not. It isn't "done to" children. The children are not "expected" to find consensual solutions. We've found that isn't necessary, in order to find mutually agreeable alternatives. *I* listen for needs, wants, desires, without judging their value or priority for them. And I honor *my* needs/wants/desires as I want to be treated, also. We use critical thinking skills and problem solving (basically inquiry, reflective listening, validation, brainstorming) to find solutions which honor everyone's preferences.


I keep re-reading this paragraph. Honestly, this just sounds exhausting. I mean, I certainly use this process a lot of the time--but for every want, desire, and preference? My head hurts just considering it.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Not always possible. To reconnect with someone, it takes time and effort, and sometimes a decision must be made now or an issue crops up and must be dealt with. But yes, fix the connection first where possible. Unless a disconnect with a child has happened to someone, I don't think they can ever understand how painful it is for both parent and child and how much it can take to reestablish.

Yes, I get frustrated with the simplicity of "fix the underlying problem" when it often is not that simple. You still have to function in life together while working on the underlying problem. For us, a new baby and, later, a move had HUGE impacts on dd's behavior that lasted for months.

Quote:

It is precisely _because_ she is emotionally connected to me that she is like putty in my hands, and it is precisely _because_ the connection is shaky that she will oppose my will with her own. Although, I think I'm being extremely unclear, I think it's official cos I keep saying the same thing over and over.
I get this, and can relate to it strongly. But the "connection" can be affected by a lot of things outside the relationship, ime. For example, if my dd has something stressful happen at school, she can be a bear (oppositional, rude, angry) all day with _me_, but I think she does that precisely because we _are_ so connected (she trust me, and gives me her best and her worst). Usually, despite my best efforts, she won't open up about the problem until bedtime, when she finally spills it all and feels much better--episode over. But, in the meantime, she is pulling away from me and lashing out at me because of psychological pain that has nothing to do with me or our relationship.

Also, sometimes kids are just impatient, ya know? The other day, dd (8)needed to wait 10 minutes before getting out her water balloons so ds (2)could eat (he would be distracted by the balloons and needed to eat). She was upset about that--mad, frankly...stormed off and jammed out to Hannah Montana in her room, lol. But she emerged happy and ready to make balloons in 10 minutes. I guess there was a mutually agreeable solution in there somewhere, but what is the harm in asking her to wait and expecting her to find a way to deal with waiting?


----------



## Calm

nak

came back to say that i have this written on my website:

Quote:

For us, especially these days, mothers work whether they need to or not, we have mass child care at younger and younger ages, we are expected to be all things to all people including a sexy wife, a fun friend, a communicable child, an ambitious employee, a willing student, a compassionate community member and an always available, stress free, loving, cookie baking parent.

So how can we meet our ideal half way, or even further, without going bonkers or moving to the jungle - or both, God help us? I believe it is a complete psychological transformation, personally. I don't think I've ever seen it done in a Western family without that ingredient. This transformation, or overhaul, is largely accepting that you are not the teacher, you are the student. You are both sides of all coins, parent and child, giver and taker, nurturing and nurtured, mature and immature. The minute we try to enforce, rule, assume, dictate - when we insist we have all the answers and the child is simply a receptacle to dump our omnipotent wisdom - the moment we do this is the moment the struggle starts.

Western AP can be categorised but only for ease of... well... categorising things. Instinctual, or natural parenting has no such seams, holding the baby bleeds into sleeping with or near the baby bleeds into breastfeeding bleeds into parent/child bond that leads to heightened awareness of your child's needs. It all goes together, one does not come before the other and one is not more important than another. AP is exactly that - attached, together, WITH. Unplugged from isolating cultural norms. Whether asleep or awake, you are right there, attending to your child's needs - and this means you already realise that the need for you to simply be there is the biggest need of all.
so at no time do i mean that leadership is imposing one's will. just so i'm being clear.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Not always possible. To reconnect with someone, it takes time and effort, and sometimes a decision must be made now or an issue crops up and must be dealt with. But yes, fix the connection first where possible. Unless a disconnect with a child has happened to someone, I don't think they can ever understand how painful it is for both parent and child and how much it can take to reestablish.

It has nothing to do with confidence. My _baby_ is not lacking confidence, my _baby_ does not want to be with me because he lacks confidence in our connection. I noticed you have mentioned several times that children do not want acceptance by their parents (or peers, or whomever they are connected to) "if the connection is strong" but this is false to begin with. It's ok, it isn't a symptom of a problem that humans do this. We seek to connect, to bond, with our parents, with someone to follow and we engage in behaviours that _reestablish_ or _maintain_ this bond/connection regularly. Babies are even programmed to do this.

My daughter is not backward in coming forward. She has absolutely no problem in telling me what she wants. What you say makes it seem like kids like mine are shaking in the corner fearing to say, "no, mama, please don't hit me, but I don't want to go with you." She certainly does not happily jump in the car when I want to go out because she is lacking confidence in our connection! It is precisely _because_ she is emotionally connected to me that she is like putty in my hands, and it is precisely _because_ the connection is shaky that she will oppose my will with her own. Although, I think I'm being extremely unclear, I think it's official cos I keep saying the same thing over and over.

DD will ask for things, or want to do things, of course. She isn't sitting there waiting for her next instructions. What I'm saying is that she trusts in my lead, in my "plan", seems to have more respect for me or something when we are strongly connected; there is minimal fuss between us. I show other parents how to achieve this, how to reestablish their place in the home when they feel overrun by children who are walking all over them, who are adversarial and distant and hard to manage. I show them how to reclaim leadership without ever having to become authoritarian or imposing their will. Natural leadership cannot be forced.

It is one of the hardest reads out there, very textbook in delivery. But I find that once you get into it, that falls away and you jive with his method of writing and then it is a better read.

I must not be wording myself as well as I can. I am speaking from personal experience. Of course our children want to be with us and for us to accept them. I wasnt saying otherwise - just that my children know this acceptance and connection is unconditional. Of course they check from time to time, but they seem to really trust this with me.







You feel consensus is only necessary when there is a fault in the connection, this is not my experience, with my family, husband, children, or friends. In fact I find that its best to build a connection if we are to come to a consensus - withthose I dont know I find it helps to try to make even the smallest connection before attempting trying to reach a consensus, though yes one can be reached without connection - but no, you are not in need of a consensus because you are lacking connection. I certainly would not want my children to be lemmings.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

For example, if my dd has something stressful happen at school, she can be a bear (oppositional, rude, angry) all day with me,
Recollect after every physical separation, and school is a big one. Meaning "collect" your child or "recollect" your child. Children that go to school are torn, as most of their time is spent with other people, and their connections can easily become shaky. I learned from Hold on To your Kids to do this, recollect my child every single day after school. It doesn't matter what has happened to her then, she makes me a part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

This is commonly neglected, the need to constantly maintain the connection, daily. Children only react, they let us know they don't feel connected with their behaviour but it is an inner scream for reconnection. If the worst happens and they connect to someone else, it is still possible, _necessary_, to recollect them but it takes more time and effort. Your attempts to connect will be rejected if this is the case, and they seek out those they are connected to (phone calls to friends, etc) and shut you out. This is usually more evident as they get older, but preschoolers are showing evidence of connection to peers! What can they do? They often have no other choice.

another sign there is disconnect, aside from being shut out or the bearing the brunt of their emotions (that aren't your fault) is saying jump and them not asking how high. They should follow you like rats with Peter Piper.

Try a recollection, then reevaluate.


----------



## sunnmama

Thanks for the suggestion, Calm. I've read HOTYK, but dd was a homeschooling at the time (and with me 24/7), so I probably skipped that chapter. I'll borrow a copy and re-read it.

We certainly have a habit of reconnecting in place already; she normally loves to talk about her entire day at great length when she gets home, and I love to hear about it. But this is something specific to when she is emotionally hurting, which happens maybe once a month from something at school (a paper she didn't finish, messing up a line in a play, a bad episode with a friend, etc). I'll mine the book for some tips.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 

What could I have done better? More consensually? This need to negotiate arose because we were disconnected that day due to the day apart and heavy schedules. I know that if we had been connected, harmony would have been naturally there and she would have happily gone at 8am without even considering another option, but at the very least would have been happy about 7.45. Hence why I see CL as step 2 should the connection fail.

I just wanted to address this... it sounds like you were both thinking within the box, so to speak. I really try to avoid compromises, because generally then no one gets what she wants.

If you were looking for solutions that you would truly be happy with... well, you said you didn't want to go at 7:30 because you were tired and "just cos". I don't really know about the "just cos" part, but perhaps that was coming from feeling that you still wanted to cling to at least some of your original idea, and get some of what you wanted - you didn't want to "lose" completely. I've gotten in that frame of mind sometimes, and it can be hard to pull out of it and realize that it's just 30 minutes, and not a big deal.

As for being tired, maybe there are things you could do so that you'd be less tired at 7:30. My daughter started making coffee for me in the mornings when I'm waking up early to take her somewhere, which helps me wake up and feels good, too. Maybe something else would help you feel more rested that early in the morning - that would be something you and your child could brainstorm about even.

dar


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I must not be wording myself as well as I can. I am speaking from personal experience. Of course our children want to be with us and for us to accept them. I wasnt saying otherwise - just that my children know this acceptance and connection is unconditional. Of course they check from time to time, but they seem to really trust this with me. You feel consensus is only necessary when there is a fault in the connection, this is not my experience, with my family, husband, children, or friends. In fact I find that its best to build a connection if we are to come to a consensus - withthose I dont know I find it helps to try to make even the smallest connection before attempting trying to reach a consensus, though yes one can be reached without connection - but no, you are not in need of a consensus because you are lacking connection. I certainly would not want my children to be lemmings.
I'm with ya


----------



## kittywitty

Combo. Mosty consensual but there are some rules that I make. I don't freak out about them except obvious safety ones, though. But I don't consider us hierarchal in the way the first definition pops into my head of us bowing down to dh or my kids bowing down to me. I guess more like Care's definition.


----------



## Calm

Thanks Dar! I wondered if I'd slipped through the cracks.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
I just wanted to address this... it sounds like you were both thinking within the box, so to speak. I really try to avoid compromises, because generally then no one gets what she wants.

yes, this is my experience at times. hence why I bang on about connection cos I really can't be arsed with the alternative.









Quote:

If you were looking for solutions that you would truly be happy with... well, you said you didn't want to go at 7:30 because you were tired and "just cos". I don't really know about the "just cos" part, but perhaps that was coming from feeling that you still wanted to cling to at least some of your original idea, and get some of what you wanted - you didn't want to "lose" completely. I've gotten in that frame of mind sometimes, and it can be hard to pull out of it and realize that it's just 30 minutes, and not a big deal.
Hm, see this is where I struggled with CL. I have hoped that with my exhaustive explanations, it is clear that I am not authoritarian nor imposing my will on my children. The kinds of deferentials you mention are great occasionally. Not so great when done frequently, however. Yes, no biggie for me to just cop it on the chin for the team, so to speak, and just "what the heck" the situation and be there for 7.30. I'm spontaneous, I traveled the world with only 50 bucks in my pocket!

What I'm trying to get to the bottom of is the _repetition_ of this scenario or one like it. Do I continue to defer my wants to hers? When does she get to test out such deference? I figure that CL is when everyone is in agreement, not necessarily happily. It's not my preference by any stretch, hence why I avoid it and keep the connection so I naturally hold the reins... but it is an issue that should be addressed so I understand it.

As mothers, we are often putting our needs after the child, we are designed that way and that's ok. Then to further put our needs and wants behind because we don't want to disappoint our kids doesn't seem natural to me, nor does it seem built on any research, sensible rationale or anything other than personal opinion and logic - and life is nothing if not illogical.

I'm not a believer in teaching a child something just cos "one day she'll have to live in the real world and in the real world we get disappointed or (insert negative feeling here)". I don't buy into that, because I believe you create your own reality. I would only be helping to create my child a negative reality. So my rationale is not based in that premise.

But let's say I say ok, let's go at 7.30 and then tomorrow she said the same thing (about a similar issue) and I find a way to live with her preference over mine because she's only 6 and won't understand compromise... and then the next day, same again, every day these things come up with children. Is this seriously how we should deal with these issues? Or is it only an occasional deferral? Remember, not all kids are like ours being described here, some are headstrong and will push and push and will not engage in give and take, and the younger the child, the more likely this is true - keep that in mind cos that is what some mamas are trying to live with consensually!

They want a candy bar, you don't want them to have it - the best you can do is compromise and give them something _else_ you can stomach them eating and hope, _again_, they aren't too disappointed by that. Or am I to defer to that also, and give her the candy bar? If not, how is that any different to the time factor? For her, the disappointment is the same feeling, compromise or not.

Quote:

As for being tired, maybe there are things you could do so that you'd be less tired at 7:30. My daughter started making coffee for me in the mornings when I'm waking up early to take her somewhere, which helps me wake up and feels good, too. Maybe something else would help you feel more rested that early in the morning - that would be something you and your child could brainstorm about even.

dar
I'm not tired in the morning. I was just trying to avoid this response which is to suck it up - an MDC specialty.







No one serves "suck it up, you have kids now" quite like this place. I was hoping to find where the response isn't all about sucking it up, and instead about mutual satisfaction, and so far, when I bring in the tough scenarios, I don't see it. I can only see it in what I do and teach, which is to keep the connection, otherwise you're totally screwed and have to negotiate, or suck it up, or find a way to not be tired when my son wakes me all night and then at 4.30am when we are up for the day.

CL has to recognise the options run out at some point, and if we could please just skip to that point and then show me the CL solutions, I could save a lot of writing. It becomes cyclic with the way that the "optionless" situation is not acknowledged as existing. Until that is embraced as some people's reality, they cannot operate within CL.

So let's pretend that there is no way for me to not be tired at 7.30am, and that there is something I cannot share as the reason I cannot go at 7.30, a reason that cannot be changed, and 15 minutes is a very significant difference and cannot be negotiated any further. She wants one thing, I want another... we find a compromise, but she is still not happy but _*is*_ willing to go at that time. _Now_, with _those_ conditions, is there a better solution, where no one sucks it up, there are no other options, no way to change my leaving time, nothing. What of _*that*_?

The answer to that may change my life.


----------



## Calm

want to reword but must go


----------



## Cherie2

Pat and Anna, thank you for coming here and posting


----------



## Cherie2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
_Now_, with _those_ conditions, is there a better solution, where no one sucks it up, there are no other options, no way to change my leaving time, nothing. What of _*that*_?

The answer to that may change my life.









Well to me, no there is no way of life that I have ever seen that includes everybody always getting what they want ... but my first thought when I read your post is a quote from Anna:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ambdkf* 
they know that when I'm feeling urgent and needing their help, they are happy to give it. I am a trusted advisor, not someone who thwarts or ignores their feelings, so there is no need for them to "rebel" or not listen to me. There is nothing to push against. It is a partnership, not a hierarchy.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
But let's say I say ok, let's go at 7.30 and then tomorrow she said the same thing (about a similar issue) and I find a way to live with her preference over mine because she's only 6 and won't understand compromise... and then the next day, same again, every day these things come up with children. Is this seriously how we should deal with these issues? Or is it only an occasional deferral? Remember, not all kids are like ours being described here, some are headstrong and will push and push and will not engage in give and take, and the younger the child, the more likely this is true - keep that in mind cos that is what some mamas are trying to live with consensually!

I am interested in the response, but also in Calm's phrasing "find a way to live with her preference". Is that a fair description of the process? Because it does feel to me like that is what is being suggested--simply prioritizing the child's preference over her own.


----------



## sunnmama

_Originally Posted by ambdkf
they know that when I'm feeling urgent and needing their help, they are happy to give it. I am a trusted advisor, not someone who thwarts or ignores their feelings, so there is no need for them to "rebel" or not listen to me. There is nothing to push against. It is a partnership, not a hierarchy._

Is this the ideal or the reality?


----------



## Ceinwen

Dar, I love your posts like nobody's business - but long story short, that seems like the child getting their way, point blank, no compromise.

What if, quite frankly, I am tired - and I don't want coffee and I want us to meet in the middle (given appropriate age, understanding, etc.) I would never negotiate that long and hard with my six year old over a time frame.

We would attempt once or twice (max) to something agreeable, and then I'd simply say 'Sorry, I'm the boss - this time is the compromise and that's it' Or worse case scenario, mine would win.

Some days, depending on my mood and ability I'd say 'Sure Zoe, that sounds okay to mummy. Aren't you lucky I love you so darn much?'









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I'm not tired in the morning. I was just trying to avoid this response which is to suck it up - an MDC specialty.







No one serves "suck it up, you have kids now" quite like this place. I was hoping to find where the response isn't all about sucking it up, and instead about mutual satisfaction, and so far, when I bring in the tough scenarios, I don't see it. I can only see it in what I do and teach, which is to keep the connection, otherwise you're totally screwed and have to negotiate, or suck it up, or find a way to not be tired when my son wakes me all night and then at 4.30am when we are up for the day.

And that about sums it up for me - anything I had to add would be redundant, and horribly less articulate.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 

What I'm trying to get to the bottom of is the _repetition_ of this scenario or one like it. Do I continue to defer my wants to hers? When does she get to test out such deference? I figure that CL is when everyone is in agreement, not necessarily happily. It's not my preference by any stretch, hence why I avoid it and keep the connection so I naturally hold the reins... but it is an issue that should be addressed so I understand it.

Well, I'm not sure I consider myself CL... but for me, it really wasn't about being resigned to deferring my wants to hers, it was more about getting to a place in my own head where I truly didn't care about the small stuff - and I really can't see an extra half hour as anything but small stuff. I'm not "giving up" anything - I'm truly happier this way.

Quote:

But let's say I say ok, let's go at 7.30 and then tomorrow she said the same thing (about a similar issue) and I find a way to live with her preference over mine because she's only 6 and won't understand compromise... and then the next day, same again, every day these things come up with children. Is this seriously how we should deal with these issues? Or is it only an occasional deferral? Remember, not all kids are like ours being described here, some are headstrong and will push and push and will not engage in give and take, and the younger the child, the more likely this is true - keep that in mind cos that is what some mamas are trying to live with consensually!
Again, I don't like to think in terms on compromise. In compromise, everyone gives up a bit of what she wants. I prefer to find solutions, not compromises.

My kid has always had very strong ideas about how she wanted things in her life, and really, the less I stood in her way the better we got along. Six was a particularly hard year... but the more I continued to look for mutually agreeable solutions - not compromises, and not thwarting her entirely - the more she seemed to follow suit. She is a lovely teen... again, she basically lives her life and does her thing, but she also really values living harmoniously with me.

Quote:

They want a candy bar, you don't want them to have it - the best you can do is compromise and give them something _else_ you can stomach them eating and hope, _again_, they aren't too disappointed by that. Or am I to defer to that also, and give her the candy bar? If not, how is that any different to the time factor? For her, the disappointment is the same feeling, compromise or not.
Well... I tried to keep out of what my kid ate. I wouldn't see that as deferring at all, since your child is making a decision about what to put in her own body. We talked about the effects different foods can have on moods and health, and also about budgeting and how much candy bars cost, and I might offer another option, especially if I was worried about a sugar meltdown... but in that case, my role would be that of adviser, not of involved party (as in the first situation).

Quote:

I'm not tired in the morning. I was just trying to avoid this response which is to suck it up
I think it's about reframing your attitides, not about sucking it up. It sounds like you were clinging to the later time just because you wanted it, then, not for any logical reason - you wanted to get your way, at least partially, because you saw the other option as "sucking up". Framing the issue in those terms is bound to fail - you're invested in getting your way rather than finding mutually agreeable solutions. And, of course, your kid will see this and do the same thing...

Quote:

So let's pretend that there is no way for me to not be tired at 7.30am, and that there is something I cannot share as the reason I cannot go at 7.30, a reason that cannot be changed, and 15 minutes is a very significant difference and cannot be negotiated any further. She wants one thing, I want another... we find a compromise, but she is still not happy but _*is*_ willing to go at that time. _Now_, with _those_ conditions, is there a better solution, where no one sucks it up, there are no other options, no way to change my leaving time, nothing. What of _*that*_?

The answer to that may change my life.








Well... I tend to find questions like this to be less than helpful, because the hypothetical conditions imposed are pretty much impossible life isn't like that. In real life, I'd say that there probably _is_ a way to not be tired, or at least steps to take in that direction... and reasons generally _can_ be changed, and shared. Life is full of options. We haven't even started thinking outside the obvious, either - maybe a friend or other relative could take your child at 7:30, or maybe if you talked more about why your child was set on going at 7:30, you'd find out that she was worried that they would run out of pancakes, or that she felt self-conscious about arriving "late", or something else.

The more we've lived this way, the better we've become at finding solutions. I do believe that when both parent and child are used to working within this sort of framework, there are always solutions. When you're not, well, then sometimes you won't find a solution, and one of you will walk away unhappy. I think all you can do is to keep trying to minimize these times, and keep thinking of other ways to address issues.

Dar


----------



## honeybee

Just the thought of trying to negotiate everything with my 5 yo gives me the heebie jeebies.







We're unapologetically hierarchical here. Mom and Dad are the boss. We take their wishes into consideration, but also their needs. And often what they want is in direct opposition to what they truly need.


----------



## Liquesce

Sometimes I feel like the answers given to parenting scenarios do tend to illustrate the degree of privilege associated with adhering to a more strict consensual living ideology. I don't mean that in a "privilege=evil" kind of way. But I do mean that answers proposed do often seem to fail to recognize that a great many parents' realities genuinely do not always include room for a wide array of untapped alternatives and compromises. Many times life really is like a parent having no option but to do X, a child wanting to do Y, and the parent explaining their need not making the child feel better, or any more cooperative, about not getting what they want.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I am a trusted advisor, not someone who thwarts or ignores their feelings, so there is no need for them to "rebel" or not listen to me.
Did you even have a 2 year old?







I don't think being a trusted advisor who doesn't thwart or ignore feelings is all you need to achieve a child who doesn't rebel or doesn't listen. I also don't think that is exclusive to consensual living. My niece was raised in a regular home (non-CL) and doesn't rebel and she listens to her parents. My other niece is 28 and absolutely fabulous! Yet she was raised in a regular western home, not a CL one.

The world is full of wonderful, well-adjusted people who weren't raised in a particularly consensual home (human nature, it is stronger than CL-ers think, methinks). My son is being raised in the most radical fashion I've ever known of so it will be interesting to see if it affects him but how will I know? Who is to say what part will be nature and what is nurture? My daughter is exceptional but hey, she just is, I ain't taking credit for that.

Quote:

Because it does feel to me like that is what is being suggested--simply prioritizing the child's preference over her own.
Whether you just change your mind, call it sucking it up, "reprioritise" or don't sweat the small stuff... it's all the same thing gift wrapped - the child's desires trump your own in every given situation where the parent and child have opposing desires. I'd be interested in knowing how it would be worked out if it was another _child_ who wanted to be there at 8am and not me. Then how do we negotiate? Does one of the children just have to not sweat the small stuff, too, and go at 7.30? Which child gives up their desire; which child gets to put down their desire as "small stuff"? Why? And why is it different if it is two children and not parent/child?

Quote:

I prefer to find solutions, not compromises.
Compromises are solutions, esp if everyone is happy with the compromise. DH and I don't like the same movies. We compromise. It's a _solution_, fair and square.

Quote:

Well... I tried to keep out of what my kid ate.
I'm a naturopath. Colours and preservatives and additives do NOT belong in my child's body. "Man" put them in food, and the media hard sells them to kids. I can't blame my child for being attracted to them, but I also can't let her eat them. I have on occasion, she's not the left out kid at parties but I have limits. This crap they sell to kids isn't food. MSG, for instance, will make you overeat poor food choices, it is a drug that stimulates the brain, it isn't a salt or a "flavouring". I won't drug her.

_*In a natural setting, I can trust my children to make correct food choices over a given period of time if enough variety is offered, but from a garden, not from a supermarket; that stuff is just junk, and shouldn't even be considered food.*_

Quote:

In real life, I'd say that there probably is a way to not be tired, or at least steps to take in that direction... and reasons generally can be changed, and shared.
I had a nervous breakdown almost a year ago due to lack of sleep. I pulled on all help I could, and I did absolutely everything I could. But I also was restricted due to my parenting style, which is to have my child on my body 24/7, and to feed him all night and to never give him to someone for very long (and never anyone other than my mother or my husband). If I were another type of mother, then yes, I would have a wide variety of options and ways to solve my problem, but under the conditions I had, I had limited choices. Almost dead, of course I tried everything, I thought of every single loop hole but there simply wasn't one that also allowed me to respect my child's needs for his best development.

This is just an example of where those of us begging for more information keep needing to first prove that there are option-less circumstances. It would be nice if people stopped telling us there isn't. When you say we haven't looked at the obvious yet... we haven't on this thread perhaps, but we have here in our homes. Options are the first things we think of. A friend to watch the child... etc. We are talking about complete lack of options, and unless you can first trust other mamas that these circumstances exist, we can't move from this spot we are all stuck on. When I do give an example, apparently it isn't helpful because life isn't like that... what can we do with that, when life is indeed like that for many? If it isn't like that for me or for you, we can _trust_ the mamas who tell us it is like that for them.

You can see why I said the answer would change my life... because there is yet to be a consensual answer to an optionless situation such as the example I gave.

Sorry for sounding a little to the point, I'm always rushing, but I'm grateful for responses.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Sometimes I feel like the answers given to parenting scenarios do tend to illustrate the degree of privilege associated with adhering to a more strict consensual living ideology. I don't mean that in a "privilege=evil" kind of way. But I do mean that answers proposed do often seem to fail to recognize that a great many parents' realities genuinely do not always include room for a wide array of untapped alternatives and compromises. Many times life really is like a parent having no option but to do X, a child wanting to do Y, and the parent explaining their need not making the child feel better, or any more cooperative, about not getting what they want.
I was talking to DH today about CL extremes and he basically said that if he hadn't experienced it, he wouldn't believe it either but kids are insane, just downright mad. He reminded me that DD will suggest we drive to place that is 3 hours away, right while we are doing dinner, or she'll suggest we visit grandma tomorrow - she lives in America, ten thousand miles away.

He reminded me that we basically raise our kids in the bush, (we "free range them" as we call it







) and the toddler will still need to be directed, sometimes against his preferences, which may be to eat a poisonous plant at the time, or heaven forbid we interrupt his creative play in kangaroo poop. They experience some disappointment when redirected, or because we aren't trusting in some higher power to save them from themselves. I trusted DS wouldn't go for the lillies, so much so that I actually let him pick a piece assuming he wouldn't put it in his mouth but HE DID, little sod. So much for instinct.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Calm- I understand it is your experience that consensus is _only_ needed when connection is wavering. That is not my experience. My experience with my children is that when we are so connected that they feel comfortable being their own people and wanting to do different things then me.

Now, when our connection is good, yes there is "less" need for consensus - we aren't in power struggles. This is why we reconnect or stregnthen our connection first. This will sometimes elminate the need for consensus BECAUSE the underlying need was the need for connection. There is a difference between being "oppositional" for lack of a better word, then from truly having a different need or desire then another person.

My children feel confident enough in our connection though, that if they have a different need or desire then me that is okay. No amount of connection will make them be the same person as I am. That would not be healthy. If my child only ever wanted to do what I wanted to please me then I would be concerned about connection. I am talking about my family, as I am sure you are talking about yours.

Example:
I want to go outside. My child is tired, and wants to take a nap. No amount of connection is going to change that need for my child. My child needs rest.

Example 2:
I want to go outside. My child is feeling disconnected and says they don't want to go outside. They may even say they are tired when they are not. We re-establish connection, because I can tell this is the issue, and then they want to go outside.

Example 3:
I want to go outside. My child wants to play inside. Just a simple case of two DIFFERENT people wanting two different things. Not a lack of connection. We find a solution.

Consensus is not needed BECAUSE there is a lack of connection, but yes, sometimes re-connecting can eliminate the need to find a consensus. Other times, my children are simply not lemmings and they know its okay and I will still love and accept them even if they want something different then I do.

"which may be to eat a poisonous plant at the time, or heaven forbid we interrupt his creative play in kangaroo poop." SERIOUSLY?! I seriously hope you are not implying that being CL means letting your child eat a poisonous plant or play in kangaroo poop. Of course sometimes our children need guidance. Everything I have read on living consensually does not imply we shouldn't keep our children safe, or that we should prevent them from getting upset. We allow them to have their emotions. We meet their need for safety. We just don't take advantage of their desire to be accepted by us. We make sure they know they are accepted and that its okay for them to be their own person, and that their walk in life is theirs to have, they don't have to be our carbon copies until they reach a certain age. No wonder so many people grow up and feel like they don't know who they are.

My youngest is 10 months and already knows not to take food from a stranger. No one who meets me children seem to think they are insane or down right mad, and if they do then they must think that's a good thing since they ask my advice and usually start doing the same things with their children. I don't think I often leave the house without someone telling me how "good" my children are. That being said, I love them no matter what, I accept them no matter what, and they know this. Being as consensual as I can with them has not made them insane. The consensual people I have met in real life are all adults now (20-30 years range) and they are all VERY successful, genuinely happy, healthy, amazing, kind hearted, confident, people. My husband and I came from families who believed in heirarchy, and I wouldnt say that alone has caused our problems, but the way in which they chose to exert there power... well if anyone turned out to be crazy adults its all the people I know from heirarchy families (some GD, but most not GD). The sane people I know all came from more consensual families. So my experience is simply different then your husbands. I wouldn't say "its this way" because that way my experience, and I'm sure that's not what you are saying either


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Whether you just change your mind, call it sucking it up, "reprioritise" or don't sweat the small stuff... it's all the same thing gift wrapped - the child's desires trump your own in every given situation where the parent and child have opposing desires.

See, I really don't think it is, and I think that's the key to making this kind of parenting work for you. If you hold on to resentment, you won't be happy with the result.

I can't speak about having more than one child, because I don't... so I learned long ago to stay out of those conversations. I _can_ speak about living this way as a single mom, in poverty, being the sole financial support for our family... because I've done that.

Quote:

Compromises are solutions, esp if everyone is happy with the compromise. DH and I don't like the same movies. We compromise. It's a _solution_, fair and square.
Compromises, in my mind, are solutions that require each person to give up a little bit of what she originally wanted. If it's not about giving up so much as about finding a solution that makes everyone happy - for example, if you truly prefer the 7:45 solution to the 8:00 solution because you can see that it makes your child happy, then fine... but IME, usually compromises are are about settling and giving up.

Quote:

I'm a naturopath. Colours and preservatives and additives do NOT belong in my child's body.
Ah. Well, my take on it is that my body is mine, and my kids body is hers, and I don't speak for her body. But YMMV...

Quote:

I had a nervous breakdown almost a year ago due to lack of sleep. I pulled on all help I could, and I did absolutely everything I could. But I also was restricted due to my parenting style, which is to have my child on my body 24/7, and to feed him all night and to never give him to someone for very long (and never anyone other than my mother or my husband).
So, did that parenting style work for you, then? I'd say no. I'd have been looking for other solutions, that allowed you to sleep. Swings, pacifiers, babysitters, letting your husband or mother do more.. whatever. I wouldn't sacrifice my needs on the altar of a list of parenting rules - my basic philosophy was about meeting everyone's needs.

Quote:

This is just an example of where those of us begging for more information keep needing to first prove that there are option-less circumstances.
IMO and IME, there are always options. The moment you frame a situation as optionless, or yourself as sucking it up, you limit yourself and limit the possible solutions. You may not always see the options, but I believe that they're there, and the more you live as if they are there, the better you get at seeing them. They may, however, require that you let go of some of the ideas that you've been holding on to that are no longer serving you well, and that's hard to do.

Dar


----------



## Calm

If emotions are considered valid in CL, then why is _disappointment_ not a part of that validity?

It's not like I forced her to go at 8am! We did the CL thing, we found a _consensus_ which is what _consensual_ living IS. Why is that now considered a lesser solution than me compromising my desires further so she can have ALL she wants and the parent gets NONE of what she wants.

What is _consensual_ about that?

That is just an example, if we can't find a _consensual_ solution with this simple example, what hope have parents got with real hard hitting situations that arise in families every single day?

I'd love someone to explain to me what is wrong with the 7.45 solution to begin with. We have a perfectly good solution but because the child is "disappointed" with not getting it all her way, we can't allow that so the parent must compromise further?

Are you kidding?

What if a family has these discussions and issues daily, or several times a day, is the parent to compromise herself right out of the bargain every single time?


----------



## Dar

Well... I don't know about CL terminology, because I tend to think in terms of mutually agreeable solutions... to me, it didn't sound like your daughter really agreed with going at 7:45 instead, but you didn't give her any other option. That's not what I would aim for: a mutually agreeable solution. I wouldn't call it a consensus, either, but perhaps in CL terminology it is?

I'm not sure where else to go with this, because your outlook seems to be so different than mine would be. You seem focused on fairness, and each person getting as close as she can to what she originally said she wanted. I try to focus on making life go smoothly for both of us. My kid and I aren't working against each other, trying to to grab the power in the relationship - we're looking for ways to make things run more smoothly. When my kid sees that I'm doing that,, she starts doing it too.

Of course sometimes kids are disappointed - life happens. All I can do then is commiserate, and try to help if possible. However, if I can do something small, like wake up 15 minutes earlier, and that will keep my child from being disappointed - well, that's what I do.

And it does work both ways, just through modeling. At 16 it's all gravy, but even at 6... because by that time, we'd been living this way for years. I don't feel like I was always giving in when Rain was little, partly I think because I didn't see it in those terms, but also because I _was_ getting what I wanted. We didn't "bargain" - that implies, to me, that parties are working against each other to try to get more of what they want. I _wanted_ my child to get what she wanted, and for me to get what I wanted.

Dar


----------



## mammal_mama

Hi! I'm rather late coming into this thread, so am going to be reading through it a bit at a time. But wanted to go ahead and post now.

I've been aiming for consensuality since my oldest was about 6, and my youngest was about 1. I started my parenting career as a definitely more hierarchical person -- I actually believed in spanking, as did my dh.

After having dd1, and totally immersing myself in AP, this naturally led to a belief in Gentle Discipline -- though initially I saw time-outs and such as Gentle Discipline (only I called them "time-ins" because I held dd in my lap for them, and definitely did not believe in withdrawing my loving presence from my child during punishment).

I started coming to MDC and also a site called Gentle Christian Mothers, and started learning about non-punitive discipline, when dd1 was about 5 1/2, and then heard about non-coercive parenting -- was horrified at first, but gradiually got intrigued.

My husband has made great strides in moving over to Gentle Discipline, but I don't know if he'll ever agree with consensuality. So we each handle things differently, and sometimes I feel like this creates added stress and turmoil, and is confusing to our daughters. At the same time, I can't feel right about doing stuff I now feel is wrong, just to be "consistent."

In contrast, I have a new friend who got into consensuality years before getting married and having a family of her own. She was a schoolteacher, and ended up getting a different job because she could no longer feel right about being part of a coercive educational system.

When she and her husband started dating, she talked to him about her parenting-philosophy, and he read up on it and became just as enthused as she was. They now have two daughters very close in age to our two daughters, and all of their interactions seem totally peaceful, their home is organized, and I've never seen any aggressive behavior between their daughters. They seem to really get along and enjoy one another's company.

I see us as a happy family, too -- but somewhat less peaceful and smooth-flowing. Whereas some would blame this on my attempts at consensuality, I really blame it on dh and me not making this journey and working through these issues before having children.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Compromises, in my mind, are solutions that require each person to give up a little bit of what she originally wanted. If it's not about giving up so much as about finding a solution that makes everyone happy - for example, if you truly prefer the 7:45 solution to the 8:00 solution because you can see that it makes your child happy, then fine... but IME, usually compromises are are about settling and giving up.
What do you do if you want one thing and they want another if you do not compromise? Forget about the time example, another example will be better at this stage.

Quote:

So, did that parenting style work for you, then? I'd say no. I'd have been looking for other solutions, that allowed you to sleep. Swings, pacifiers, babysitters, letting your husband or mother do more.. whatever. I wouldn't sacrifice my needs on the altar of a list of parenting rules - my basic philosophy was about meeting everyone's needs.
It's not about what works for me when I have a newborn. As SGM cleverly put it: otherwise I'd let him cry it out. Sometimes the easier route is not the route we can take. You might still say CIO is an option, and that is what I don't jive to about some of these "options". They aren't options if we would not consider them.

What it takes to break me may not be what it takes to break another. Either way, the child has basic needs that do not change. He needed me, and I do not put my needs above that because they simply do not compare. Going to breakfast at 7.30 or 8am, well, that's another issue altogether, and that is why I don't think it is appropriate to make blanket statements about needs and wants when each issue, and each person, is different. And although it has been said that no judgment is required, judgment is necessary to make such decisions, otherwise I'd be prioritising what time to go to breakfast at the same level as my son's need for body contact and my daughter's need for pain relief.

Quote:

IMO and IME, there are always options. The moment you frame a situation as optionless, or yourself as sucking it up, you limit yourself and limit the possible solutions.
You are only seeing this from your experience. You've always had options, hence why people say this is a privileged point of view because honestly, only the privileged can say "there are always options". What about, "accept the *things you cannot change*, change the things you can, and have the wisdom to know the difference."

Sometimes the only option is to enjoy what IS. Learning to enjoy reality is much more fruitful than trying to divert a child into something else, as though their desire is dispensable - teaching them to _substitute_ seems eerily close to addiction behaviour to me.

Acknowledging what "is" is not only a worthwhile lesson in _futility_, but it is much more validating than pretending there are always options. Such as a child who wants a particular toy, and they can't have it (it isn't theirs and the other child won't share). Your options, if you want to call it that, are to offer a different toy, agree to buy them one like it - and the endless list of things that are NOT giving them the toy that want. The way I would approach this is to say, "You can't have it, they won't give it to you right now." and comfort them.

Sometimes it is raining and we want it to be sunny. I can promise my child it will one day be sunny again. I can pretend things too. I can also ignore what she genuinely wants and try to change it into something else and coerce her into wanting that instead. Yeah, there are those "options". But the reality is, sun is not an option, it is raining. Enjoy it, rain is cool. Learn to love what IS, for that is all that exists, everything else is an illusion in your mind.

I see some options as not really options at all, I see them as desperate bargaining chips to curb the valid emotions of a child who would prefer that reality be something other than it is right now. A child who rarely gets a chance to learn how to love what is, raw and initially unwanted as it may be, is a child who is going to grow into an adult who is rather dissatisfied when things aren't going their way.

Learning to live in love with reality is the single best gift I can give my children. Very few people ever learn it. I teach this by example, but I also explain it as they mature in understanding. "What is happening now? Is what you believe about life right now actually _true_? Look around you. You can make another choice. You can _feel_ another way, it's up to you. You're in control of how you feel; no one can take that from you." But I never do this as though it is the alternative to something they want. _They_ must make this synapse, it can't be forced on them or it just sounds invalidating and irritating (try it on an adult for experiment on instant irritation







).

ETA, Dar, I just cross posted, but have to go at the moment. I like what you've written. I'm following.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
You are only seeing this from your experience. You've always had options, hence why people say this is a privileged point of view because honestly, only the privileged can say "there are always options". What about, "accept the *things you cannot change*, change the things you can, and have the wisdom to know the difference." .

But I think there are options even there... you can choose to accept that it's raining and play inside, or you can yell and cry about the rain, or you can put on your raincoat and boots and go outside anyway. The rain doesn't change, but what you do, does.

I find it hard to reconcile the life experiences that convinced me that there are always options with the idea that I was experiencing privilege at the time. Sometimes, I think it is when someone is taking away your power that you become most aware of having options. Sometimes, my options were to scream or not to scream... or to see if I could wait another 10 seconds before screaming....and another 10... and then another... I treasured my options, because they allowed me to maintain a sense of agency.

Whether or not you would choose a particular option does not mean that it doesn't exist.

Quote:

It's not about what works for me when I have a newborn. As SGM cleverly put it: otherwise I'd let him cry it out. Sometimes the easier route is not the route we can take. You might still say CIO is an option, and that is what I don't jive to about some of these "options".
I don't understand... I don't see any of the options I mentioned as requiring CIO. And yes, having a newborn is hard - *parenting* is hard. I'm all about making it easier...

Dar


----------



## youngwife

*Drive By Posting: So please forgive me if this is repetitive!*

From my experience as a parent, in the young, tender, early years, children NEED a leader and guide.

However, once your job is coming to a close, and you start to have teenagers, it's time to delegate some of that leadership to your children. They must learn while they are with you, so that you can be there to help mold and shape them.

So, what may work and be the most beneficial for young children, may not work so well for older. So, I voted a combo since I have both young and old.

I allow them to make decisions when it's appropriate (according to me) so that they can practice making decisions. But, I will envoke my parental right to make the decision if necessary.









It's late...I hope this makes sense!! LOL!


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Hi! I'm rather late coming into this thread, so am going to be reading through it a bit at a time. But wanted to go ahead and post now.

I've been aiming for consensuality since my oldest was about 6, and my youngest was about 1. I started my parenting career as a definitely more hierarchical person -- I actually believed in spanking, as did my dh.

After having dd1, and totally immersing myself in AP, this naturally led to a belief in Gentle Discipline -- though initially I saw time-outs and such as Gentle Discipline (only I called them "time-ins" because I held dd in my lap for them, and definitely did not believe in withdrawing my loving presence from my child during punishment).

I started coming to MDC and also a site called Gentle Christian Mothers, and started learning about non-punitive discipline, when dd1 was about 5 1/2, and then heard about non-coercive parenting -- was horrified at first, but gradiually got intrigued.

My husband has made great strides in moving over to Gentle Discipline, but I don't know if he'll ever agree with consensuality. So we each handle things differently, and sometimes I feel like this creates added stress and turmoil, and is confusing to our daughters. At the same time, I can't feel right about doing stuff I now feel is wrong, just to be "consistent."

In contrast, I have a new friend who got into consensuality years before getting married and having a family of her own. She was a schoolteacher, and ended up getting a different job because she could no longer feel right about being part of a coercive educational system.

When she and her husband started dating, she talked to him about her parenting-philosophy, and he read up on it and became just as enthused as she was. They now have two daughters very close in age to our two daughters, and all of their interactions seem totally peaceful, their home is organized, and I've never seen any aggressive behavior between their daughters. They seem to really get along and enjoy one another's company.

I see us as a happy family, too -- but somewhat less peaceful and smooth-flowing. Whereas some would blame this on my attempts at consensuality, I really blame it on dh and me not making this journey and working through these issues before having children.

Thank you for your post; great insight!


----------



## Calm

Quote:

The rain doesn't change, but what you do, does.
Excellent. Now this, THIS I can jam to.

You don't always have options on what is available or possible or occurring.
You always have options on how to _feel_ about what is available, possible or occurring.

If these are the options you have been referring to, then yes, you always have options. I can only control me, and how I feel. I can't control another person and I can't always control a situation or my environment.

This is what I was trying to say when I said there aren't always options. And I guess this is what you were trying to say when you said there _are_ always options.

Situations often arise where the family member cannot have what they want, and there is no option or choice - _in the situation itself_. However yes, I wholeheartedly agree that there are endless options on how to feel about that and how to deal with it. Like you said, in a futile situation, you can choose to scream, or not to scream... but you can't choose to change the situation.

When faced with extreme sleep deprivation, I could choose to cry from lack of sleep, or I could choose to fall apart, I could choose to fall asleep randomly, I could choose to sleep better when I did sleep... I could choose a multitude of things, options limited only by my imagination... but changing the situation was _not an option_.

Child wants toy. Child cannot have toy. Child can choose to melt down, steal it anyway or not let it bother her... child has limitless options on how to deal with the situation.
Parent can bargain, promise, divert, distract... limitless options.
Situation itself has no options.

Family member wants something you have _*access*_ to and _*can*_ give and _*want*_ to give. Eg, wants fruit; you have apples and bananas. Options are directly related to desire: do you want apple or banana?

Flip side of coin:
Family member wants something you have _*no*_ access to or _*cannot*_ give or _*do not want*_ to give. Eg, wants fruit; you have no fruit. Options are related to alternatives, bargaining, promises, feelings: there is no fruit, but you can have jam sandwich, which is kinda like fruit.

I guess I sort of also agree that just because you wouldn't choose an option, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is true, technically. However, for example in my sleep scenario, my son cried if he wasn't with me. I had the option to let him cry, so yes, it was an option that existed. Just as the option to let a child go without a seatbelt exists (and legally in some places... but even if illegal, it is still technically an option). But can we consider them options if they aren't really options? I mean, there are some terrible "options" out there that make my blood run cold just thinking about them... I find it hard to call them options other than just for the sake of pedantic argument.

This is what I meant by CIO. I didn't mean to imply you suggested it. I meant that at any time, I had the option to let my son cry himself to sleep every night until he gave up believing I will ever come for him and then he "sleeps". This is an option I have every day, that we all have had. But I refuse to call some things "options" when they aren't options to me.

We are all different, and what is an option for one person may not be an option for me. It exists, but so does suicide, murder, theft and so on... all options some people take. Some smack their children, this is an option - for THEM.

We must take our individuality into account when considering an option.

Aside from that small technicality, I think we may have hit a consensus. How perfect, to arrive at a consensus on this thread!


----------



## ernalala

There's also those issues where you yourself (or someone else in your environment, what can have impact on you as well), have conflicting OWN needs. And you cannot always have both. I've had those situations. Eg very comparable to the one of the Poster who gave the example of being sleep-deprived and needing to be there for her infant 24/7. I can now look back upon these times. I feel acceptance of what was, and also gratitude for the way I have chosen to deal with it, I wasn't forced to be there for my infant ALL the time, it still was my own choice, even if I have resented it at times. As there where my HIGH needs for self-time, recovery, sleep etc., to 'find myself', at the same time the need for myself to BE there for my infant and to breastfeed on demand, even if that meant more sleepdeprived than I wanted to be in that period was also very very present. I made a choice. Choice where I would try to do anything (if only very little things) to make myself feel better rested and better alltogether (and having a baby-sit or someone 'baby-sitting' apart from my dh (which is actually parenting lol not baby-sitting), was not a desired option), without having to let go of the need to be there for my infant as I was and wanted to be. Yes, I have given a lot of myself and, also thinking of my feelings at the time, too much . But when I look at it from where I am NOW, with my now 3y old, I feel I had made the right choice for trying hard to not betray my parenting choices at that time. So yes, maybe sometimes I have been 'sucking it up' but now I feel no regrets, to the contrary. I am grateful for myself that I have been authentic most of the time to my parenting wants so that now I can be where I am and being a better 'me' too. The few times that I havn't been the parent that me and my child needed to be (but couldn't somehow) are THE times I solely remember in a negative way, not the times where I have been 'sucking it up'. Even when now I know how bad I have felt in the past for having my immediate needs hardly or never met in certain time periods. This understanding of the wider perspective makes me realise too that what can be my very high 'need' RIGHT now and wanting someone else to 'give in to me' often will bother me more in the future than for the time being putting of my need a little longer, having it met later, and be happy about the patience I had to come to that place.

Also regarding the issue where two CHLDREN have conflicting needs, happens A LOT in this home. At present, I am in the process of helping them to find solutions. do not think I should expect as their parent that they will immediately, right now, in the present conflict understand what it is to deal with a situation consensually. If that is not what they want right now I can not MAKE them do so. You cannot make someone be consensual about something. So I can say that sometimes the solution we find is a totally consensual way, and sometimes not (between them, they are only 3 and 5). I am the one who consciously WANTS to live and treat people consensually in our household. I hope to be able to find and model it enough so that others in this household may learn from it. I do not EXPECT them to become me, nor the 'becoming-consensual-me'. I would LIKE it to happen but I can't demand it, iykwim.

I've had the situations too often where our one child has wants/needs and I will need to (literally) go with him (like, bring him to pre-school), and child b doesn't want to come along while there is 'no other way'. I have been struggling with this TREMEMDOUSLY. Sometimes still do also other but similar situations). I do not exactly know how the shift came about (and not always as I said) but the past few months my youngest accompanies us WILLINGLY to DS1's preschool again for bringing and pick-up. I do think, as someone here (Dar?) said that it is a lot about being truly connected. Right now, he doesn't seem to see accompanying us to pre-school as an unpleasant 'duty' anymore, but as a chance to have connection time with mom and have fun time on the way/afterwards. It took me enormous efforts to help us shift from this bad energy surrounding us leaving the house to a more friendly open-minded, flexible, mendable energy. Before I could say 70 percent of these times where struggles. Now I can say that about 95 percent of these times are peaceful in the sense that we are connected. Sometimes my child may be upset about something while we are connected and it is okay for him to express that frustration, as it is for me to do so when I need to, too. Other times he has a very severe meltdown where I can't be connected to him for a while (and these are really tough episodes) and then I focus on getting the connection established as soon as his angry energy subsides. CL doesn't mean such can't or shouldn't happen, imo. And at first I did think tantrums and conflict where not compatible with cl . The description of the 'connection' part really makes the difference about cl and not/less cl, imo.

This discussion is very interesting







. And to be honest, I truly find a lot of consensual living in many of the messages that have been posted here, even when you may argue that so or so is not CL lol and/or may they all come from different perspectives on being consensual, or consensuality as a philosophy.


----------



## contactmaya

Hi people, i have been following this thread, but have not yet read all of it. I just wanted to put some thoughts forward...

...i try to live consensually with my 3 year old and newly 1 year old. As for the poll, i cant find my place on it really....

The way i approach it, is if there is so called a 'battle of wills', i try to find a way that there is no longer that battle, by finding a solution. In the moment though, this may not be possible. So in the moment, we may not be living consensually, but i see these moments as a way to find an alternative framework which allows solution to take place.

Also, i try to avoid thinking in terms of power struggles, or testing limits, or that discipline is a way to keep a child under control. Instead, i look at our underlying needs. ( as sgm has been so good at explaining)
Most parents however, do think in terms of 'setting 'limits', and 'power struggles', and keeping children under control. Even in a gentle disiplne context. I think that jst by respecting a childs autonomy, is half way to consensual living.

Im wondering if, the word 'consesual' is not the best, simply because it refers to a political structure, in other words, a type of power distribution,so it inevitably gets us caught up in
the question of 'who has the power'. I mean, does a child consent to be born? Yet i consented to become pregnant and have a child.
There is no question that i have more power than that child.

Instead, what of the term 'living harmoniously' ? To do this, everyones' needs and points of view need to be taken into account. Living harmoniously doesnt mean compromise, it means that everyone gets to sing their own tune at the same time. We just have to find out what key to sing it in so to speak.

I dont know....

Also, i read over Anna's ideas previously, the point where she says 'i dont care about the age'

When it comes to kids though, i dont see how age isnt relevant... I mean, i dont let my son toddle unattended to the stairs because he's 1, but i do let my 3 year old.

Also, i worry about the term consent-because you can consent to something, but not be happy about it....

just thinking out aloud here...

Maya


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

the options are not just about how we feel. in the example of the rain its not just choosing to be upset or not upset about the rain, but while we cannot change the rain we CAN sill go outside, or choose to play inside, or have a tantrum over it. These are still things we can DO not exclusively just feelings.

and of course, even children who are brought up consensually will feel disappointment. I think the question for those of us who live consensually, would be WHY is that 15 minutes so important to us? We all know that 15 minutes seems longer to a child then an adult (imagine a baby crying for 15 minutes) So many of us would just get up earlier because its not necessary to upset a child so we can have _those_ 15 minutes, and I find that by living this way, giving them the 15 minutes they want often later on pays off with MORE time for me. I'm not going to let my child play checkers on the highway... but I would be willing to sacrafice 15 minutes for them. And this is where every family being different comes into play. CL looks different in every family. I think with CL though we really evaluate our wants and needs, why we feel we want or need something... not just with our children, but with everyone.

And I agree - fair is NOT always equal. It's not always about meeting half way. Sometimes you can be happy meeting someone half way. It's really about your ow mindset towards other people though. Instead of worrying about controlling others to feel in control of yourself, you learn how you can control yourself while others are controlling themselves even if they want something different. Yes, its hard sometimes, for me. Instead of me thinking the other person is unreasonable though (that is not helpful to anyone) I can think that maybe they are reasonable. Or maybe I am the one who is unreasonable. What can *I* do to make this situation better for everyone involved? How can *I* be happy even if things don't go the way I initially wanted them to. And our children learn to be this way through example as well. I often think how would I treat my friend, neighbor, or spouse. Would I really get in an arguement with them over 15 minutes? Not likely. I'd see that those 15 minutes are important to them and probably not feel they are *that* important to me. I can still be happy without those 15 minutes. If you are okay with meeting half way, and your child is not, that is still you getting your way. It means you are okay with 7:45. So you are okay with 7:45 and she is not. You do not think you should have to meet her where she is at. The very thing she is being adamant about (15 minutes) that you think is unfair or silly or whatever, is the very thing YOU are being adamant about.

We can teach by example. So many parents are too focused on getting child to "see things their way"... Children learn what they live - they reflect us. If we send the message that halfway is fair and nothing else is acceptable they learn that. If we teach them that powerful people will always have more say over others, and they should just "accept" that, then they will learn that. We want to teach life isnt always fair right? well what better way then for us to accept an "unfair" situation graciously.

It's fine if its not right for your family, but it doesn't mean children from consensual families will run amok, eat poop, and be inconsiderate.

The conversation is just going in circles at this point though - and the reason why is because those who chose to live consensually are coming from a different mindset entirely, so what we explain sounds horrible to non-CLers, and what non-CLers explain is just not the truth to us.

Any non-CLers do 'the work' - you can do it online for free www.thework.com ... sometimes I don't want to do the work lol, but when I do its always very revealing - its life changing.


----------



## WuWei

There are over three years of *'What about this, how do we find a consensual solution?'* discussions, with over 9800+ posts on the CL yahoogroup. I honestly can't do the infinite hypothetical iterations here.







If folks get "stuck" and want help to troubleshoot possible alternatives of real life situations, there are 900+ families who've btdt and could help to brainstorm with you.

Here are some old threads on the Consensual Living yahoogroup addressing some of the challenges of creating solutions with little people. Many are complex issues with extensive discussion of nuances, practical application, and tools for overcoming obstacles to creating mutually agreeable solutions. Yahoo CL group has a search engine function also.

Pat

-Here are a few *non verbal toddler* threads:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1881

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1905

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1861

This one is about *leaving places*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1719

This one is about *leaving the park*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1445

This one is about negotiating around *boring appointments*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1692

This one is about *"too much information"*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1605

Getting *shoes on a toddler* and other creative problem solving:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1960

CL for a young *preverbal toddler*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1895

Some *basic CL questions*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1673

Toddlers with a *mind of their own and transitions*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1443

*Food issues* and CL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1123

*How to gain cooperation*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1305

*Book recommendations*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1279 See also
the files for discussion and links to the recommended reading list.

*Product oriented parenting*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ing/message/52

*Sleeping issues*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/185

*Boundaries*: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/134

*Support group vs. discussion list*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/131

Questions re: *limits and control*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ing/message/32

*Challenges* of living consensually:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/405

Toddlers making *messes*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/388

Paradigm shift/ *non-coercive vs. consensual*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/249

Re: *Logical and Natural Consequences*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/408
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/411
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/427
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/466

Saying Yes to *video games*?:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/536

Ouch! And *biting while nursing*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/523

Attached babies and *carseats*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/542
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/543
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/547

*The stories we tell ourselves*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/502

*Unconditional Parenting*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/226
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/299

What to do *when a mom is being mean to their child*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/424

*Underlying needs*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/756
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/757
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/764
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1172

*Autonomy*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/696
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/691

*Embracing your self-worth*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/699

*"Hurt when wrong"*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/654

*Reality, Judgment and Modeling*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/587

*Goodbadrightwrong*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/601

*Persuasion*: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1185
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1200

*Consensual weaning*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/951
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...ng/message/956

*Living Consensually with a partner*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1356
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1357

How to *gain cooperation*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1293
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1296

*Talking about peace* with our children:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1289
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1298

*Food*: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1123

*Toothbrushing*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1314
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1316

*Even spending between siblings*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1263
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1265

How do you respond *when you feel disappointment*?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1232
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1233

*TCC and CL*: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1567
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1568

*Leaving the park*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1420
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1427

Dealing with issues that *can't bend on - i.e. harming animals*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1378

*Preschoolers* and CL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1633

*Only one parent interested in CL*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1590

*HALT, coercion and CL*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1592

*Is consistency important?* What is consistency?:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5017
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5038

I don't want my son exposed to children who watch *TV or movies*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5039
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5044

*Validation vs. Fixing?*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5025
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5026

*Recommended Reading Request*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4984

*Child can not get enough of me*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4982

Kids *testing boundaries* in social situations:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4928

*Getting your child ill on purpose (chicken pox)*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4929
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4948

*helping dh to understand consensual living*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4914
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/1793

*Siblings: To share or not to share,* that is the question...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4822
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4804
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4891

How to *restore trust and remove guilt* with a 4 year old:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4775

*Manners?*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4851

*Teens sneaking out*, need some perspective:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4780

*Wasting water*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4808

Finding it hard to deal with others and *'praise'*...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4745

The Whole Point - *I Think I Finally Get It!*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4733

Almost 4 y.o. *wanting to nurse instead of eat*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4683

*Does CL mean your toddler never cries*?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4595
*
Rude seven year old son*---THIS IS LOOONG.:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4664
*
question about judgment*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4593

*CPS may visit our home*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4643

*Consensual Eyedrops?*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4657

*Medications*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4600

*Help. Sleep issues*.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4555

Another question...*about NVC*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4476

*Toddler who wont move*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4516

*Tick Bite*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4374

*dentist and CL*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4362
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4365
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4092

*Won't take a bath?*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4166

*Changing clothes*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4131

This isn't consensual!! *(re: toy mess)*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4115

goals and *living in the moment*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4102

non-coercive, but reasonable *bedtimes, boundaries*, etc?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4014
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4023
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4030
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4035

*Dietary Question*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8394

*CL and dogs*: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8407

Question about *bedtime*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8437

*Dd doesn't like her cousin*, should I get involved:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8402

*rage, why parenting is hard*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8314

*Neighbor and I parent differently*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8288

Help! *4 YO DS wants to learn to use the stove*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8357

*Selling the house*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8333

Spinning Plates...at *Bedtime*...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8305

*Being aware of our cycles*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8278

*When your own cup won't fil*l:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8216
*
Toddlers and 'discipline'* (long):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8143

Struggling with *late nights and poop, and lots of other fun stuff*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8178

*toys and storage space* and not wanting a ton of STUFF:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8176

Speaking of *Food Issues*...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8108

*To Stay in School or Not*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8048

*Struggling with late nights*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8092

In-laws Testing Parenting Values and *Meeting the Needs of dh*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/8010

4 year old Tantrum over *Junk Food*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7967

*HUGE messes*: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7951

*Video games* & my 7 year old:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7915

*thumbsucking* woes:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7858

*moving and downsizing*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7855

If you had to *choose just one book*...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7784

*cl responses to hitting?* :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7641

*Hitting*: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7690

*Toddlers and hitting*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7606

*Night time and Naps*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7587

*Ds doesn't want me to leave the house without him*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7595

*Bathing Short Cuts*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7564

*When partners disagree*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7454
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/6948

*When spouse parenting styles differ*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7417

*personal possessions or community property?*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7449

*Sleep issues*: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7367

*How do you deal with defiance?*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7339

*The Highchair story*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/6854

*Waiting in the proverbial parking lot*: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/6671

*slowing down*: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/6788
*
How do you deal with authority figures in society?*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/6666

Helping *shy child* manage attention from adults:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/6663

*When My Buttons Are Pushed:*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/6736

*Ds and food*: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5348

*Re: choosing friend*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/6261

*there is no right or wrong in anything?*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/6323

*Authority vs. CL (or...Dh vs. Me)*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/6200

*car seats* and meeting the need:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5838

*very attached..*.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5683

*Splinter in her foot!*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/6067

*Help me understand - why some cant 'do' CL?*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5953

*Waldorf Discipline...? and CL*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5982
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5488
*
How do you cope with the rest of the world? - feeling lonely:*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5789

*Potty learning... or lack thereof!*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5745

*Taking care of myself:*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5694

*disconnected:*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5648

*"violence":* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5613

*If your child won't let you socialize...*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5606

*cutting nails:*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5518

*music lessons:*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7210

Suggestions to help me *night wean consensually*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7203

*Montessori* sensitive periods and CL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7139
*
excluding/bullying* behavior in young children:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7187
*
Wanting ones own way?* How to handle?:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7129

need some help: *independent toileting*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7067

*Child centeredness?*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/7024

*clean-up and kids*:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/5073
*
can't get enough of me!*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...g/message/4982

Please do post particular issues to the yahoogroup. There are many families there who are resources to support you in your journey. But I hope this will help to answer some of the process and philosophy questions related to seeking mutually agreeable solutions with little people.

*CL website:* http://www.consensual-living.com/
*CL Yahoogroup:* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consensual-living/

*Original CL Thread:* http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ght=consensual

Pat


----------



## Calm

Emala, I agree with all you wrote. Thank you, important words.

Maya, you bring up valid points, the same ones I hope you get further with than me.









Quote:

Also, i read over Anna's ideas previously, the point where she says 'i dont care about the age'

When it comes to kids though, i dont see how age isnt relevant... I mean, i dont let my son toddle unattended to the stairs because he's 1, but i do let my 3 year old.
Although CL don't like to say this out loud for some reason, you do have to treat them differently, and every time they mature, just as we treat adults differently. CL will say that all needs are equal, and this is true. But it doesn't help when we feel bad for redirecting a toddler when we don't need to redirect an older child. Here's permission - you can.







I don't know why they don't help out a confused mama and just say YES, of course you have to redirect a baby so they don't fall down the stairs, please please don't feel guilt about it!

Quote:

These are still things we can DO not exclusively just feelings.
Yes, I gave that example with the jam sandwich.

Quote:

I think the question for those of us who live consensually, would be WHY is that 15 minutes so important to us?
I already know why it is important to me. I just can't share why, this is a public board, and I said that the first time I wrote the issue down. And yet it was (and still is, as your post demonstrates) dismissed as not relevant or ignored as changeable. It isn't.

This is why I plead that we trust each mama here has valid reasons for needing to do something, there isn't much trust in CL for adults, I notice that over and over on these threads.

One more time: let go of trying to get me to concede to her desire at that time, it couldn't be done. If someone can find a solution other than the one I found - which is the most consensual I could find, she was just disappointed she didn't get it all her way - then I'd be pretty impressed cos no one has tried doing that yet, they only keep going on about how I should let go of that 15 minutes! Is that the best we have? Cos my solution was better, and much more fair.









You can tell by my posts that I give more to my kids than most usually, for instance my sleep deprivation and another mama said she wouldn't do that, she'd hand the kid over. This is what most mamas do, they give up for their own needs. Mostly, I don't do that. Therefore, have trust that when I say I couldn't give that 15 minutes, _I couldn't give that 15 minutes_, and meet me where I AM, not where you think I _should_ be. Please.

Quote:

Any non-CLers do 'the work' - you can do it online for free www.thework.com ... sometimes I don't want to do the work lol, but when I do its always very revealing - its life changing.
I facilitate the Work and use it in my clinic. It's very powerful. When you say non-CLers could use it, so could CL-ers, I have a consensual home and we use it.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

but no one is saying that you shouldn't redirect a child or keep them safe? why do you keep implying children are going to eat poop, fall down stairs, etc (or implying other times that we just wont admit that we wil ltake action to prevent that)... no one is saying that Calm. You come across as trying to make it sound like CL kids are at increased risk in order to make your own parenting sound "better". What we are doing is different then what you are doing, not more dangerous. You plead we trust eachother, but you obviously are not trusting anything any of the CL mama's have said here.

In your case of the 15 minutes ordeal I am talking about what *I* would ask *myself* not what *you* should ask *yourself*. No one can tell you what you *should* do, but you are asking what your other options are - well we don't know what your other options are because we aren't you and there are things about the situation you are unable to tell us. You want us to be able to tell you other solutions when we don;t have all the facts, it feels like you would just keep giving reasons why nothing we suggest would work. The fact is, sometimes there will be disappointment, no one is denying that. And that is for BOTH parent and child at different times.

as for the work I didnt say non-CLers COULD use it, I asked if there are any who did. Please do not manipulate my words.

also, there have been times I've asked for CL solutions to problems, and even when I did share all the details, I got suggestions and none of them worked... then I found one that did that no one else had suggested. It's not always as easy as saying "well do you have a better idea" to someone not in your family, especially when they don't have all the details. Again, its an ideal - disappointment still happens, on both ends - we learn, or try to, for the next time.

If a person thinks "well there is no CL solution to this so CL mama's will either let their child eat poop or won't be CL" that is very close minded, and to reflects a person that obviously does not understand, no matter how much they claim they do.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *contactmaya* 
Instead, what of the term 'living harmoniously' ?

I like the word harmoniously better, too..

Quote:

Also, i read over Anna's ideas previously, the point where she says 'i dont care about the age'

When it comes to kids though, i dont see how age isnt relevant... I mean, i dont let my son toddle unattended to the stairs because he's 1, but i do let my 3 year old.
I think age is irrelevant in that people of all ages have the right to live their lives without coercion.. but that doesn't mean that all people will need the same things in order for that to happen. Most 1 year olds won't object to your being nearby when they're exploring the stairs, and most 3 year olds won't mind if you're not right with them on the stairs. I think it's all about what your kid is comfortable with, whatever his age...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
One more time: let go of trying to get me to concede to her desire at that time, it couldn't be done. If someone can find a solution other than the one I found - which is the most consensual I could find, she was just disappointed she didn't get it all her way - then I'd be pretty impressed cos no one has tried doing that yet, they only keep going on about how I should let go of that 15 minutes! Is that the best we have? Cos my solution was better, and much more fair.









But your daughter didn't think it was fair or better, right? You may feel better about it because you feel that you're being fair, but her perspective it doesn't seem to be the same.

And I suggested some other possible solutions way back in post 324... but really, just the process of looking for outside the box solutions for yourself is usually the most helpful, because the people involved in an issue are the most able to understand what will work and what won't.

Quote:

You can tell by my posts that I give more to my kids than most usually, for instance my sleep deprivation and another mama said she wouldn't do that, she'd hand the kid over. This is what most mamas do, they give up for their own needs. Mostly, I don't do that.
Which is your choice, of course... but this feels backwards to me. When I was sleep deprived, I found solutions that worked for both me and my child - we were both happy and we both got our needs met. It sounds like instead, you sacrificed your own comfort and need for sleep in order to be hold your baby all of the time, instead of looking for solutions that might meet both of your needs.

OTOH, in this situation, when it's very clear that your child will be made unhappy by your actions, you insist on your solution - which you start by calling "the perfect solution" and define as fair to her. It didn't sound like there was an attempt at problems-solving, since you had already defined your counter as the perfect solution. There's no attempt to find another solution that might both of you happy.

So, with an infant you choose to self-sacrifice, and with an older child you choose to enforce your own idea....? I don't see either way as problem solving and finding mutually agreeable solutions.

Dar


----------



## Calm

Quote:

but no one is saying that you shouldn't redirect a child or keep them safe?
I represent a large amount of people here, not just myself. I am asking questions as most people throw up their hands and walk away. We're not asking the same questions because we're idiots. Perhaps we're asking them because they aren't answered satisfactorily.

Regarding the question I quoted, the reason people feel they should be doing more than redirecting is because CL can be confusing.

I think the problem we have here is that there are various definitions of CL, and we keep hearing different people's definitions, not a standard one. With a philosophy we can usually check some kind of "bible", be it a book or whatnot for exactly how to go about it but with CL, it seems based on the last poster's interpretation. When we look up the CL bible (the website), this is what we get (which is where the parents of a baby or toddler get confused):

Quote:

*Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties*.
If you have a baby or toddler, there is an immediate flaw in that sentence, even if we ignore the fact that they can't even talk yet, it is still flawed. So we search the site for answers and we keep hitting up against the same thing...

Quote:

Consensual Living, to me, means living with family members in relationships where each individual is treated equally and has the right to self-determination, living in an environment where each family member's wants and/or needs are valued and met
Met, where their wants are MET. Not discussed or negotiated, but met. So my child wants something, and whatever it is, this desire is met.

I can't meet all my children's wants, nor would I even want to, esp if the wants include driving my car or (insert child-like life-experimental play here).

So we ask the reasonable and obvious next question which is, but if I can't meet those wants? What about childish wants, like wanting to jump out a window, do I stop them or do I "meet their wants". Who determines what is an irrational want, when do we allow full self-determination... the list of questions due to such statements given on the site is long, and valid.

Then we're told "no one said you shouldn't protect your child or redirect them". But look at what we ARE told about meeting ALL their WANTS... and there is wonder at our confusion and at poor mamas who write that they feel bad for redirecting a child away from stairs? I am drawing attention here to valid inconsistencies, don't belittle them or me (or make me quote where such belittling has occurred), the inconsistencies are written plain as day and people are struggling with them.

Quote:

When conflicts arise, mutually agreeable solutions are reached
Again, if there is no age different, how does one, exactly, reach a mutually agreeable solution with a one year old? Because conflict does arise with a baby... and surely redirection is not seen as "mutually" agreeable? Again... confusing.

Quote:

With accurate information, only the individual is capable of making decisions regarding what is right for him. No one is better at making those decisions than the individual.
(also from the website)
I agree in a sense, but it is an overly simplistic view of things in a child's life. "With accurate information" is the key here. My child doesn't have this, most adults don't have this!
Accurate information is a subjective thing. And my six year old cannot be expected to make a judgment call on food, transportation... and a bunch of other things yet. That's what I'm here for! That's why children have parents.

We aren't saying a baby is lesser than a toddler or not equal to the adult... or any of that. We're saying that the expectations of a person must be different, depending on the individual and the age. My neighbour has brain damage and his brain is that of a 4 year old but he is 40. I've lived next door to him for 30 years, and he can't make judgment calls, he can't self-determine anything. He gets frustrated like any four year old yet in the body of a 40 year old that is very dangerous and there have been "incidents".

Yes, he has all the human rights I have, no question, including the right to self-determination. However, having the *right* to it, and having the _*ability*_ to execute it are miles apart, and this is where the whole premise is flawed. My six year old has all the human rights, but we cannot expect of her that which we can expect of a ten year old, and we can expect even less of my son. Development is a process, and although none of us is going to argue we are all equal in our humanity, and all deserving of all our human rights, we are going to argue that ALL of us at EVERY age can deal with that without guidance and even boundaries.

That is where parents come in, because they are the only people who can "impose" (for want of a better word) on me, without it being an infringement on my liberties. Even now, my mother has this power which I subconsciously grant her for some mystical reason only the universe knows. Attached children everywhere will attest to the same feeling even as adults. Parents have the most important role of all the world's roles because of this privilege of having another human being in their charge.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

You come across as trying to make it sound like CL kids are at increased risk in order to make your own parenting sound "better".
I have no idea where I've implied that. I've been repeating that I am CL, I am more CC where they butt heads but I am definitely a CL family. I am trying to clear up the flaws in CL, or at least, the perceived flaws and the inconsistencies.

Quote:

If a person thinks "well there is no CL solution to this so CL mama's will either let their child eat poop or won't be CL" that is very close minded, and to reflects a person that obviously does not understand, no matter how much they claim they do.
Where I don't understand I have made it clear I do not understand. What I fail to understand mostly right now is how, even when I've made it as easy as possible by asking simple and direct questions, ... it's like some can't tell I'm using my problems as examples, as a way into some of the issues people having trouble with and try to get to the point I'm making. I've said, "what if it were two children having the 7.30/8.00 dilemma?" yet no one touched that. I tried saying that it was impossible for me to compromise further than 7.45 yet no one touched that other than to say "well, we can't help you then, surely you can just give up the whole half hour". So in some cases, as this proves, there is no solution that makes _everyone_ instantly _happy_.

But then when I say that, someone says "but no one said negative emotions should be avoided", uuuhhh, yes they did. Otherwise, there wouldn't be this issue with my daughter being "disappointed" with not getting the full half hour out of the deal.

Following?

I gave a simple issue with a seemingly simple solution. But I threw a spanner into the works, to see how it flew - emotion.

IF, let's just say... IF I had said, "so we compromised on 7.45am, ain't we clever?" then all of the CL world would clap their hands at our wonderful example of consensual abilities and harmonious resonance. Instead, I added, "but she was still disappointed with that, what could I have done better?"

Not ONE person said, "Actually, what you did was a great example of give and take, AND your daughter learned not only that you are able to bend for her, but that she can bend for you... even if it takes until she gets to the other side of the breakfast and says, ya know what ma, I'm glad we came later. The time was fair, neither of you compromised yourselves unreasonably and I think this goes on record as the greatest CL I've ever seen!"

Ok, so I took that too far







. But you see what I'm saying. No one even considered it was a great example of consensus because she was disappointed - but she's 6! There is no major psychological reason for her wanting some things, she sometimes just wants stuff her way and that's ok. My son is the same, he wants what you're holding, then when he's holding it he doesn't want it anymore and throws it away... until you pick it up and then it becomes fascinating again... all things thrill him, he wants to put the whole world in his mouth. Just like my daughter, there is no problem psyche in him, it is just developmentally appropriate. Doesn't mean he gets to mouth the toilet seat when DD forgets to shut the toilet door. He wants to, but I can't let him. He is disappointed, even cries about the injustice of it all, but I can't compromise or find a consensual half-way point with it, I can only redirect.

Because yes, he has a right to self-determination, but he doesn't have the ability to deal with all that entails yet! Surely that is obvious.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I represent a large amount of people here, not just myself. I am asking questions as most people throw up their hands and walk away. We're not asking the same questions because we're idiots. Perhaps we're asking them because they aren't answered satisfactorily.

Regarding the question I quoted, the reason people feel they should be doing more than redirecting is because CL can be confusing.

I think the problem we have here is that there are various definitions of CL, and we keep hearing different people's definitions, not a standard one. With a philosophy we can usually check some kind of "bible", be it a book or whatnot for exactly how to go about it but with CL, it seems based on the last poster's interpretation. When we look up the CL bible (the website), this is what we get (which is where the parents of a baby or toddler get confused):
If you have a baby or toddler, there is an immediate flaw in that sentence, even if we ignore the fact that they can't even talk yet, it is still flawed. So we search the site for answers and we keep hitting up against the same thing...

Met, where their wants are MET. Not discussed or negotiated, but met. So my child wants something, and whatever it is, this desire is met.

I can't meet all my children's wants, nor would I even want to, esp if the wants include driving my car or (insert child-like life-experimental play here).

So we ask the reasonable and obvious next question which is, but if I can't meet those wants? What about childish wants, like wanting to jump out a window, do I stop them or do I "meet their wants". Who determines what is an irrational want, when do we allow full self-determination... the list of questions due to such statements given on the site is long, and valid.

Then we're told "no one said you shouldn't protect your child or redirect them". But look at what we ARE told about meeting ALL their WANTS... and there is wonder at our confusion and at poor mamas who write that they feel bad for redirecting a child away from stairs? I am drawing attention here to valid inconsistencies, don't belittle them or me (or make me quote where such belittling has occurred), the inconsistencies are written plain as day and people are struggling with them.

Again, if there is no age different, how does one, exactly, reach a mutually agreeable solution with a one year old? Because conflict does arise with a baby... and surely redirection is not seen as "mutually" agreeable? Again... confusing.

(also from the website)
I agree in a sense, but it is an overly simplistic view of things in a child's life. "With accurate information" is the key here. My child doesn't have this, most adults don't have this!
Accurate information is a subjective thing. And my six year old cannot be expected to make a judgment call on food, transportation... and a bunch of other things yet. That's what I'm here for! That's why children have parents.

We aren't saying a baby is lesser than a toddler or not equal to the adult... or any of that. We're saying that the expectations of a person must be different, depending on the individual and the age. My neighbour has brain damage and his brain is that of a 4 year old but he is 40. I've lived next door to him for 30 years, and he can't make judgment calls, he can't self-determine anything. He gets frustrated like any four year old yet in the body of a 40 year old that is very dangerous and there have been "incidents".

Yes, he has all the human rights I have, no question, including the right to self-determination. However, having the *right* to it, and having the _*ability*_ to execute it are miles apart, and this is where the whole premise is flawed. My six year old has all the human rights, but we cannot expect of her that which we can expect of a ten year old, and we can expect even less of my son. Development is a process, and although none of us is going to argue we are all equal in our humanity, and all deserving of all our human rights, we are going to argue that ALL of us at EVERY age can deal with that without guidance and even boundaries.

That is where parents come in, because they are the only people who can "impose" (for want of a better word) on me, without it being an infringement on my liberties. Even now, my mother has this power which I subconsciously grant her for some mystical reason only the universe knows. Attached children everywhere will attest to the same feeling even as adults. Parents have the most important role of all the world's roles because of this privilege of having another human being in their charge.

but CL isn't about meeting every single last desire. It's about meeting needs. and its about meeting the desires you can - letting go of "power" because sometimes desires aren't met simply because we don't want to meet them, not because we can't. There is no "bible" to refer to, because CL looks different in every family. So you can't say that one family is CL and they let their children eat kangaroo poop so CL means you give your child whatever they want including eating kangaroo poop. When someone says "how could I handle this more consensually?" and people give opinions on that it does not mean that you aren't CL if you don't do it that way and keep doing it your way. it means that you still haven't found a way that is okay with you, and you are currently doing what is best for your family. It just means that is what CL looks like in your family. It's more about philosophy then a how to guide.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I have no idea where I've implied that. I've been repeating that I am CL, I am more CC where they butt heads but I am definitely a CL family. I am trying to clear up the flaws in CL, or at least, the perceived flaws and the inconsistencies.

Where I don't understand I have made it clear I do not understand. What I fail to understand mostly right now is how, even when I've made it as easy as possible by asking simple and direct questions, ... it's like some can't tell I'm using my problems as examples, as a way into some of the issues people having trouble with and try to get to the point I'm making. I've said, "what if it were two children having the 7.30/8.00 dilemma?" yet no one touched that. I tried saying that it was impossible for me to compromise further than 7.45 yet no one touched that other than to say "well, we can't help you then, surely you can just give up the whole half hour". So in some cases, as this proves, there is no solution that makes _everyone_ instantly _happy_.

But then when I say that, someone says "but no one said negative emotions should be avoided", uuuhhh, yes they did. Otherwise, there wouldn't be this issue with my daughter being "disappointed" with not getting the full half hour out of the deal.

Following?

I gave a simple issue with a seemingly simple solution. But I threw a spanner into the works, to see how it flew - emotion.

IF, let's just say... IF I had said, "so we compromised on 7.45am, ain't we clever?" then all of the CL world would clap their hands at our wonderful example of consensual abilities and harmonious resonance. Instead, I added, "but she was still disappointed with that, what could I have done better?"

Not ONE person said, "Actually, what you did was a great example of give and take, AND your daughter learned not only that you are able to bend for her, but that she can bend for you... even if it takes until she gets to the other side of the breakfast and says, ya know what ma, I'm glad we came later. The time was fair, neither of you compromised yourselves unreasonably and I think this goes on record as the greatest CL I've ever seen!"

Ok, so I took that too far







. But you see what I'm saying. No one even considered it was a great example of consensus because she was disappointed - but she's 6! There is no major psychological reason for her wanting some things, she sometimes just wants stuff her way and that's ok. My son is the same, he wants what you're holding, then when he's holding it he doesn't want it anymore and throws it away... until you pick it up and then it becomes fascinating again... all things thrill him, he wants to put the whole world in his mouth. Just like my daughter, there is no problem psyche in him, it is just developmentally appropriate. Doesn't mean he gets to mouth the toilet seat when DD forgets to shut the toilet door. He wants to, but I can't let him. He is disappointed, even cries about the injustice of it all, but I can't compromise or find a consensual half-way point with it, I can only redirect.

Because yes, he has a right to self-determination, but he doesn't have the ability to deal with all that entails yet! Surely that is obvious.

The 7:30/8:00 dilemma has been handled in many many books on the subject. I could go on with infinite possibilities of how to handle that situation, but then what? then you rebuttle all of those. then you come up with another what if question. If your mind is in the right place, you are better able to find these solutions. If you REALLY want a solution, join the yahoo group and ask there, they have a ton of advice, but in the end they may not offer anything that if good enough for you. doesn't mean the solution isnt there. You know your family better then anyone else and therefor you are the best person to help your family reach a consensus. I don't think anyone is saying that what you did was wrong, just that in their own families they would have done it differently. That in our own families it WAS something that could be changed. You are saying in your family it couldn't be changed. You feel it was sometimes that was impossible to change. Your ONLY options were 7:45 or 8 or somewhere in between there and that is it, no if ands or buts, you couldn't control that anymore then you can control the weather. Ok then, then why are you asking how you could have handled it differently? well since you couldn't have you say to the child you really wish you could leave at 7:30 but it's honestly impossible the best you can do is 7:45. And the child is disappointed and you probably are too because you would have loved to be able to leave at 7:30 because the 15 minutes was no big deal to you, its not about power or being "fair". If you try to validate your child's feelings and say "I wish we could leave at 7:30 when it's very obvious to her that there is absolutely no reason you couldn't have other then you want to make it "fair" or you want to meet in the "middle" or you just simply want her to experience that disappointment that is when it moves out of the realm of CL.

As for the "your child learned she can bend for you, and you can bedd for her" when its not mutually agreeable its your child learning you will require she bend herself to meet you within your comfort zone (between 7:45 and 8), or that you will bend to meet her half way, but no further, and she *must* bend, even if she doesn't want to. I don't want my child to bend over for anyone they don't want to.... It's different then your child choosing to bend and how far to bend to meet you. Meeting somewhere in between and meeting in the middle are different as well. Meeting directly in the middle isn't always what is "fair". Sometimes what is fair is to meet them where they are at. (in an instance where it IS possible to leave at 7:30, okay, I really didn't want to go until 8, but I don't mind leaving at 7:30 instead) Sometimes whats fair is for them to meet you where you are at. (I know you really want to eat that kangaroo poop, but I can't let you do that, not even one bite) Sometimes, its somewhere in between, but not necessarily right in the middle. (we'll leave as close to 7:30 as possible, but I don't think 7:30 on the dot is going to be possible.)

Raising Our children Raising Ourselves talks about separation on page 123, but could be taken as example to this, so I'll para-phrase:

When circumstances are unavoidable, then, and only then, being unable to avoid, we give supportive attention and validate and empower. BUT WE DON'T MANUFACTURE THOSE EVENTS.

When something is unavoidable our task is not to distract the child from their feelings but to validate their experience so they can cry fully and recognize the validity of their experience.

In other words if your child is afraid of the dark you don't make them unnecessarily be in the dark, but you can support and validate them if doing so is unavoidable.

If your child wants to leave at 7:30 you don't make them wait until 7:45 or 8:00 unless it is unavoidable.

Yes, adults are more able to sacrifice desires, or put desires on hold, then children. Our children learn this through our modeling is. Can other children learn this in other ways? I'm sure they can. CL children learn this because they see us putting our desires on hold to meet theirs and others. That's why CL ends up working for CL families.

But this conversation just keeps going in circles. If it's not for you, or only for you part of the time, most of the time, a small amount of the time, whatever, that's fine. I do it most, not all of the time. I can recognize though that those who are able to practice it all the time are people I admire and look up to and genuinely seek advice from. Their children aren't eating poop or playing in the highway. I do feel like they have figured out things and accepted things that I am still working on - things that no matter how many times they explain to me I may not be ready to accept today - but maybe tomorrow, next week, or next month.

CL looks different in every family. There is no bible with all the right answers. Each family has a different set of right answers. And as long as you look for black and white answers that have to apply to anyone who wants to call themselves CL you will be looking at things in a way that will never allow you to accept CL for what it is.But no, not every other parenting works that way. and CL isn't just about parenting, its a way of life, its the way we (aspire) to treat everyone.

You can be AP even if you don't breastfeed.
You can be a natural mama even if you ended up needing a c-section.
You can be spiritual and never go to church.
You can be a traditional parent even if you co-sleep.

NO way of life or parenting has black and white answers. Only ideals. And CL is the same.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Redirecting a 1 year old:
I redirect my child all the time. It is a mutually agreeable solution. MY son is just as happy to be in my arms as he would be to play in the cat food. I can also give him something else to play in that is similar. A bowl of water to splash around in is fun. Alternately, I can put the cat food where the baby can't get to it.

I understand your need to feel important as a parent. People who practice CL and are also parents also play an important role in their children's lives. And their children play an important role in theirs, as I'm sure your child does in yours. Yes, we are all here for a reason


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Raising Our children, Raising Ourselves - bottom page 127-top page 131
http://books.google.com/books?id=QDzn8XR9BHwC&pg=PA127

in there you will read:
"She cannot ride her tricycle in the middle of the street, break dishes, play with fire, hurt others, hurl objects in the house, or ride in the car without a seatbelt."

Read the whole passage though, there is more.

Of course you can consider that in some CL families it IS acceptable to do those things - but the point is that yes - there are rules in place for a child's safety.

Those pages also explain why its not good to have power over your child, and why its not good for your child to have power over you. How that can overwhelm a child, and how that would be scary for a child. I thought you would be interested in reading that short bit from that book to understand better, as I'm assuming you really do want to understand.


----------



## Calm

I will get that book out, as it is on my list. Thanks!







I am currently waiting on Siblings Without Rivalry as that is now appropriate for my family.

So far, the books I have read that are on the CL list, or recommended by other CL families do not purport such things as I have heard here. Jan Hunt for instance, or Gordon Neufeld. They are very CL, no doubt about it, but they wouldn't suggest that it's a good idea to further compromise in favour of the child (such as the time example) in such a fashion. I think that was one of a few things that totally blew my head back.

I think because it is so _un_-consensual, so compromising, and the children (in my extended family and others) who were raised by an over compromising parent turned out very self-centered, brat-like really. They learned that mama will roll over if pushed hard enough so that's what they do. There are so many examples of families like that, struggling to maintain their own sense of identity as parents because the children just don't give at all even by the age and stage that says they might start doing that.

It's a delicate balance, hence why I think that although the advice on the time example may be an option one day, it isn't one we should readily consider frequently. No one should compromise their own desires frequently or on an ongoing fashion for their partners, family, children or world at large. That's why I was wondering what _else_ there might be as an option, or if I had nailed it. If DD's disappointment is given the "green light" by CL then that makes the most sense to me cos emotions are valid, all of them.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

then you rebuttle all of those.
I explained why getting friend to take her wasn't an option. Other than that, there was only one suggestion made and only one I rebutted.

When I asked for more options, I was given the _same_ suggestion again and again and each time I kept trying to frame it another way. The only suggestion given in regards to my time example was for me to compromise further. Sometimes this advice was wrapped in an obvious smugness or just outright said things to the effect of, well, if you aren't big enough to drop your clinging on to the time you want... maybe you should examine why you really want that time, is 15 minutes all that important?

And so on. And BTW, it would have become half an hour, not 15 minutes. I "get" all that, I was looking for _other_ option examples. _There were none._ Yet apparently other families would have done it differently... how? The mama can't go any later, she won't demand the child go any earlier, they can't get a lift, bus or UFO, there aren't any other options and this is what I keep saying. Then someone says oh, but I in all my wisdom can see 1001 options you cannot, grasshopper. But do they share even _one_ of them? No.

It would be nice if this insistence that I'm so hard to please was dropped.







I heard you the first time, and you were wrong then, too. If you can come up with another option, I'd love to hear it, if you can't, that's ok. I can't either, other than for her go at my time (not consensual), or for me to go at her time (not an option, nor consensual), or for us to go at different times, (not an option), or for someone else to take her, (not an option)... I'm open to hearing this huge list of other options I haven't considered. The options people find on this example will help me understand _how_ to find options in other situations. If there are no other options then I'll also know that for future issues.

Quote:

well since you couldn't have you say to the child you really wish you could leave at 7:30 but it's honestly impossible the best you can do is 7:45. And the child is disappointed and you probably are too because you would have loved to be able to leave at 7:30 because the 15 minutes was no big deal to you, its not about power or being "fair". If you try to validate your child's feelings and say "I wish we could leave at 7:30 when it's very obvious to her that there is absolutely no reason you couldn't have other then you want to make it "fair" or you want to meet in the "middle" or you just simply want her to experience that disappointment that is when it moves out of the realm of CL.
I like this, and I see what you're saying. The only problem is, she also cannot know the reason I cannot compromise any further than 15 minutes, and truth be told, 15 minutes messed me up but I did it anyway. So to her mind, there may be no reason why but it's none of her business (not that I would tell her that). But I wonder about you saying that to make it "fair" is moving out of CL. That's odd.

Quote:

When circumstances are unavoidable, then, and only then, being unable to avoid, we give supportive attention and validate and empower. BUT WE DON'T MANUFACTURE THOSE EVENTS.

When something is unavoidable our task is not to distract the child from their feelings but to validate their experience so they can cry fully and recognize the validity of their experience.

In other words if your child is afraid of the dark you don't make them unnecessarily be in the dark, but you can support and validate them if doing so is unavoidable.

If your child wants to leave at 7:30 you don't make them wait until 7:45 or 8:00 unless it is unavoidable.
I agree with all but the last. The first three are needs or unavoidable negative circumstances. The last one is a desire a family member has, "wants". If I am to meet a family member's wants and it conflicts with another family member's wants then it isn't like the other ones you mentioned. I'm not going to make my child "suffer" unnecessarily! But if one family member wants to go to seaworld and the other wants to go to dreamworld and are both passionate about these desires then heck, someone's going to have to give a litte and _preferably_, both of them, not just one of them. And I include adults in that, because they count too.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

the last one is saying that if you child wants to leave at 7:30, and there is no unavoidable reason why they can't, then why not just leave at 7:30? its saying that you can grant them their desires when nothing stands in the way. It's saying you don't need to deny their desires simply because you want to 'teach' them something, - that they can learn something in those times when its truly unavoidable.

example:

baby is crying : you are mid-pee. you let baby cry until you finish (30 seconds) then go pick them up.
BUT
baby is crying: you are sitting there looking at them. you don't have to let them cry for 30 seconds before going to them just because you want them to learn its okay to cry for 30 seconds.

It's about allowing them to have the things they desires WHEN YOU CAN.

if you still disagree, then I agree to disagree.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Calm, I am sorry I hope someone can help you further, if you are TRULY interested in a solution to the 7:30/8:00 problem or how to validate it to your child. I can't pretend to have the answer when I haven't walked a mile in your shoes and cant even IMAGINE something so secretive that revolves around a certain time of day. I'm trying to think: what if I had a heart condition, had to take meds at 'x' time on the dot... well I could bring it with me and a bottle of water and take it in the car. I try to think, what if I didn't want my child to know, but I had an injection I had to give myself for my health, so I can't do it anywhere but home" but then I think, I wouldn't keep that from my child. So obviously, I cannot relate to your situation at all, so how could I give you advice ya know? Perhaps its just one of those situations that CL is an ideal that can't be reached... is that what you want me to say? I've never been in your shoes, so I can't say for sure... ya know? I do feel though, that there is always a solution even if I can't see it right away. Maybe the 2nd or 3rd time in that situation a solution will "come to me" and I can use it in the future. I just don't "accept" that there are "no other choices" Instead of saying "that wont work" I say "what will work" or "how could that work"... and while I might not have an answer that time or the next fine. While sometimes it just is what it is (for safety reasons) I can give my child a reason. I've never been in a situation that we only had one feasible option and I was unable to be honest with my child as to why. That must be so hard for you (hugs) I wont pretend to understand.


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
the last one is saying that if you child wants to leave at 7:30, and there is no unavoidable reason why they can't, then why not just leave at 7:30? its saying that you can grant them their desires when nothing stands in the way. It's saying you don't need to deny their desires simply because you want to 'teach' them something, - that they can learn something in those times when its truly unavoidable.

example:

baby is crying : you are mid-pee. you let baby cry until you finish (30 seconds) then go pick them up.
BUT
baby is crying: you are sitting there looking at them. you don't have to let them cry for 30 seconds before going to them just because you want them to learn its okay to cry for 30 seconds.

It's about allowing them to have the things they desires WHEN YOU CAN.

if you still disagree, then I agree to disagree.

I agree 100% with that example.


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Calm, I am sorry I hope someone can help you further, if you are TRULY interested in a solution to the 7:30/8:00 problem or how to validate it to your child. I can't pretend to have the answer when I haven't walked a mile in your shoes and cant even IMAGINE something so secretive that revolves around a certain time of day. I'm trying to think: what if I had a heart condition, had to take meds at 'x' time on the dot... well I could bring it with me and a bottle of water and take it in the car. I try to think, what if I didn't want my child to know, but I had an injection I had to give myself for my health, so I can't do it anywhere but home" but then I think, I wouldn't keep that from my child. So obviously, I cannot relate to your situation at all, so how could I give you advice ya know? Perhaps its just one of those situations that CL is an ideal that can't be reached... is that what you want me to say? I've never been in your shoes, so I can't say for sure... ya know? I do feel though, that there is always a solution even if I can't see it right away. Maybe the 2nd or 3rd time in that situation a solution will "come to me" and I can use it in the future. I just don't "accept" that there are "no other choices" Instead of saying "that wont work" I say "what will work" or "how could that work"... and while I might not have an answer that time or the next fine. While sometimes it just is what it is (for safety reasons) I can give my child a reason. I've never been in a situation that we only had one feasible option and I was unable to be honest with my child as to why. That must be so hard for you (hugs) I wont pretend to understand.

I agree with a pp who said that there are always options, just perhaps not directly related to the event. Take the famous seat-belt example. There is the option to sing while putting it on, or the option of not going... etc. but going without a seat belt is not an option, so what they _want_ is therefore not an option. What they _want_ cannot be _met_ (unlike the website's recommendation). And yes, you said that where _possible_, meet their desires. Where not possible, do XYZ or listen and validate.

I did all that with DD and to sniff my own smug, I've got that to a fine art, it's part of what I do for a living! I teach parents how to validate, etc and so forth. I use a combination of the Work, Aletha Solter, CC, CL and largely HOTYK.

I see flaws in CL, that's all this is. To be fair, I also see flaws in CC and Aletha Solter (have yet to find flaws in HOTYK). I am trying to help people embrace CL but first they need these questions answered in a workable, reasonable way. When I give hypotheticals, the response is that hypotheticals cannot be worked with. WTH??!! There is always a real situation that can be based on a hypothetical, there is nothing new under the sun.

So once confronted with that, I tried using my real situation but kept coming up against the un-consensual response of me compromising further. So I said, what if it is another child? Who compromises themselves further? No response. What if it is another adult, not me? No response. So I asked, ok, what if I cannot under any circumstances go earlier than 7.45, no response. (no options given, not no response, iykwim)

The only situation that was attempted was the one with an option that involved the adult examining, compromising and eventually giving their original half hour desire. I learned a lot from that discussion about CL.

My point was to get a situation to the point where there were _*no*_ options to find the answer and I found it. Took almost 20 pages but I got there. I think had it been realised that my example wasn't to be taken literally, that it was to be seen as an example of a FUTILE SITUATION then we'd have gotten here faster. Now I know that in futile situations, at least in the opinions of two posters here, disappointment is ok, just validate and blah blah blah (gentle discipline 101). This was not made clear until recent posts.

I can now say that "in the opinion of some CLers, disappointment is ok, you have to move them from the stairs, go out at the time you set on going if necessary, keep them away from the spices, put their seat belt on ... " basically all the things parents are doing anyway, but doing it _without the guilt_ or the feeling that they have _failed CL_ in some way.


----------



## Calm

BTW, the reason I kept the discussion here and not at the CL yahoo group is for those who are not part of the CL group. Those there already have a finer appreciation for CL, and it's preaching to the converted. People reading this are interested in CL, but finding these finer points hard to swallow, so I kept it here for them.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

well by your standards there are flaws in ALL parenting. Nothing and no one is perfect, and if you are looking for someone to prove that any kind of parenting is perfect that wont happen. There is no guilt or failure. There are sometimes a better way then what we are doing. There are people who use validation instead of meeting the childs wants or needs not because they CANT meet the childs wants or needs but because they are UNWILLING to meet the childs wants or needs. That is the difference... and some people think they aren't going this (like I thought) when they are (like I was) and it takes a lot to realize and admit you are doing that because no one wants to admit they are engaging in an unnecessary power struggle.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
BTW, the reason I kept the discussion here and not at the CL yahoo group is for those who are not part of the CL group. Those there already have a finer appreciation for CL, and it's preaching to the converted. People reading this are interested in CL, but finding these finer points hard to swallow, so I kept it here for them.

Thanks!









Just thought I would say that so you didn't think you and SGM were the only ones left here.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 

My point was to get a situation to the point where there were _*no*_ options to find the answer and I found it. Took almost 20 pages but I got there. I think had it been realised that my example wasn't to be taken literally, that it was to be seen as an example of a FUTILE SITUATION then we'd have gotten here faster.

So your question is "Is there a solution to a situation without solutions?" Um, well, no... and there are no situations without solutions, so I'm not sure where that gets you anywhere. You chose to disregard all of the solutions you were given - doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Dar


----------



## Calm

Thanks Riverscout.









And thank you, sincerely, SGM.







I've enjoyed the discussion. I wanted you to know that I did learn from you, just so you didn't think you were peeing in the breeze.

You make a succinct and important point when you mention the difference b/w those that can't and those that are unwilling.

That's why I stick to connection; it's where this started and where it remains for me. I don't have power struggles with my children when the connection is strong - for us, it is as simple as that.

We all have aha! moments in our parenting journeys, moments of insight such as when you realised you were being unwilling and engaging in unnecessary power stuggles. I had one of those insights regarding the connection to my daughter. I started to question the whole deal of connection some time ago and all the promises it made to make things work/run smoothly because things still got shaky.

However, I realised that we can be fooled into thinking there is a tight and unwavering connection with our child when there isn't. There doesn't have to be gaping chasm for there to be a connection issue, and I had to accept that there was some tightening to be done between us sometimes. But there is no doubt that when we are connected, there becomes a natural kind of hierarchy (I wish there was a better word for that), a kind of smoothness and non-struggle just falls upon us all and stays that way. By hierarchy, I mean, DD doesn't have the "to do" list, I do; she doesn't seem to want much other than me and I "call the shots", but not in an official way. She simply looks to me for "what's next?" I can feel that energy, and she literally touches me more and I find I have a little shadow throughout my day.

And my son, well, he's just strapped to me so of course he isn't calling any shots and to be honest, I forget he is there! I have, no joke and as embarrassing as this is it was hilarious at the time, I have actually run about the house calling his name only to have my daughter literally fall on the floor clutching her stomach in hysterics as she pointed out that he is, in fact, on my back in the sling.







: What's worse, I have had him in the hip sling and done the same thing. It's almost like he ceases to exist even for himself, because as soon as I look at him, he comes to life (either whines at me or starts mumbling).

When the connection is groov'n, we're all groov'n.

CC insight, for those into CC: Who's in Control?
The Unhappy Consequences of Being Child-Centered

Quote:

It appears that many parents of toddlers, in their anxiety to be neither negligent nor disrespectful, have gone overboard in what may seem to be the other direction. Like the thankless martyrs of the in-arms stage, they have become centered upon their children instead of being occupied by adult activities that the children can watch, follow, imitate, and assist in as is their natural tendency.... An adult who stops whatever she is doing and tries to ascertain what her child wants her to do is short-circuiting this expectation...
_snip_
A toddler's fairly predictable reaction to parental uncertainty is to push his parents even further off-balance, testing for a place where they will stand firm and thus allay his anxiety about who is in charge...
_snip_
If misreading his anger, she tries even harder to ascertain what he wants, pleads, explains, and appears ever more desperate to placate him, the child will be impelled to make more outrageous, more unacceptable demands...
_snip_
No child would dream of trying to take over the initiative from an adult unless that child receives a clear message that such action is expected - not wanted, but expected!
_snip_
When this is understood, the parents' fear of imposing upon their child is allayed, and they see that there is no call for adversariality.
This is exactly true for us, and for those I help reach the natural familial balance. The in-arms phase is, in our culture, martyrdom, and the "shadowing" that naturally follows that, once their feet hit the turf is the pay off for it, you could say. That when I get to do some reaping... mmmmmmmm sweeeeet reaping.

Connection = natural, non adversarial flow, devoid of power struggle.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

You chose to disregard all of the solutions you were given - doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Uh, Dar, did you read all I wrote? I said there were two solutions given. TWO. And one of them was impossible, the other was refined to reach a point of having no options - _so I could find out how to deal with a situation that has no options_. Questions like, Is disappointment ok? Etcetera. I finally found out the answers, even as reluctant as you've all been to hand that bit over, a couple of you finally did.

_*Diregarding*_ solutions is completely different to being _*unable to use them*_. If an option was "why not take a helicopter?" then I'd have had to say that isn't an option either - even though technically it IS an option, because "it exists"







:

Instead of going on about how I'm disregarding all these solutions, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at giving me one of these so called options? Helicopter is out. So is a friend taking DD. So is going earlier or later...


----------



## WuWei

Calm,

I don't want to call the shots for other people. Neither do I martyr myself, or desire to reap a payoff. I have no agenda to avoid a power struggle. I want to treat people the way they wish to be treated. Just cos.

*I* don't believe in "futile", as per the HOTYK author. I believe we can have our needs and wants met. I trust that there are abundant possibilities. What is the saying, '*If you believe you can't, you are right.*'

I also trust that people have valid reasons for their wants/needs/requests/desires/behaviors. We'd explore the reasons ds wants to do xyz. Oftentimes, he suggests alternatives outside the box more effectively than I. We would start there to create a solution which works for both of us. I trust we could find many. In fact, we both trust that both of us can "get what we want".

To help us to identify possible solutions, we'd explore ds's reasons/wants/needs/requests/desires, along with mine. I've found that self-care comes before self-awareness, which comes before self-control. I want to help ds to listen and honor his awareness of self, to remain connected to his own inner authority, not center himself on me.

I also believe I need to take care of myself.









Take care,

Pat


----------



## Calm

I know you may not answer this, cos no one has or will but anyway... what is one, just one option for the time issue?

Then, if possible, could you tell me how I'd meet my son's desire to put his mouth on the toilet? I am not in any way being facetious or trying to corner anyone. I am seriously interested/concerned with how a CL person would deal with situations like that. Cos just when I think I have this thing nailed, you come in and it's all thrown up in the air again with statements like "all wants can be met".

If the answer is to _*redirect*_ him, then how is that meeting his want to mouth the toilet?

If the answer is to give him something _*similar*_ to put in his mouth, how is that meeting his want to mouth the toilet?

If you would let him mouth the toilet, then you are definitely and unequivocably CL and my hat comes off to you.







And I shudder to think what else you're just going to let a baby do without intervention and what philosophy that could possibly be based on because no culture nor mammal is based on such a theory.

Because to me, unless you are meeting a person's needs or desires _directly_, you are at best coercing or manipulating the situation. If you don't let a baby mouth the toilet, then you do not meet his wants. I guess this fundamental issue determines if we can agree at all.

In case it is hard to follow, which is possible cos my son is teething and sleep is a memory right now...

*If I have a need for food, then there is only ONE way to meet that need - food. It won't matter if you offer me a skipping rope, or sing to me while I skip the rope... or any of that. It is not going to meet my need. The only way to meet a need is directly. Need food = eat food. The option to skip rope instead exists, the option to wait an hour, a day, a week exists, the option to do a multitude of things does in deed exist but the fact remains - I need food, only one thing will meet that need!*

Now, let me insert "want" into that exact quote, so you can see what I'm getting at:

*If I have a want for food, then there is only ONE way to meet that want - food. It won't matter if you offer me a skipping rope, or sing to me while I skip the rope... or any of that. It is not going to meet my desire. The only way to meet a want is directly. Want food = eat food. The option to skip rope instead exists, the option to wait an hour, a day, a week exists, the option to do a multitude of things does in deed exist but the fact remains - I want food, only one thing will meet that desire!*

Clearer?

So when you say all wants can be met, then I call that based in faulty logic because one day your child will ask you for something you do not have and can not get. What then? How do you meet that desire? Offering an alternative is exactly that... it isn't meeting the desire, as outlined above.


----------



## Calm

Pat, btw, how do you reconcile your input on CC threads with this philosophy? I can tell you right now that from your last post and from what is on the CL website, they part ways severely in some aspects. I mean, just that part I quoted above from Jean Liedloff highlights a world away from your ideal. What draws you to CC at all?


----------



## ernalala

As for the real or hypothetical) situation of the 7.30-8.00am time of leaving (as offered as example for an 'impossible situation' by Calm), you might still ask some questions related to the issue and you may still find another way to deal with it. I do not nescessarily mean that it should stay at the 7.45 compromise (which was one-sided but you cannot change your daughter's mind either) or become 7.30, or 8.00 for that matter.
Just some thoughts/suggestions.

- 7.45 is 'fair', right there in the middle of the time of leaving you both desire or need. It is not because set at EXACTLY the average time of leaving that the poster is aiming for exact fairness in this situation in every single thing. It was a time she came up with that she could come up with that could still work for her to some extent. It could have been 7.40, 7.50, 743, .... for that matter, being not the 'fair' amount, but an attempt to finding consensus.

- WHY is it so important to your daughter to go there at exactly 7.45. Is she compulsive about time frames and leaving and numbers etc. Is it that there is somthing there at time of arrival when you leave early, that she wants to expeience/take part in/do, or someone to see, or spoending more time there. other... What is her reason for wanting/needing this (for you) early leaving?

- WHY is it so important for you, the mother, to leave at 8.00 exactly, or as very last time you feel you can resort too (7.30) so important to you. Ok if you do not wish to share to a forum. As trying to be cl beings we must be able to trust you saying that it is a very valuable reason but we do not need to know WHA it is exactly if you do not wish to tell us, do we? If you do not wish to tell your daughter in details either, it is not for us to say you should do that, either. What you CA do is explain as reasonably as possible that you need this time, to your daughter, and as of why, you can describe 'why' without having to give her the full info which you would like to keep private. CL doesn't mean we do not have our private thoughts, or needs at certain times. Some may share all, some not, but I think we can all think of something we would like not to share in detail, or in its completeness with pour (smaller) children. You may want to illustrate the importance of that time frame tpo you buy mirroring it in a reverse example from which your daughter may either get your viewpoint entirely and consent, or be more understanding about your need but still reluctant/disappointed not to be able to go as early as she wants because you say you can't.

- Is it a one time event, this breakfast? If it happens several days in a row, today you may go early, tomorrow as late as the other wants. If it is a one time (yearly) event, you can try to make a deal/ask a favour. I don't see anything wrong in making deals/doing favours (even when a bit reluctantly) once in a while, and they shouldn't be exactly fair either. Like, you discuss that you, this time REALLY need to go later, but that next time (even if it is next year, my 5y old already gets this to some extent), you may go at her desired time. Or next time when you go somewhere and you have conflicting needs regarding time of leaving, the other one may be asked to bend around some more than this time.

- it is an option not to go at all, but I guess in your case it isn't since you BOTH really seem to like to go. Since there you probably have a happy, mutual reason to go I think that it could help to focus on you both being there together for sure, to join the event, may it be somewhat earlier or later than desired, and that it's probably not worth it to make a fuss over when to leave (which is state of mind related and letting go)

- maybe you could arrive later and therefore leave later than planned, if the desire of your daughter is to stay there 'longer'

- you may focus on getting the leaving fun instead of stressful. But you say you didn't have the connection at that time so this is hard to achieve when you have only little time.

- If it is not an immediate, unexpected conflict arising at the time of leaving, you may adress it in advance. By talking about it in advance, trying to get a consensual solution in advance, by talking about leaving at 8.00 and why/why not just as counts for 7.30, or any time inbetween. Sometimes all a person needs is time to settle with another viewpoint and accept that this time it may happen one way while another time another way.
Also, if for instance you need the extra sleep (I know 15 minutes can be very important when sleep-deprived or exhausted), you may try to find a way to get some extra rest the evening before, go to bed earlier if possible, go to bed earlier the next day, etc. I know you have a baby, so that's a goal often hard to meet. But maybe for just one day, it'll just work what won't work for you and baby every day.

- if it is you not being able to leave that early because of babies' needs, you have a three party situation. If it is about someone watching baby while you go and not being able to be there so early, it is a fpour party situation. Even more tough to handle.

- You said you werent connected when the situation occured. It is only reasonable to accept that this cannot happen ALL the time. You cannot expect yourself or others to be 'there' every single second, sometimes we are just too tired, overwhelmed, whatever for it, in the moment. I do not think you should experience it as a failure to want to be more cl about sth, but as a strenght. Just as a situation that didn't go as perfectly happily/agreeable as possible isn't formula for complete disaster. No-one should be shamed or judged for that. I think that cl in all its ways is, apart from being prone to different interpretations by different families/individuals, not a dogma, it is a striving for a perfection (perceived with our own eyes, so again different for everyone) in our relationships to/with others and the world. If you see my present signature, you know what to do with (striving for) perfection, it can be a means to improve oneself, not an utter goal to (have) to achieve to become xyz.

I think I handed out some possible other perspectives on the 'impossible' situation, maybe none of it would suit you, but I hope it can be of help to either adress the issue or implement the theory hypopthetically.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

the options for the time issue are going to depend on WHY you can't leave at 7:30 which is a personal issue to you that you can't share, and therefor one of those things that if you were a CL mama you would be figuring out on your own. I did give more options in my reply in how you could leave at 7:30 - the point is your options are onyl what YOU can do to make life go more smoothly for yourself and those around you - not how you can control or coerce your child to leave when you want. Your child will learn to meet you where you are at with time, but when they don't being willing to meet them where they are at. As you said, this is an impossibility in your case, so this is not a time of "choices".

I understand your parenting focus is connection. So is mine. Connection and Respect, everything else falls into place naturally. It's really a matter of unable and unwilling, and determining when you are TRULY unable, as PAt put it "if you think you can't, you are right" thats pretty accurate. but if in that moment you can't (because you hanvet yet thought of a way you can) then you just "let your child be" and accept them and their feelings as valid.

Perhaps without telling us what is exactly your reason, you can give an example of a reason that a person would be completely unable to leave somewhere at 7:30 instead of 8:00 - a reason that can't be changed or explained. I don't understand about the toilet thing, we could answer hypothetic questions till the moon falls from the sky and never satisfy the nay sayers. The toilet thing, yeah I probably would disinfect the seat and let my child mouth it. Though there is probably some reason they want to that we could meet. It could be the feeling of porcelin. Why is redirection not CL? If the child feels that redirection is an acceptable solution? Why is a substitute not CL? If my child is mothing the toilet because they like the feel of porcelin so I get them something else porcelin to mouth and THEY LIKE THAT IDEA TOO that is still CL. Letting the chilkd mouth the toilet is not the only CL option, it would really depend on WHY they wanted to. And just because I owuld let my child mouth a disinfected toilet, even though I personally think its gross, doesn't mean I will let my child play in kangaroo poop or play hopscotch on the interstate or anything else you might "shudder to think"

CL is about connection too. You dont have some special parenting that is exclusive to being built on connection. Those who practice CL have the same. So you can stop bringing it up, we hear you! Your parenting (and most everyone who posted here) is focused on connection and trying to keep connection in place and reconnect anytime connection wavers. It's not CC-exclusive.

The book that I feel really embraces CL to its fullest is Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves.

This thread is kind of tiring to be honest, its just one new hypothetical what if question after the other, and the overall "question" has already been answered.

Connection and Respect First.
If its TRULY impossible to change something, than you empathize.
If its truly unsafe, you act first, explain later.
Self determining will depend on age, naturally, in the sense that a hungry baby will need you to feed them, where as a 7 year old can make their own snack.
CL is different in every family so one family may feel a bowl of sugar for breakfast is safe, and another family may feel that it is not safe to eat something like that for breakfast. Whether or not it is in fact safe is irrelevant, people do lots of things I dont think are safe, and I do lots of things others don't think are safe. If the family doesn't think its safe, they won't allow it. CL does not mean allowing your child to stab themselves in the face okay? It's not some kind of danger zone.
For the food issue, my son can't eat certain foods because he has a bad reaction - so I don't "let" him. It doesn't mean I am 'less' CL because I don't eat a bowl of sugar. Calm you seem to think of CL in one way only, and that another person "fails" CL somehow if they aren't wreckless.

CL IS DIFFERENT IN EVERY FAMILY. not more, not less, just different. No, that doesn't make it "normal" parenting, because I guarentee not everyone would join me in letting their children draw all over the floors in chalk. Or not insist on "sit down meals". Or be willing to leave at 7:30 instead of 8:00.
CL does not mean changing the unchangeable for your child - or distracting them from the unchangeable.

At this point, I will discuss with you further when you show a little more respect towards a parenting style that is simply different then yours. CL is not what you have determined it to be in your mind. PErhaps, that is how YOU would practice CL if you chose to practice it, but it looks different in every family.


----------



## WuWei

If a hierarchy is working for your family, feel comfortable in that, Calm. Our dynamic is working well for us.

I believe Liedloff's article is a _projected_ Westernized perspective, and overlooks the attunement that is invisible to a non-attached, non-mother. I believe Scott Noelle helps to clarify that the attunement and attention to the child do exist; but are not apparent to the uninformed/inexperienced young Liedloff's view. Her objective observations, rather than her subjective ones, are that which I found most revealing about natural parenting dynamics in The Continuum Concept book.

I wanted to suggest that I don't believe that there needs to be an either/or quality to our relationship with our children. We don't need to be *either* self-less *or* adult-centered as Jean Liedloff describes in her article, imo. In my experience, neither of these has brought peace or joy to our family. I strongly believe that yes, I do need to take care of myself. But I don't plan my life and my self-care with disregard of our son's input into the decisions which _affect his life_, as Jean "recommends". (I don't see Liedloff as a parenting expert, lol.) I very much dislike this article of hers. But, neither do I believe that mothers need be martyrs to their children's needs at the expense of their own. Finding this balance required acknowledging that my needs *are* as important as our son's needs. No more. No less.

Here is an alternative Continuum Concept viewpoint about being attuned to our child's needs, without being adult-centered. Scott Noelle writes a practical view of being child-centered _with emotional attachment_. He is an attached parent. Jean Liedloff has no children and no experience with being in a maternal relationship with a child. I believe it is manipulative disregard and emotional abandonment that Jean recommends: "_What happens if she doesn't obey, or if she misbehaves," Jean explained, "is that she gets left out, and no child can bear to be left out."_ I believe these "me-centered" behaviorist tools are contrary to attachment parenting.
http://www.scottnoelle.com/parenting/child-centered.htm

Scott Noelle has a daily inspiration which he e-mails about *enjoying parenting*. This is a link to receive it if one would like. I find them inspirational and insightful. http://www.enjoyparenting.com/daily-groove I agree with him that it is important to me to enjoy parenting.

I just wanted to express that I don't believe that a mama needs to sacrifice either themselves to get their children's needs met, OR sacrifice their children's desires in order to meet our own needs. I have learned so much with the Consensual Living mamas about how to examine problem solving that considers the underlying needs of everyone. And we work to find solutions that are agreeable to everyone's concerns.

One can live in harmony with others without authority over another person, when one honors another's consent or dissent. My understanding of the Yequana was a tribe without coercion or control over each other. One can be an "authority" that another _chooses_ to follow.

There was a recent discussion on the CC tribe thread regarding the "implementation" of CC in our unnatural Westernized communities. http://www.mothering.com/discussions...f#post13469697

HTH, Pat


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Instead of going on about how I'm disregarding all these solutions, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at giving me one of these so called options? Helicopter is out. So is a friend taking DD. So is going earlier or later...

Well, here were the first ones I offered:

Quote:

We haven't even started thinking outside the obvious, either - maybe a friend or other relative could take your child at 7:30, or maybe if you talked more about why your child was set on going at 7:30, you'd find out that she was worried that they would run out of pancakes, or that she felt self-conscious about arriving "late", or something else.
The only part I heard you address was the friend part. What is your husband doing that morning? Maybe he'd like to go into work a little late and spend a half hour at the breakfast with his daughter? When you say friend is out, why is that? You have no local friends, or you're not comfortable asking them? Are there other people at this breakfast who might be willing to help, even if you don't consider them friends yet? Maybe your daughter would like to help with the set up for the breakfast, and someone from the organization sponsoring it would be willing to give her a ride if she was going to help
(at my daughter's church some 6 year olds are great sources of help in the biweekly sandwich making).

But as other people have said, the biggest source of solutions would be within the second part of what I wrote above. Wants or needs don't occur in a vacuum. _Why_ does your daughter want to be there at 7:30? Once you start talking about that, often many more solutions become apparent. Besides the two I offered above, there are many other possibilities. Maybe she arrived at 7:30 last year and was able to help set up, and she thinks if she arrives later she won't be able to do so. Maybe she doesn't like crowds and thinks that the breakfast will be too crowded later. Maybe she thinks all of her friends are arriving at 7:30. There are infinite possibilities...

The same is probably true for your reasons for wanting to go at 8:00. I respect that you're not willing to share your reason, but it's hard to offer solutions without understanding them, because there may be solutions you're not thinking of. At very least, giving your daughter an understanding of why 8:00 is better for you might change her mind about what time she hopes to arrive. You can't expect her to reason rationally when you withhold relevant information from her...

FWIW, I like the idea of the Continuum Concept but I have a hard time getting past all of the factual inaccuracies in the book. Much of what Liedloff wrote is directly contracted by every anthropologist who has ever worked with the Yequana....

Dar


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Dar and Pat - I am new to all this your insight is really helpful to me to learning more ways to "think outside the box" Awesome discussion!


----------



## contactmaya

Super Glue Mommy said:


> Redirecting a 1 year old:
> I redirect my child all the time. It is a mutually agreeable solution. >>
> 
> ...not sure, but i think this came up because i raised the question of 'why age is important', in response to a previous post, which stated, that age wasnt relevant when dealing consensually with another person.(anna' s post)
> 
> For myself, i would use the word 'coercive', to describe the way, on numerous occasions i have had to move the baby from an unsafe situation. Often times, he turns right around and tries again. Can a non coercive solution be found? I try to find them, but havent always been able to.
> 
> His age is relevant when it comes to our relationship....i guess i am wondering how it wouldn't be...(since it was stated earlier that for that person, it wasnt)....
> 
> ...then i get bogged down in the question, of when a child is now capable of x,y,z. For eg, when is the child capable of compassion, or of impulse control, or of being left unattended on the stairs....i feel as a parent i need to have a general idea of these things (those ideas can be wrong too)...
> but thats me...
> 
> ps have barely read anymore posts, just picked this up quickly, but look forward to reading them


----------



## kalimay

Thank you Calm for keeping at it because I am still confused. I have respect for my children and take their needs and want into consideration but feel that I am the one ultimately making the decisions.
I guess I am still confused about how redirection is consensus, particularly if my toddler is initially unhappy with being redirected.

SGM used this example:

"Redirecting a 1 year old:
I redirect my child all the time. It is a mutually agreeable solution. MY son is just as happy to be in my arms as he would be to play in the cat food. I can also give him something else to play in that is similar. A bowl of water to splash around in is fun."

My one year old daughter is happy to be in my arms but if she is playing with cat food and I pick her up she is not happy and I can make her happy but she is not consenting to stop playing with the cat food. I can offer her fun alternatives but if she is busy and enjoying the cat food she is not likely to stop what she is doing and do what I am offering.

I am another one who sees CL as possible being a more valid way to parent an older child but I am confused about how it works with young children. I seems like it is the parent making the decisions.

"Because to me, unless you are meeting a person's needs or desires directly, you are at best coercing or manipulating the situation. If you don't let a baby mouth the toilet, then you do not meet his wants. I guess this fundamental issue determines if we can agree at all."

I agree with this. Sorry I can't get the quote function to work.

Also with the time example that Calm is using it is still Calm who will decide what time they will leave. Even if she found she could get the helicopter to pick them up isn't she the one deciding when they will get to school.


----------



## mammal_mama

About The Continuum Concept -- I recently learned something quite disturbing about a practice among some South American Indians (I'm not sure if they were Yequana, but they looked alot like pictures I've seen of Yequana Indians).

Anyhow, I won't link to the video because it's so disturbing to watch. People are throwing unwanted children, crying, into pits they have dug, and literally burying them alive. One child tried to run off, and a man said something like, "Bring her back. She must die for the good of the tribe!" And that child was carried back and thrown crying into the pit.

You could see the dirt moving after the children were buried. One woman commented, the next day, that she could hear one child crying all through the night until he finally died the next morning. I can't remember which South American country they were in, but the comment was made that the government had decided not to intervene because the child sacrifices were a tribal practice.

One of the Indians said they'd decided to make the movie "for the children." One man said that one of the children sacrificed was his sister's son -- I'm not sure but I think his sister had died, and he wanted to raise the boy himself, but the tribe didn't want him so he had to be sacrificed. He said he wished he could have been sacrificed in the boy's place -- I'm supposing that the tribe wasn't willing to do that, as he was a fully-productive adult and the boy wasn't.

Again, I'm not sure if this was a Yequana tribe or not -- the video just said "South American Indians" -- but seeing it really challenged my previous idea that Stone-Age people are totally non-coercive with children. I'm sure there are many differences from tribe to tribe -- but seeing this video made me wonder if, even if these people weren't Yequana -- could it be that the Yequana also had some darker practices that they didn't reveal to Liedloff?

Of course, I realize every culture (including my own) has a darker side. And it simply doesn't do to judge one particular practice in isolation from an attempt to understand the whole culture. It was just so eerie to see the dirt moving, and hear about the woman hearing the child crying all night. I really got the impression that she wanted to go dig him back up, but knew the tribe wouldn't let her.

This seems related to our discussion, because many of us base our parenting ideals on things that have been learned from more natural people-groups. I think it's good to gain all the good ideas we can from other cultures -- but not too good to totally idealize them.

Even though I felt shaken by the video (which someone had posted on a blog I frequent, and I think it may have been in response to some things I'd said in praise of South American Indians), I responded to it by saying that as hard as I found it to believe that I could learn anything from people who would do such things, I still did believe they were people I could learn from.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kalimay* 
Thank you Calm for keeping at it because I am still confused. I have respect for my children and take their needs and want into consideration but feel that I am the one ultimately making the decisions.
I guess I am still confused about how redirection is consensus, particularly if my toddler is initially unhappy with being redirected.

SGM used this example:

"Redirecting a 1 year old:
I redirect my child all the time. It is a mutually agreeable solution. MY son is just as happy to be in my arms as he would be to play in the cat food. I can also give him something else to play in that is similar. A bowl of water to splash around in is fun."

My one year old daughter is happy to be in my arms but if she is playing with cat food and I pick her up she is not happy and I can make her happy but she is not consenting to stop playing with the cat food. I can offer her fun alternatives but if she is busy and enjoying the cat food she is not likely to stop what she is doing and do what I am offering.

I am another one who sees CL as possible being a more valid way to parent an older child but I am confused about how it works with young children. I seems like it is the parent making the decisions.

"Because to me, unless you are meeting a person's needs or desires directly, you are at best coercing or manipulating the situation. If you don't let a baby mouth the toilet, then you do not meet his wants. I guess this fundamental issue determines if we can agree at all."

I agree with this. Sorry I can't get the quote function to work.

Also with the time example that Calm is using it is still Calm who will decide what time they will leave. Even if she found she could get the helicopter to pick them up isn't she the one deciding when they will get to school.

IDK - so far all 3 of my kids, as strong-willed as 2 of them are, don't care if I redirect them away from the cat food. If I said "would a bowl of dry rice in the backyard be a good alternative" to my older 2, they would not only find that mutually agreeable, but preferable. They were probably play in the cat food because they wanted to get messy anyway. Okay, we can do messy! It IS meeting the need. The need is not "I need to touch cat food". As for my 1 year old, really, mommy's arms are far more interesting then cat food TO HIM. It's not coercing or manipulating. They can say no to the dry rice too, but they don't. Why do people think CL means letting the child do whatever they want. How is that MUTUALLY agreeable? I find their underlying need (or desire) in that case, they desire to get messy, hmmm... how else can we get messy? this is assuming that I have decided there is no possible way I can be okay with them playing with cat food. I'm not saying "you can't play with cat food but here is a candy bar!" I'm saying "you want to get messy, that's why you are playing with cat food. How about a bowl or rice and some measuring cups to a make a mess with?" If you can't see the difference thats okay, but I know its no being coercive or manipulative to offer other ways to meet a childs needs/desires. I'm not distracting them from what they want, I am finding another way to meet that same need. Say my child is hungry and eating the cat food. And I say, if you are hungry we can have a bowl of canned peas. And they say YEAH! peas! okay, have I coerced them? or have I offered another way for them to be fed that is just as acceptable to them as eating cat food? We ARE directly meeting the need. In the toilet situation, you'd have to determine what the need/ desire actually is. Is it REALLY that they want to mouth the toilet? If they like the feel of cold porcelain in their mouth, is there an alternative? if it really is that they have some kind of passion for toilets? I really can't imagine that occuring... but if it did, and if disinfecting the toilet you still think isnt safe, then that would be one of those things that you can't change for them, its unsafe, and so you protect them. Often you can talk to the child later, and the underlying need/desire will come up even if it didnt in the moment.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

contactmaya said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy*
> Redirecting a 1 year old:
> I redirect my child all the time. It is a mutually agreeable solution. >>
> 
> ...not sure, but i think this came up because i raised the question of 'why age is important', in response to a previous post, which stated, that age wasnt relevant when dealing consensually with another person.(anna' s post)
> 
> For myself, i would use the word 'coercive', to describe the way, on numerous occasions i have had to move the baby from an unsafe situation. Often times, he turns right around and tries again. Can a non coercive solution be found? I try to find them, but havent always been able to.
> 
> His age is relevant when it comes to our relationship....i guess i am wondering how it wouldn't be...(since it was stated earlier that for that person, it wasnt)....
> 
> ...then i get bogged down in the question, of when a child is now capable of x,y,z. For eg, when is the child capable of compassion, or of impulse control, or of being left unattended on the stairs....i feel as a parent i need to have a general idea of these things (those ideas can be wrong too)...
> but thats me...
> 
> ps have barely read anymore posts, just picked this up quickly, but look forward to reading them
> 
> with my children this usually means that that is the most interesting thing in the room they have access too. Option - baby proof if possible. - move to another room. - go outside. - bring something more interesting into the room. - find a safe way for them to play with that. those are just a few ideas. but say my 10 month son keeps going for the garbage can, I put it on top of the table, he moves on to something else. It was just the most intereseting at the time. He gets into the cat food, and I stop him, he plays with something else. If he keeps going for it, we move to another room, one he hasnt spent a lot of time in that day. or we go outside. he just wants something new to explore, he doesn't care what exactly, so in my experience CL is easy with a baby.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
About The Continuum Concept -- I recently learned something quite disturbing about a practice among some South American Indians (I'm not sure if they were Yequana, but they looked alot like pictures I've seen of Yequana Indians)..

Was the film called Hakani? If so, the film was faked - just another attempt by white folks to pass legislation that allows for the stealing of Indian babies....

The Yequana, however, did do things like enslave member of the Yanomami tribe, and although Leidloff says, for example, the Yequana babies crawled and toddled around fire pits but were never burned, there are plenty of documented cases of Yequana children and adults with terrible burns and lost limbs from falling into fire pits...

Dar


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
The Yequana, however, did do things like enslave member of the Yanomami tribe, and although Leidloff says, for example, the Yequana babies crawled and toddled around fire pits but were never burned, there are plenty of documented cases of Yequana children and adults with terrible burns and lost limbs from falling into fire pits...

I'd be very interested to read some more about this subject. You mentioned earlier that there were some actual anthropologists that studied the Yequana, but I'm not coming up with anything when I do a search. Do you have any links or any more information that would help me out?


----------



## contactmaya

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
BTW, the reason I kept the discussion here and not at the CL yahoo group is for those who are not part of the CL group. Those there already have a finer appreciation for CL, and it's preaching to the converted. People reading this are interested in CL, but finding these finer points hard to swallow, so I kept it here for them.


Calm, i appreciate this discussion very much. I approach things myself by asking questions, and am intellectual about things, and like it that way. As for the yahoo group, i dont feel comfortable asking the so called 'theoritical questions' there, so im glad its here. Asking a question about something, doesnt mean you dont agree...on the other hand, i can see why for some people these questions can be tiresome since they've heard it all before.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

"I want to treat people the way they wish to be treated"
That's awesome Pat... I want the same, still working on "getting there"

Okay, so more on the redirection. I think some confuse redirection and distraction.

Redirection: Gives an outlet to meet the same need/desire in a different way - redirects their energy from one activity to another, but does not change the energy. Goal is to find another ACCEPTABLE (by both parent and child) way to meet want/need.

Distraction: Ignores the need/desire, and attempts to have the child do the same. Goal is to "forget" what they want/need, and want what the parent wants the child to want.

Of course distraction either 1) doesn't work or 2) is manipulative/coercive.

It is not the same as redirection in the sense of which a consensual person might use redirection. If the alternative offered are welcome it does not mean you have manipulated or coerced a person.

Think of it this way:
You are hungry. You want a hamburger. You like both McDonalds and Burger King. You say to your husband, lets go to burger king. Your husband says "My friend got food poisoning there the other day, how about McDonalds instead?" that would be a redirection. I suppose you might consider it coercive since your husband explained about the food poisoning, though it can also be considered as him giving information to help you make a decision. Now, it would be distraction if he said "You don't want a burger, we have left over cake at home! Wouldn't that be better?" Well, no, because you want a burger! If you really love cake though, that might convince you to just go home and have cake. That is more coercive. Suggesting another burger joint that you like, that would be perfectly acceptable you, is not. Or lets say he said "no, we're going to red lobster" (but you hate sea food, or aren't in the mood for sea food) That would be an attempt at distraction not working. You have distraction not working, or distraction by coercion/manipulation, and redirection which meets the same desire/need but in another way that is still acceptable to everyone involved.

Again I suppose the food poisoning thing wasn't a good example for why its not strictly coercion but just information. Perhaps instead, burger king is closed, but mc donalds is still open. that wouldn't be coercion, it would just be simply that you can't go to burger king so since you can't go there you find somewhere you can go that is still acceptable to both of you.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *contactmaya* 
Calm, i appreciate this discussion very much. I approach things myself by asking questions, and am intellectual about things, and like it that way. As for the yahoo group, i dont feel comfortable asking the so called 'theoritical questions' there, so im glad its here. Asking a question about something, doesnt mean you dont agree...on the other hand, i can see why for some people these questions can be tiresome since they've heard it all before.

and they are tiresome because they are endless! Even if you have satisfied the answer to the "overall" thing (such as what if two children want something different) people just keep pushing it and pushing it until the question would be compareable to this:

Well then, what if one child is missing a leg, and the other one is missing an eye, and the dad is on vacation, and they have no family and friends because they got blown up by a nuclear weapon, and the children all have PTSD, and the front door is purple, and this child wants A and this child wants Z and this child wants number 62, and you are tired and there is no coffee left in the entire world and you can't nap because a little elf is following you around ringing a triangle in your ear... then what?!

I mean, we could go on and on but the theoretical questions will never be answered. Can't it just be settled that we will cross that bridge when we get there, and we trust we will find a consensual solution at the time, and if we can't then we do what we have to do in the meantime and hope to find a solution for the future. That is doesn't mean the children are more likely to die or be unhealthy then if we practiced another way of parenting. That CL doesn't mean the children brush their teeth with sugar and sleep in a pile of horse poop because "thats what they wanted".. .cant it be accepted that CL does not mean not taking care of yourself or including yourself. That CL looks different in every family. That you can practice CL and still come into rough spots - just like with ANY other way of life? Do I sit here and say to the spanking mother:

What if your child hit you back? and then they answer I say "yeah but what if when you try to do that they shoot you?" or "but what if you are wearing a bullet proof vest and then a horse walks in your house and kicks it off?"

Do I say to a mom who doesn't practice CIO: but what if your older child is crying at the same time? yeah, but what if no one else is there to help you? yeah but what if they are bleeding, then isn't that more important then your baby needing to eat? yeah but then if you take care of the bleeding child then your other baby is CIO! And therefore, you aren't AP, because if you were AP then you would NEVER let your baby cry. You let your baby cry, that is traditional parenting, not attachment!

I mean WHY 1,000 theoretical questions. The "overall" questions I can handle. Maybe an example of each I can understand. But when you just keep trying to create the impossible situation, its like, do we really want to discuss "if you were stranded on a deserted island, and there was only 1 coconut, and you were all hungry, but if you shared it no one would be happy" yada yada yada.

We take what comes our way and we find a way. We are problem solvers and we don't give up. We don't "accept" that a situation is doomed. It doesn't make us less CL just because our child wanted to play in poop but we let them play in a mud pit in the backyard instead and they are fine with that. OR that we stop them from running in front of the oncoming train, and explain to them later. I'm not treating them "less" in that situation. I am keeping them safe - and I would do the same for a stranger and I would want a stranger to do the same for me. It doesn't mean we aren't CL just because we don't fit someone's FALSE definition that CL means the child does whatever they want and the parents sacrifice their own needs endlessly. It keeps being said "but then that isn't CL" but it IS CL it's just not the false definition of CL that people are determining on their own to make CL look bad so they can feel superior. Or the endless "what if" questions that sometimes I just have to say "honestly, I never considered that, because in *my* family its not likely to happen." but in a family where it is, they will know how to find a CL solution, if they WANT to know how.

If it's not right for you its not right for you. It's how you view the world, no one else can tell you how to live your life. It works for many families though, and not because they have some kind of magical special family, and not because they "arent really CL then", but because they CHOOSE for it to work for them and find a way for it to work. We aren't exactly sitting around looking for ways that CL wont work (like what if aliens are real and your child is possessed so they really DO want to lick the toilet bowl and refuse to let you clean if first because they want to lick the bacteria and it has nothing to do with porcelain - what THEN?!) We aren't thinking about how it wont work, we are thinking about how it could work. Thats why its tiresome. Because here we are thinking for OTHER people how they can handle situations that don't even really exist, and may never exist, or won't exist for us, and we don't know them or their family so if it does exist for them there is only so much help we can give because the answer lies within THEM, not us, and they will only find those answers by asking "how can this work" not "but what if".


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
I'd be very interested to read some more about this subject. You mentioned earlier that there were some actual anthropologists that studied the Yequana, but I'm not coming up with anything when I do a search. Do you have any links or any more information that would help me out?

I'll take a look this weekend and see what I can find... do you have access to academic literature, like through a university?

Also, Liedloff is about the only person to spell the name of the tribe as Yequana. Most of the time it's spelled Yek'wana, or Yekuana, IIRC. That might help!

Dar


----------



## mamazee

I have to agree with SGM that some of the questions aren't realistic. A child wants to eat a toilet? I can see them wanting that sensation - cold and hard - but not specifically wanting a toilet. That example seems silly. And it's easy to find stuff that's cold and hard to satisfy that desire. Also, I think it's safe to assume that an underlying want AND need is that the child doesn't want to be sick or injured, and that any solution would have to assume that. And playing with poop? Give them a glob of something with a similar consistency. "That would make you sick, but here's something that feels the same you can play with." As for cat food, we put ours somewhere out of reach from the get-go so it never became an issue. Advance planning helps too.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
I'll take a look this weekend and see what I can find... do you have access to academic literature, like through a university?

Also, Liedloff is about the only person to spell the name of the tribe as Yequana. Most of the time it's spelled Yek'wana, or Yekuana, IIRC. That might help!

Dar

That spelling difference really helped. Thanks!


----------



## kalimay

"It works for many families though, and not because they have some kind of magical special family, and not because they "arent really CL then", but because they CHOOSE for it to work for them and find a way for it to work."

SGM,
I am glad CL is working for you family.
I am sorry if you are tired of the examples and feel they are unrealistic. They are helpful to me because the only 2 families I know that practice CL look like they are Child Led to me. They don't seem consensual so it is interesting to read the other perspectives and how they would come to agreement in their situations, especially when you are taking more then one child at different ages into consideration.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I understand wanting to understand it. That I can appreciate. The wanting to "tear it down" is what is upsetting, where people keep looking for more and more what ifs and are NEVER satisfied. At that point I feel its no longer genuine interest. It's definitly not that they wish to be more consensual, but more so to prove the CL has flaws. Well, okay, I wouldn't dispute that - nothing in life is without fault! If I were a professional tennis player who misses the ball sometimes that doesn't mean I am not a pro tennis player anymore. By the same token, someone who plays tennis once a month is not a 'tennis player' as much as they are someone who enjoys playing tennis sometimes. It's not the "same" because we both play tennis and we both miss the ball. And really, if we were to compare it to tennis it would be the difference between someone who has devoted their lives to tennis (living consensually) and someone who plays tennis sometimes (a heirachy family who uses consensual techniques sometimes, not because they choose to live consensually, but because they enjoy being consensual with some things). You know, a tennis player who tries to hit the ball every time, and a tennis player who just watches it fly by because they don't feel like hitting it or think its so far out of reach that they wont get there in time so they don't bother trying.


----------



## WuWei

I like *Connection Parenting* by Pam Leo. It is very practical. The subtitle is "Parenting Through Connection Instead of Coercion, Through Love Instead of Fear". I highly recommend it. Even more than Naomi Aldort's because it goes beyond validation to creating solutions. http://www.amazon.com/Connection-Parenting-Through-Instead-Coercion/dp/193227917\
2/sr=8-1/qid=1158853700/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4052086-2190453?ie=UTF8&s=books

Here are the chapter titles:

1. *Connecting with Ourselves*

2. *Connecting with Children through Respecting Children* (I have to add the explanation of this chapter, it is so novel: "Respect is the foundation of connection. We teach children respect by modeling respect. We model respect by treating children with the same respect we expect.") !!

3. *Connecting through Listening to Children's Feelings
*
4. *Connecting through Filling the Love Cup
*
5. *Connecting through Communication that Builds Relationship
*
6. *Connecting through Decoding Children's Behavior* (Again, I have to delight in the explanation of this chapter: "Children communicate their emotional hurts and needs through their behavior. When we learn to recognize chidren's acting out behavior as a communication of an unmet need, we can respond to children's needs instead of react to their behavior.")

7. *Connecting with Our Own Needs*: "Parents have needs too. Families work best when everyone's needs are met."

Here is her website: http://www.connectionparenting.com/

And Amazon reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Connection-Parenting-Through-Instead-Coercion/product-reviews/1932279172/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewp oints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Pam Leo is a parent (and grandparent) of two grown children. She has btdt with creating solutions with multiple children while working full time as a mother.

Pat


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
Was the film called Hakani? If so, the film was faked - just another attempt by white folks to pass legislation that allows for the stealing of Indian babies....

Oh my gosh! Yes, that is the same film I saw. I'm so glad to learn that it wasn't true -- though it's horrifying to learn that fundamentalist missionaries would do something so evil and dishonest. I will let the people on the blog know about this.

Quote:

The Yequana, however, did do things like enslave member of the Yanomami tribe, and although Leidloff says, for example, the Yequana babies crawled and toddled around fire pits but were never burned, there are plenty of documented cases of Yequana children and adults with terrible burns and lost limbs from falling into fire pits...
While I'm certainly sad to hear about the Yequana children's injuries, it is also a relief to me to hear another side to Liedloff's insistence that if children seem to be accident-prone, it must be the fault of mothers who subconsciously communicate their expectation that their children will have accidents. And she even accuses mothers whose children get burned, of subconsciously making it happen.

I originally took TCC very seriously when I read it almost 3 years ago, and one day I was out in our yard with my youngest, who was then 17 months old. She was walking along a 2-foot-high ledge, and lost her balance and fell off the ledge onto the grass below, fracturing her elbow. I was just a couple of feet away, but was trying to be more "trusting" in her self-preservation instincts.

It's not really "good" to know that Yequana children get hurt sometimes too -- I never want any child to get hurt -- but it's a relief to know that accidents are not always caused by the mother subconsciously communicating "expectations" that the child feels compelled to fulfill.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
When you say friend is out, why is that? You have no local friends, *or you're not comfortable asking them*?r

I have a question about the bolded. My dd and I both have some anxiety issues, and there have been times that the one thing that would help relieve her anxiety is triggering mine.....for instance, wanting me to make requests of other people to accomodate her in some way, and I am very uncomfortable asking them. I am wondering how other people handle that sort of thing (when your dc wants you to do something that you are not assertive enough to do). Parenting has helped me grow a LOT in this area, because I can be assertive for my dc easier than I can for myself, but it is still an issue sometimes.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I <3 connection parenting by pam leo! and its such an easy read, and I like that you can read little snippits at a time without getting lost. its not "too wordy" and it encompasses a lot of the highlights from other books I love.


----------



## Calm

The problem as I can see it now is that everything written by actual CLers, or those attempting to be, contradict what Pat says. We had reached a consensus on this issue a couple of times and each time Pat said something that is very wildly CL and contradicts the CLers. If all these questions are frustrating, consider it from our perspective:

"redirection is mutual"
"Redirection is coercive"
"compromises are not solutions"
"not everyone can have what they want, but they can have what they need"
"everyone can have all their wants met"
"age is irrelevant"
"younger children need to be redirected, who said they didn't?"
"if the child is disappointed, then readdress the situation to make everyone happy"
"disappointment is ok, we can't all be happy all the time and emotions are valid"

I could go on.

And on.

Yet apparently it's crystal clear? Who the heck sees any of this as crystal clear other than "CL looks different in every family"? Nice way of saying "We all have to adjust it to fit cos the way it stands doesn't actually work."


----------



## Calm

Wanting to meet your child's wants isn't unique. Wanting to _*not*_ impose or direct or redirect... That isn't unique to CL. What _*is*_ unique to CL is "all wants can be met". That is what separates it from anything else I've ever seen. And until I see proof of that, I will be here asking for it.

Quote:

For myself, i would use the word 'coercive', to describe the way, on numerous occasions i have had to move the baby from an unsafe situation.

Quote:

His age is relevant when it comes to our relationship....i guess i am wondering how it wouldn't be..

Quote:

I am still confused.

Quote:

I have respect for my children and take their needs and want into consideration but feel that I am the one ultimately making the decisions.

Quote:

I guess I am still confused about how redirection is consensus, particularly if my toddler is initially unhappy with being redirected.

Quote:

I am another one who sees CL as possible being a more valid way to parent an older child but I am confused about how it works with young children. I seems like it is the parent making the decisions.

Quote:

with the time example that Calm is using it is still Calm who will decide what time they will leave.
Following? Can you hear them? I can.

To continue...

Quote:

Why do people think CL means letting the child do whatever they want. How is that MUTUALLY agreeable?
Exactly. However, that is not what I hear when Pat says:

Quote:

I believe we can have our needs and wants met. I trust that there are abundant possibilities. What is the saying, 'If you believe you can't, you are right.'
Whether it is a time or an action or a place or a thing, I can't see consensus in some of these so called consensual solutions.

And now for the icing on the cake, and what is a major problem is in this discussion, and rather disheartening:

Quote:

I have to agree with SGM that some of the questions aren't realistic. A child wants to eat a toilet? I can see them wanting that sensation - cold and hard - but not specifically wanting a toilet. That example seems silly.
I used this example because just that day my daughter had left the toilet door open and DS got in there and he always goes straight for the bowl and puts his mouth right on it. Every single time. He's only twelve months old! I think people forget what babies actually do, and that they aren't logical and they just do things for the heck of it and don't like to be prevented from doing so.

Even that has been argued because apparently many people don't have children like that, they have kids who would never consider mouthing a toilet or asking for illogical things - but I have extraordinary children, it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't like others.

My daughter had to change schools simply because she was so extraordinary and I was sick of her being selected for things like a show pony because she can "do" things that blow people away (she has had teachers in tears). I pay a lot of money so she is treated like others. But regardless of how unique and extraordinary my children are, I refuse to believe only they do these things.

People out there in the world have children that require the kind of questions I've been asking and that others ask. When I redirect DS away from the toilet, he freaks out. This is not consensual. He is only one, so I also cannot negotiate or explain esp when he can't hear me over his own screaming. He is very high needs, VERY. He lives in the moment, all babies do. Right here right now is all that exists (and they're right!) and right now he wants to mouth the toilet.

Sorry if that seems silly, but he's a baby, have some understanding. Children don't make much sense, contrary to CL guidelines which seem designed around a kind of logic and sense that very young children not only don't have, but aren't _supposed_ to have.

So back to square one, and I'm redirecting a screaming baby away from what he wants = therefore, the premise that we can always get what we want is _false_. And the examples from other mamas saying they also feel it isn't consensual to redirect are trying to point out the same inconsistency - the very premise the whole CL is based on is "all needs and wants can be met" and I am saying it is false because redirection is NOT meeting a desire, it is redirecting _away_ from a desire and the screaming child testifies to that. What is mutual about that?

I am not trying to tear CL down, but I do think it needs rewording.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

It's not really "good" to know that Yequana children get hurt sometimes too -- I never want any child to get hurt -- but it's a relief to know that accidents are not always caused by the mother subconsciously communicating "expectations" that the child feels compelled to fulfill
trust is an interesting concept. We are bound by physicality, and I thought I could beat that, but where my spirit can (I can have OBE's at will), my body cannot. Before I accepted this I told my daughter, who was born desperate to fly, that if she believed enough, she would. I actually believe that she may be the first person to fly, and I even explained levitation and how it is a type of flying. She can't fly, but it is always her wish when wishes are needed, to this day.

Maybe she will, I haven't told her otherwise. But there are physical things we must deal with in this physicality, and my expectations do influence my children but by the same token, they _aren't the final say_. I might expect my child to balance on a high wire, but the wind might whip up and throw off a delicate balance, there are many things that can happen that negate any expectations or trust.

My daughter also wants a unicorn. I couldn't give her for the main reason that they deserve freedom, that is their very nature. I have seen fairies, but just because I haven't seen a unicorn doesn't mean they don't exist so I managed this one by saying if you believe enough, you will see a unicorn where others see a horse. I couldn't meet her wants, but I could meet them half way. So she saw a unicorn some months later. I managed to give my child an otherwise close to impossible want, so I'm not ignorant of possibilities. I'm just aware of when I'm being coercive, manipulative, distracting, diverting, negotiating, bargaining, or offering alternatives OR when I am, in fact, simply _*meeting her wants*_.

I do not confuse the two, nor pretend to myself I am meeting someone's wants when I'm not just so I can check off the "all desires met" box for the day.


----------



## Dar

I think some of the problem here is terminology - some people are definign as "redirection" what other people are terming "distraction", for example. The same seems to be true with "wants" and "needs". I'm more familiar with TCS terminology, and not with CL terminology, although I've refrained from using it as much as possible because the words are very specifically defined and without understanding the vocabulary it's easy for misunderstandings to happen. As far as "compromise", though, I have been using it in the TCS sense, in that everyone gives up something of what she wants and the solution is something neither party would have as a "first choice".

I also think there's a difference between a child being disappointed by things that the parent cannot change (the weather, for example) and a child being disappointed by things the parent *can* change...

As far as wanting to mouth a toilet seat, I don't think anyone was doubting that your child was attempting to do so... but the poster was suggesting that his desire wasn't specifically "I want to mouth this toilet seat" - it was more "I like the feeling of something hard and smooth and rounded, especially something right at my height - hey, this thing is perfect!" So, the solution would be to find a substitute that the child liked just as much - or more - than the original seat. For example, brand new toilet seats are pretty cheap at the hardware store...

Dar


----------



## flowers

Wow, this is a doozy of a thread and now my eyes hurt from reading 20 pages.









I intuitively parent, but I also spend a good deal of energy consciously connecting with my intuition and questioning whether I am parenting out of fear, tiredness, laziness, knee-jerk reaction etc.

I think the ideal is CL and I have made my own peace with how I believe it plays out. I don't re-enact anything by the book but try to find the wisdom in each book, movement, philosophy etc.

I honor everyone in my family's feelings and needs. Honor does not mean allow any type of action. I studied and practiced consenus decision making in college and that is mostly how we practice as a family. When a decision needs to be made by a group all voices are heard. The vote that goes forward is 1) YES 2) not my favorite option but I'll go along with the group and 3) is the big NO. If someone says absolute no the movement stops. The key is that voting No requires that you come up with a better idea that fills the original need. No is really only to be used occasionally when it is absolutely crossing a personal comfort point. Mostly ppl talk it out and feel the middle option. Yes, it can take some time, but the experience is priceless and valuable.

I have young children and we do not actually sit there and "vote" persay (though I could see this happening when they are older). We are all just voting with our actions, feelings, movements etc. Because I am the mother I am keeping more of an eagle eye perspective on the family and can sometimes see where a little nudging here or there can help out. Also, because my children are so in closely in touch with their emotions they can sometimes guide the family into the best situation even when I couldn't "see it".

Example:

Yesterday morning it was sunny for the first time in weeks. We were all happy and after breakfast I suggested we go outside. I envisioned us staying in the yard so I kept my pj pants on, no bra and didn't even get a chance to brush my teeth. When we arrived downstairs in the yard ds1 told me he wanted to walk downtown. My reaction? NO WAY! I didn't have snacks, water, back up underwear for ds2 and I was in my pjs. I explained why but ds1 firmly wanted to go. More than a few times I decided that my needs were not being met by going and I did not want to go. I suggested going to the park next to our house. I suggested taking the soccer ball in the backyard. I explained why I did not feel prepared to go downtown. He suggested we go to the triangle park about 6 blocks away. Hmmmm....there is a coffee shop next to the park. I loosen up to the idea and tell him we would have to go upstairs so I could brush my teeth, change my pants etc. He agrees. We do and we go on to have a wonderful morning and we even met a cool family at the park.

That is a very ideal way that my version of respectful community living works. I dislike labels also, because everyone's interpretation is different and then there is so much room for misunderstanding.

The opposite of that situation that I am trying *not* to have happen in our family dynamics is the excuse of "I'm the parent so I get to say no". I know that is oversimplified but I feel like if I use that mentality I close myself off to some really great experiences. Firstly, because just the act of making it work is a valuable life lesson and secondly, because often times I want my way and when I open myself to a new way of doing things I find tremendous insight in the new experience.

Another insight I have from the whole CL thing is it is a whole picture thing and is tougher when you break down every minute example. The whole carseat example: Suzy hates the car seat and violently reacts every time. There are times that Suzy has to go in the car to meet other family member's needs (dr. appointments, jobs etc.) There are times where other family member's work around Suzy so she doesn't have to go, but sometimes Suzy has to work around them. Of course Suzy is 13 months and might cry the whole time, but over all her needs are met and considered, there are just other times where the family decides another need triumphs. It's a whole system and maybe that's not what CL is. I try not to get to caught up in the definitions that ppl place on it, but that is how I see it and ideally try to help facilitate in my family.

(naking, please excuse typos







)


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
I think some of the problem here is terminology - some people are definign as "redirection" what other people are terming "distraction", for example. The same seems to be true with "wants" and "needs". I'm more familiar with TCS terminology, and not with CL terminology, although I've refrained from using it as much as possible because the words are very specifically defined and without understanding the vocabulary it's easy for misunderstandings to happen. As far as "compromise", though, I have been using it in the TCS sense, in that everyone gives up something of what she wants and the solution is something neither party would have as a "first choice".

I also think there's a difference between a child being disappointed by things that the parent cannot change (the weather, for example) and a child being disappointed by things the parent *can* change...

As far as wanting to mouth a toilet seat, I don't think anyone was doubting that your child was attempting to do so... but the poster was suggesting that his desire wasn't specifically "I want to mouth this toilet seat" - it was more "I like the feeling of something hard and smooth and rounded, especially something right at my height - hey, this thing is perfect!" So, the solution would be to find a substitute that the child liked just as much - or more - than the original seat. For example, brand new toilet seats are pretty cheap at the hardware store...

Dar

Yes, terminology. Good point. And I agree with the disappointment angle, too. Things we can change but just don't cos we are the parent, I know plenty of families like that, laziness mostly. It doesn't appeal as a way for my family, but each to their own (unless abuse is involved, then it's my business).

I also saw your suggestion for the time thing (sorry for forgetting the other one) but the situation really was futile, you can compare it to catching a bus at 7.45, it was the latest we could push it and although my mother is there for any one of us always, I don't take advantage of that and I leave it for necessary or emergencies. Me unable to compromise further and my daughter unwilling to compromise isn't one of those moments. Otherwise I'd have my mother running like a taxi, and that's not consensual (or fair) either. DD learned a lot from the experience, it did more for her ability to see the bigger picture and to bend than had I been able to concede to her preference.

FWIW, the reason she didn't want to leave earlier is she believed we would run late, and thought adding on some time would make allowances for lateness.

Whatever the reason for my son mouthing the toilet, the fact remains that he screamed when I pulled him away, as he does when I stop him from doing some things. He is over it fairly quickly, but the non-consensual moment is what we are asking about.

Can you see what I'm getting at?

There are "solutions" to the problem, I didn't suggest there weren't. I'm saying that there are no _*consensual*_ solutions in that moment, I have to _impose my will_ on him, even if it is only for a brief moment. Moving him away, whether it be to an enticing alternative or not, is not a mutual agreement, no matter how you spin it.

Flowers, that post was brilliant, thank you. I kept highlighting stuff to quote and then I'd read on and realise I'd be quoting the whole thing.







I would use your post as an example of realistic consensual living. There is much adult self reflection and motive examination and growth, and there is character worth modelling by the children also but you are strong in your sense of "mother", that means something to you and your children, and always will. That's a "soft" hierarchy. Energy filters downwards, and nurturing is downwards, you probably don't expect nurturing from your children, put it that way.







You've grown and know how to _give it to yourself_, and you model this to your children.

Lack of any hierarchy at all makes me think of flowers in the attic, or a reliance that goes in all directions which seems a little, no... a LOT needy to me for an adult to expect that from a child. Take care of yourself and take care of your children. Explaining to them all the problems you have in the way children do with their parents is like, well far out, can't you work it out yourself? And if you don't, then you have a hierarchy, as soft as it might be, where the energy and nurturing filters DOWN!


----------



## Calm

For a couple of years now... not sure how long but a while, I've only read the CL group messages in my email box. I go through phases where I read stuff and then months go by where I just delete the updates. Today, for the first time in at least a year, I actually visited the group itself and read the front page. I copied this from there:

Quote:

It (consensual living) involves finding *mutually agreed upon* solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone's wants and needs are *equally valid*, regardless of age. Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are *created* or *negotiated* which meet the *underlying needs* of all parties.
The bold is mine.

I was specifically looking for particular wording and didn't find it on that particular definition. I didn't find "all wants can be met", for instance. So although there is still a gaping hole there for such things like babies/children who can't negotiate or clearly express their desires, I like that the _underlying needs_ are said to be met, NOT "all wants".

Obviously, negotiation is ok. Mutually _agreed_ upon solutions are ok, regardless of how happy or disappointed it makes anyone. Regarding age, this is what I initially thought it meant, that the needs and wants are equally valid (meaning, all humans are equal, regardless of age), but that doesn't necessarily mean all those needs and wants are met in the same way. Finding mutually agreed upon solutions with a baby is almost impossible at times, so we have to assume that the _negotiating_ mentioned isn't for babies, nor for toddlers and depending on the child, perhaps for even older children.

Therefore, to meet the desires of a baby, I have to use a different approach than meeting the desires of a teen. I can negotiate with a teen, and explain and use logic. With a baby, I may be reduced to coercion and imposing my will upon them (redirection). This becomes less so as they mature into a better understanding of things like hygiene and safety. Hence why I drive and they passenger... until they can drive and then they are welcome to do so or _negotiate_ with me who will drive on a particular day.

Plus, a little research can reveal interesting things to help discussions such as this. I don't take things for granted, and looked up the word _compromise_. The first paragraph of your basic wiki definition is what I expected and no doubt what anyone expects:

Quote:

In arguments, compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms-often involving variations from an original goal or desire. Extremism is often considered as antonym to compromise, which, depending on context, may be associated with concepts of balance, tolerance. In the negative connotation, compromise may be referred to as capitulation, referring to a "surrender" of objectives, principles, or materiale, in the process of negotiating an agreement. In human relationships "compromise" is often said to be an agreement that no party is happy with.
However, this next bit made a few things in this discussion make sense to me now:

Quote:

Cultural background and influences, the meaning and perception of the word "compromise" may be different: In the UK, Ireland and *Commonwealth countries* the word "compromise" has a positive meaning (as a consent, an agreement where both parties win something); in the USA it may rather have negative connotations (as both parties lose something).
I'm an Australian living in Australia and I'm a British citizen. Both are commonwealth countries. To me, compromise does indeed have very positive meaning, and I believe a compromise means both parties are at the very least square.







Glass half full types, perhaps. So now I see why, if you are American, all my talk about compromise sounds a bit negative and why I couldn't understand why on earth such fairness is considered negative.

Interesting, no?

It wasn't until I lived in America and married an American that I realised that we do have such cultural differences because until then I took it for granted that if you spoke English, then your culture reflects that sameness... I was very wrong.


----------



## transformed

You know what I have learned from my experience (which is trying, failing, trying, suceeding, and then failing again at CL) Its that with my family being so young it doesnt work that well for us. I mean, I was trying to reason with a toddler. Toddlers dont really understand that all that well.

However, as my family grows - I can see us growing to the place we can all coexist peacefully without power struggle. My oldest is almost 6 and he is fairly easy. I do use time out with him becausse when he gets mad he throws items and knocks over chairs and I am scared someone is going to get hurt. But it is not "shame on you you suck" time out its like "Dude, go to time out for xyz min and calm down so we can talk." Because he doesnt know to do that on his own.

My 3 yr old and 14 mo old I am not really Consensual with because they are still babies and I really just dont get how that works. It has never worked for me anyways.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

why was she worried about being late?

Dar, thank you, that is the point I was trying to make. Redirection if meant as distraction I do think is coercive. Redirection as in offering an alternative way to meet a need without distracting away from what they were doing and want to do is not coercive, to me.

Speaking of coercive, I really need some help!

Either Saturday or Sunday morning I cook anything anyone wants for breakfast (my kids are really happy with anything you put in front of them as there is always a variety to eat anyway) so I ask what they want for breakfast. My husband can easily tell me what he wants. My son, 3.5, needs ideas, and so I will give him some and he will let me know. Well, my daughter needs ideas too but she ALWAYS takes the less choice you offer... such as:
fried or eggs with ketchup (that means scrambled)?
"ketchup"
applesauce or cantaloupe?
"cantaloupe"
bacon or sausage?
"sausage" (but she wants bacon)
then I say, to check, "sausage or bacon?" and she says bacon.
toast or no toast?
"no toast" (but I know she does want toast) and when I check "no toast or toast?" she says toast.

I literally checked this bu asking her
"chocolate or poopie" and she said poopie.

So I'm at a loss how I can give her choices without being coercive. I try to use open ended questions but not working with her at this age. When I give choices I don't care which choice she makes. Example: I knew she wanted bacon, so thats what I ended up making her, but I was hoping she wanted sausage because I wanted sausage but I know I wont cook it if Im the only one who is going to have it. But even when she said sausage, which is what I hopes she would want, I realize she was only saying it because it was the last option offered, and I knew she would really want bacon so I made her bacon. i ended up having a bowl of applesauce for breakfast because I didnt feel like eating what everyone else was having or cooking, and applesauce sounded really yummy lol.

anyway, how can I help her make decisions without being unintentionally coercive? Or if she is just happy with either and doesn't care, does it matter if she always wants to pick whatever the last option is?

well put Dar, and great example Flowers.

Here is an example from my own family...

My friend came to visit with her son, who is the same age as my oldest son. He had a gameboy game that my son wanted to play with but he didn't want to share. She and her son agreed to "put it up". My son was crying because he wants to play with it, and sitting in front of the dresser it was on. I sat down next to him and said, "You really want to play with that. You wish you could have a turn." I probably sat there validating for 2 or 3 minutes. Then he got up and walked away, happy, and went on with his day.

See, that was not something I could change for him, because we cannot control my friend or her son. My son had that opportunity to learn that he can be in control of his life even when he can't control those around him. He could still be happy, even without the game.

another example:
My son went in the drawer, got chalk, and started writing all over the furniture. The first 2 times he did this I redirected him. He was just as happy to use the chalk outside (probably happier). Afterward I asked myself if it was really a big deal? It wipes right up, and on top of that, he likes cleaning it too. So, now when I need some time to myself I give him chalk and let him draw all over the house, then we clean it up together.

Another example:
My son hates baths. I used to make him take them, but that only made it worse and made me feel terrible. We talked, as much as his limited vocab allowed. He doesn't like water dumped on his head to rise the shampoo, and he was beginning to scream the second the bath started because he knew that would happen. I asked him what if we only wash his hair when he was dirty, and he could pick if my, his dad, or my friend did it. As soon as I said my friend could do it he started talking about her, and asked for a bath. I said she wasnt there but we could keep talking about her while we took a bath if he wanted. So he took a bath while we talked about her. After that, we started only giving baths twice a week, and washing his hair about once a week. NOW he asks to take a shower twice a day (but accepts only having 1 shower) and he washes his own face, and even cleans his own ears now! I do still wash his hair when it needs it, which really isn't even as often as once a week like I thought it would be.

Another example:
DS needed a haircut. If he keeps his hair short he needs his hair washed less, just something we noticed. So last week when I cut DH's hair he watched and I asked if he wanted me to cut his too. He said no. The next week, I asked if he wanted a daddy hair cut, he said no. I asked if he wanted his hair his own way and he said "my hair" I told him that me, dh, or friend could cut it if he wants a short hair. We could use scissors or the buzzers. We could do it outside or inside. Ultimately though, the decision was up to him. Perhaps he wanted to let his hair be long again. He didnt want his hair long again though. 5 minutes later he asked me to cut his hair outside with scissors. We did a few snips at a time and I told him we could stop anytime he wanted. He began to feel comfortable, and asked me to use the buzzers. We finished up with the buzzers, and now his hair is cut. He wanted his hair cut. Long hair is okay too. It's just hair. That was something I had to let go of though, but I've learned the more control I let go the more "compliance" there is. My son doesn't feel the need to try to take some control back, he has control over what happens to him.

We probably come into 1 or 2 situations a month where I feel that I need "figure something out"... most of the times things are pretty straight forward.

I think some people think a day in the CL household looks like this:

Wake up. Have a discussion about what time to get out of the bed. Child decides to get out of bed an hour after school starts and parent agrees even though they want child to school on time. At breakfast, child chooses a bowl of ice cream. They decide to brush their teeth with sugar afterward. Then they declare they arent going to school, they are going to play with kangaroo poop instead. Parent is worried about this decision, but lets child decide. Child wants to go to the park naked, and thinks mama should go to the park naked too. so they go to the park naked and get arrested. Child throws a huge tantrum about being in the police station and spits on the police officer. when they finally get out of there, the parent tells the child the police officer was just being mean. they go home, and stay up till 3 in the morning eating candy, because the child didn't want to go to bed.

in reality, at least for me, its more like this:

Child feels confident their say matters, so they don't feel the need to try to exert power at every turn. They go with the flow and speak up about the things that are important to them. Child wakes up and gets out of bed. Asks what is for breakfast and the parent says she is making pancakes, but there are a few other things in the fridge as well. Child says pancakes sound good. Parent alerts child at what time school starts. Parent doesn't care if child is late to school and doesn't feel rushed. Child gets backpack and shoes on and they go to school. They are 20 minutes early. They've only been late once all year, despite the fact the parent wouldn't mind if they were and doesn't see it as a big deal. Parent drops child off at school. After school parent picks up the child. The child wants to go to the park but the parent wants to get dinner ready. They decide to go to the park, and have something easier for dinner instead. They stay at the park for a bit, then go home. Turns out, there was still time to cook a propper dinner afterall, but child was looking forward to the easy dinner plan so they stick to that. After dinner, bath, and stories, child goes to bed. The next, on the way to school, the child sees a friend across the street and starts to run into the street and the parent grabs child quickly to stop them from a dangerous situation. The parent reminds child that its dangerous to cross the street that way, and then when its safe to cross, they go meet child's friend on the other side of the street. The rest of the week flows smoothly, but the following week, mom has to go grocery shopping and child doesn't want to go. Child decides to stay home with dad, and mom waits until dad gets home to go grocery shopping. OR child agrees to go this week and parent agrees to make sure there is a babysitter available next week so he can stay home if he wants to. OR they agree to go grocery shopping tomorrow instead OR they agree they will pick up just what they need for dinner that night, and do a big trip on another day. OR the child is really tired, and just wanted to take a nap first. the list goes on, but no - the result is not always the child getting whatever they want, and life does not turn into either the child doing crazy things from dawn til dusk, nor does it mean that every second of every day is spent trying to reach a consensus.

CL is working for our family. I have a 3.5yo, 2yo, and 10 month old. My kids don't play in poop, run into streets (never have yet), or brush their teeth with sugar. We don't spend all day trying to find solutions, as most times there is no solution needed as my children know that when something is important to them they will have a say that will be considered as important and as valid as mine or my husbands. It doesn't take "more time" I find it takes less time as my children aren't constantly fighting for a way to have power or control over themselves. They are even beginning to act consensually with each other. We have always been somewhat consensual, but I find the more consensual we live with each other and those around us, the less things my children care enough about to want to reach a consensus about. In other words, when I felt more like "I am parent, I have final say!" it seemed we were in constant disagreement. Now we disagre much less, - not because I have decided to just agree with them, but because they know they have say over their lives when its important to them, so they no longer need to say "no those arent the shoes I wanted to wear!" "no I dont want a banana!" "no I want to walk on the blue line, not the yellow one!" etc... they save their "no's" for things that really matter to them, instead of saying no to everything in attempt to figure out where they finally will get a say in their life. It's not more conflict, its less. For us. which is why this works for us. I definitely don't see CL to mean in my family what some of the posters here have determined CL "means" just because THEY said so.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I believe we can have our needs and wants met. I trust that there are abundant possibilities.

My life just isn't like this. Sleep is a prime example. I guess dh and I get all the sleep we need (well, almost), but we definitely don't get all the sleep we want. And, even more importantly, we don't get _nearly_ all the time alone together that we want _or_ need. Why? Because we have jobs with opposing work schedules (can not afford childcare, and the children want--_need?_--a parent at home). Because our dc don't sleep long or well. And because, when they do sleep, they are in our room/bed--even the 8 yo. We are meeting their wants and needs in this dept, but putting ours on the shelf....for _years_. It isn't because we lack creativity or problem solving skills. It just is what it is. Accepting what I can not change _helps_ me deal with it (and not become resentful). When we try to make changes that create some more opportunities for dh and I to have time together....and they repeatedly fail, because the children can't/won't cooperate.....I am much more resentful and miserable than when I just accept it.


----------



## mamazee

I agree with you except I think you underestimate the school issue. Either I homeschool and we can be consensual, or she gets on the bus. If I don't register as a homeschooling family, she can't miss much school or I'm legally guilty of neglect. And she doesn't walk to school, she rides the bus, and I don't usually have a car to drive her. We don't live close enough to walk easily, and it gets very cold here and I have a brand new baby. I couldn't very well walk a 2-week-old baby three miles to school when it was 2 degrees F out. So she just plain had to get on the bus. I could avoid this non consensual situation by homeschooling, but that's not something I'm prepared to do with a new baby here. There are cases where you are not taking some situations seriously that either can't be consensual or would be very difficult to make consensual. Though I do agree that almost everything can be done consensually. I guess it seems to me that some people are shooting down the idea of being consensual without really considering it, but it also seems like you aren't willing to consider that some things are going to take more than just a simple thing to fix. Like I can't just have my dd go to school a little later. It's either homeschool or she gets to the bus stop on time. And if I don't homeschool and she misses school too much, I get a visit from CPS, and I'm not willing to take that chance. If I were that concerned about CL, I'd just homeschool, but I don't think I could give it enough attention with a new baby in the house so she suffers through one non consensual issue. And I'm OK with that. Though she did get used to this issue and finally understood that it was something out of my control, and the bus stopped being a problem.


----------



## flowers

Scott Noelle has a great Daily Groove on knowing someone so well you don't have to ask there preferences. I think this can really help in the young children department.

I put this all together when my sil, who in the past gave a trillion options to her kid who only ordered everything and never ate anything and she just ran around bidding his will. She started Waldorf and the first thing they told her was to quit giving him options. Make him food he likes and just give it to him without the explanation. Now, I'm not a huge waldorf advocate (i like the theory not the dogma) but when I saw the changes in her parent child dynamic I was floored. He went from being disgruntled, demanding and challenging to being a really happy contented kids in two weeks time.

But I couldn't wrap my head around it because I didn't feel like I should be eliminating choices from my kid's life. Then I read the Scott Noelle piece about being so incredibly tuned into your kid that you know how to prepare a meal to their liking. Your not taking away their choices, you are taking the time to know them better.

I try to do that a lot more and I find it really helps. If I ask ds1 what he wants or if he wants x or y it turns into a whole ordeal and he never wants what we are having. If I just cook food and take a little time making it appealing to him and just put it on the table he will just come, sit down and eat. We don't even have to discuss it at all.

Of course there are times when I put something down and he is disinterested. Then I encourage him to figure something out, but I can tell he is now empowered by this process rather than trying to control the power (like it had been when I just sat there and gave him a million options).

My point is that it's the consciousness with which you do it rather than the specific actions that take place.


----------



## flowers

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I agree with you except I think you underestimate the school issue. Either I homeschool and we can be consensual, or she gets on the bus. If I don't register as a homeschooling family, she can't miss much school or I'm legally guilty of neglect. And she doesn't walk to school, she rides the bus, and I don't usually have a car to drive her. We don't live close enough to walk easily, and it gets very cold here and I have a brand new baby. I couldn't very well walk a 2-week-old baby three miles to school when it was 2 degrees F out. So she just plain had to get on the bus. I could avoid this non consensual situation by homeschooling, but that's not something I'm prepared to do with a new baby here. There are cases where you are not taking some situations seriously that either can't be consensual or would be very difficult to make consensual. Though I do agree that almost everything can be done consensually. I guess it seems to me that some people are shooting down the idea of being consensual without really considering it, but it also seems like you aren't willing to consider that some things are going to take more than just a simple thing to fix. Like I can't just have my dd go to school a little later. It's either homeschool or she gets to the bus stop on time. And if I don't homeschool and she misses school too much, I get a visit from CPS, and I'm not willing to take that chance. If I were that concerned about CL, I'd just homeschool, but I don't think I could give it enough attention with a new baby in the house so she suffers through one non consensual issue. And I'm OK with that. Though she did get used to this issue and finally understood that it was something out of my control, and the bus stopped being a problem.

Well, in my mind, you are deciding that your need to have your dd go to school is top priority. Then keeping her on the bus on time ( and all the actions leading up to it) is actually taking care of her needs, b/c you know going down the CSS route is not healthy for your family. In my family, this would be okay if ds liked school over all. If there was a point when they were showing stress and really resisting school I would help them find a situation that supported them better.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I can only speak for MY family. I'm just saying there is a misconception that CL means one thing because people *feel* like that is what it would mean for their family. If they really wanted to be consensual though, they would find those infinite possibilities too, just like we do. For us, it's not the school issue, but it would be something else. but instead of saying "there just are no other options" we keep asking "what are the other options here? what might I be missing? there must be a solution!" when you think there must be a solution, you find one. there were times I felt there were no solutions (Pat can attest to this!) and then, I found one. I found a solution for my "futile" situation. It wasn't anything any other CL suggested, it was something I had to figure out on my own, because I really wanted to.

As Alfie Kohn puts it (probably in better words then I am about to) sometimes the solution to a black and white problem isn't gray, but lets say perhaps, orange.

A few other recent highlights I have are:

"give them an inch and they take a mile turns out to be true primarily for children who have only been given inches in their lives" UP page 174

"But the best way to prepare children for experiences where they will be unnecessarily controlled is not to immerse them in similar experiences beforehand. That would be like saying that, because there are a lot of carcinogens in the environment, we should expose kids to as many cancer-causing agents as possible while they are young" UP page 169


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flowers* 
Scott Noelle has a great Daily Groove on knowing someone so well you don't have to ask there preferences. I think this can really help in the young children department.

I put this all together when my sil, who in the past gave a trillion options to her kid who only ordered everything and never ate anything and she just ran around bidding his will. She started Waldorf and the first thing they told her was to quit giving him options. Make him food he likes and just give it to him without the explanation. Now, I'm not a huge waldorf advocate (i like the theory not the dogma) but when I saw the changes in her parent child dynamic I was floored. He went from being disgruntled, demanding and challenging to being a really happy contented kids in two weeks time.

But I couldn't wrap my head around it because I didn't feel like I should be eliminating choices from my kid's life. Then I read the Scott Noelle piece about being so incredibly tuned into your kid that you know how to prepare a meal to their liking. Your not taking away their choices, you are taking the time to know them better.

I try to do that a lot more and I find it really helps. If I ask ds1 what he wants or if he wants x or y it turns into a whole ordeal and he never wants what we are having. If I just cook food and take a little time making it appealing to him and just put it on the table he will just come, sit down and eat. We don't even have to discuss it at all.

Of course there are times when I put something down and he is disinterested. Then I encourage him to figure something out, but I can tell he is now empowered by this process rather than trying to control the power (like it had been when I just sat there and gave him a million options).

My point is that it's the consciousness with which you do it rather than the specific actions that take place.

Thanks, you are so right. See this is a perfect example of what I was sayng (but just not applying in one area) that a lot of things don't really need to be discussed, it just happens naturally. I don't need to ask her if she wants her eggs fried or scrambled. she likes them scrambled. or if she wants sausage or bacon, she likes bacon. and she probably would have liked applesauce AND melon, I could have gave her some of both, or either. On the average morning, that is what I do. I guess I was trying to make something special for them, when really, it was just something I wanted for myself. Thanks flowers, this is why I love getting support from other CL families. Sometimes we have to remember that just because no one else has an answer that works for us, it doesn't mean one doesn't exist, and also that sometimes people will have ideas we never thought of, or are able to help us see more clearly something we already know.


----------



## Calm

Interesting reading. I love hearing about the solutions found for sticky situations.

Quote:

why was she worried about being late?
Two reasons. One was she thought she'd miss out on the food. And the other was she thought we would run late, meaning even though we agreed on 7.45, she thought we wouldn't leave until 7.50 or that we would run into traffic, which would impact further on her first worry - missing out on food. I had faith the traffic would be good at that time of day (it was) and I went that extra mile to leave on time and I told her that they said the food would be there in abundance until 8.30 but if it wasn't we'd have something gross yet appealing like Burger king on the drive home.

She wasn't convinced, but she stopped the "But MAAAAAAAAM" loop she was on. Turned out they didn't bring out the muffins until we got there, and she said "I'm glad we waited cos I'd have been all full up on toast and fruit if we had gotten here early and had no room left for muffins!" I guess sometimes consensuality comes with hindsight?


----------



## Calm

Quote:

My son went in the drawer, got chalk, and started writing all over the furniture. The first 2 times he did this I redirected him. He was just as happy to use the chalk outside (probably happier). Afterward I asked myself if it was really a big deal? It wipes right up, and on top of that, he likes cleaning it too. So, now when I need some time to myself I give him chalk and let him draw all over the house, then we clean it up together.
This reminds me of a thread from 2004 of mine that became a bit of a legend: Are We Disciplining the Creativity Out of Our Children?
There are many examples in there of things like allowing a child to write on walls or dance on tables and so on. A type of consensual living seemed to come naturally to me back when it was considered radical.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I put this all together when my sil, who in the past gave a trillion options to her kid who only ordered everything and never ate anything and she just ran around bidding his will. She started Waldorf and the first thing they told her was to quit giving him options. Make him food he likes and just give it to him without the explanation. Now, I'm not a huge waldorf advocate (i like the theory not the dogma) but when I saw the changes in her parent child dynamic I was floored. He went from being disgruntled, demanding and challenging to being a really happy contented kids in two weeks time.
This is what I dig about the non child centered theory. Children aren't meant to do all that logic thinking and making too many choices, esp if they aren't asking anything, you are just giving them constant options. For instance, DD has always been very slow in every area except intelligence; she walks slowly, she takes at least an hour to eat breakfast (we cut that down to half an hour recently) and needs a lot of time to do things or she stresses out, such as getting dressed.

When she was young (older kids are so much easier and I think that's why CL is easier as they get older too) I would say it is time to get dressed and she would take her sweet time moving through the steps and to help this, I put out clothes on the bed, two options and she picked one, or blended them... whatever but it helped her a little. But what helped her the most was when I put only one outfit on the bed, no option. She didn't stress over the decision and she was dressed much faster.

I found this to be true regarding stress in my home with a highly sensitive daughter. Choices seem kind and fair because as adults it is. But children aren't adults, and this is where some philosophies mess up, by taking some things for granted in children or thinking "this feels best to me, therefore it must be best for a child". After all, it is the origin of CIO methodology - that children are like adults and can handle that which adults can.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

okay, so really there was only one issue I am seeing - that she felt she would miss out on the food. If 7:45 was acceptable to her, but she was worried you wouldn't leave until 7:50, being late still, still worried about missing out on the food. Definitely would have an impact on my approach to my child's valid concerns. As for consensuality in hindsight, IDK if THAT is what I would call that... I would say your daughter didn't miss out, she was happy, and then was seeking to get reconnected with you by finding a way to agree with something you said to her earlier (that leaving at 7:45 would be better)... There are times where my mom wasn't consensual and we didn't "miss the breakfast" growing up... and then there were times we did. Maybe thats not what your DD was doing, I'm just saying I remember being in that situation as both an adult and as a child, and it was not consensuality in hindsight *for me* but maybe for your daughter it was. Checking out that thread though, sounds good







I'll try to step away from this thread though, seems like a dead horse issue at this point.


----------



## Calm

My daughter won't drink water. When I was in my absolute peak CL days, I didn't do much about it other than remind her and explain to her what would be the result if she continued to neglect her needs. This would be the advice of CLers who do things like let their children choose their own foods in places with bad food choices. I was once one of them. Only more hard core, I was CL to the _*bone*_. So I know where these "options" come from, and their lofty goals.







And I admire people on the path, I do.

She ended up with a kidney issue from severe dehydration, bleeding from the kidneys and moaning in lower back pain were two of the symptoms. She was four, and I think that had I let her self-determine at the age she is now instead of assuming she could safely do it then, we might have gotten a little further but she just didn't understand.

She still struggles with the water but I recently learned more than physical damage had been done from those days. Her hands were flaking and cracked, the sign of dehydration appearing again last month and I suggested she might like to get a glass of water or weak juice. She took one to her bedroom, which was odd. I went in there to find her sitting staring into space, and I asked if the water issue stresses her out and she said yes, she feels like she is going to die when she forgets to drink and that sometimes she thinks it would be easier if she did just die. She and her friends seem very interested in death at this age in general but it was still very alarming.

So we discussed what might help and decided that a watch with an alarm would help her remember to drink. She was very excited at the prospect of having a solution to the fact that she simply doesn't remember to drink and doesn't have a "thirst cue" like others.

The moral to my story is I speak from some experience of CL and think it is a wonderful philosophy I still recommend. I just wish some of it would be reworded so people don't make some dangerous mistakes. If those mistakes are made, then it is, "well, surely you didn't have THAT much faith in your child, that much trust in life and children - you misinterpreted the philosophy, don't blame CL for negative things that happen."

And in reality, I don't blame it. I made those choices. My daughter made those choices. But I still see glaring errors in wording that can and DO lead mamas into wondering if they are "parenting too much", and wondering if they should redirect, or intervene in eating issues...


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

my kids don't drink water often either. I guess I al lucky because I am willing to give them other fluids that they are willing to drink and so they have never dehydrated.

People make mistakes like that even when they ARENT practicing CL. Such as the traditional families who say "they will eat/drink that eventually if you don't give them anything else" could end up in the same boat as you. I wouldn't blame it on being CL, or being "CL to the bone". You can be CL to the bone without that happening... IMO, the blame does not belong on trying to "be CL"...


----------



## Calm

I am willing too. She won't drink anything.

If a parenting philosophy such as CC and CL both suggest to trust in the child and in "life" and that all needs and wants will be met and not to impose and all that stuff and then you follow that and it doesn't work... it really seems dismissive to just say,"hey, that's your fault". I'm saying there is risk here, in the wording. I'm seeing it in posts on this thread and in discussions elsewhere, it isn't clear enough and mamas are confused and trying to "allow" things because they have been _taught_ it is best for the child.


----------



## ~PurityLake~

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
This reminds me of a thread from 2004 of mine that became a bit of a legend: Are We Disciplining the Creativity Out of Our Children?
There are many examples in there of things like allowing a child to write on walls or dance on tables and so on. A type of consensual living seemed to come naturally to me back when it was considered radical.

I went over to read that *closed* thread. This is something that always irks my mom. She had a lot of seemingly arbitrary rules based on what should be done, is acceptable by society and is in fear of our children getting hurt. When my girls were younger, they climbed on the dining table and preferred that over the chairs so they could more easily reach their food. My mom bought them booster seats







. They like to put their dolls in them.







and set them on the table in the booster seats next to them while they eat. It really drives my mother nuts.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

so how do you "make" her drink now? I mean I can't even see an authoratative type parent being able to FORCE a child into drinking. I would be concerned if my child didn't want to drink - what could be the underlying cause of that, ya know?

I don't feel liek anything I have read on CL says to let your child be self determining to the point of death or near death or danger though. I am not saying "hey thats your fault" I'm saying it's not helpful to blame parenting "oh I was just trying to follow this parenting quote to 't' " i mean really at this point, I feel the conversation is being manipulated when such things are implied.

That would really be like a traditional parenting say "the book said to let them CIO until they stopped crying and not to pick them up no matter what, so even though they were choking on their vomit I just left them, and now they are dead" I mean at some point common sense has to kick in, and if a parent is "letting" their child do something that could kill them, that goes beyond trying to follow a certain type of parenting "to the bone" I mean heck, I'm sure even Ezzo would say don't let your baby die while using CIO... I'm sure somewhere along the way he says that, though I've never followed him, and if he assumes it to be common sense I wouldn't blame him, not that he is exactly a man of common sense in my mind.... all that said, as far as CL goes, it IS made clear that you don't let your child get to near death because you are "just trying to be CL to the bone and let them be self determining" Ultimately, I don't think a 4 year old is really determining they want to die, so if they are doing something that could kill them, you would obviously intervene... not because you are a parent and you are "higher up in the heirarchy" but because you would do the same for any other human being who was in danger.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
okay, so really there was only one issue I am seeing - that she felt she would miss out on the food. If 7:45 was acceptable to her, but she was worried you wouldn't leave until 7:50, being late still, still worried about missing out on the food. Definitely would have an impact on my approach to my child's valid concerns.

And... a possible solution might have been to call the organizers of the breakfast and ask them how the food was set out, and maybe explain your daughter's concerns and ask if some food could be put aside for her if it looked like they were running out of something...

We used to have constipation issues due to lack of hydration... at 4, I don't think my kid really "got" the connection between not drinking and constipation, although I explained it to her. So, the solution that worked for us was for me to always have homemade popsicles on hand, and also to get some cool water bottles and bring one filled with something whenever we went anywhere, and I also modeled a lot of drinking. I didn't put the responsibility for drinking enough fluids on her, because she was four - not her job. OTOH, I also didn't coerce her into doing anything she didn't want to do. I got what I needed - my kid drank enough fluids to keep her healthy - and so did she. Parenting this way doesn't mean the child has to be responsible for keeping herself healthy...

Dar


----------



## contactmaya

<<in my experience CL is easy with a baby.>>

I didnt say it was difficult, easy, or possible or impossible, i was just asking how it is that age *isnt* relevant (as per Anna's post, which states that age isnt relevant) Im not saying that i dont repsect the needs/wants of a child because of age.

<<...and they are tiresome because they are endless! >>

I wasnt referring to the endless series of hypotheticals that come up, but with fundamental theoretical questions, that i need answered for myself, before i can call this true consensual living. For eg, is it possible to refer to a group as consensual, when some of its members have more power than the others? Also, the question as to what children are really capable of, and what they really need at different ages is a theoretical one as well.

I think Calm pointed out a few more theoritical questions.

(im still liking the term 'harmonious' living for these reasons)

Maya


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
And... a possible solution might have been to call the organizers of the breakfast and ask them how the food was set out, and maybe explain your daughter's concerns and ask if some food could be put aside for her if it looked like they were running out of something...

We used to have constipation issues due to lack of hydration... at 4, I don't think my kid really "got" the connection between not drinking and constipation, although I explained it to her. So, the solution that worked for us was for me to always have homemade popsicles on hand, and also to get some cool water bottles and bring one filled with something whenever we went anywhere, and I also modeled a lot of drinking. I didn't put the responsibility for drinking enough fluids on her, because she was four - not her job. OTOH, I also didn't coerce her into doing anything she didn't want to do. I got what I needed - my kid drank enough fluids to keep her healthy - and so did she. Parenting this way doesn't mean the child has to be responsible for keeping herself healthy...

Dar

Excellent insight, again I've learned something from you. Great solutions! I don't tend to think of hypothetical situations much but manage when I am in a situation myself (though sometimes it takes time!) Great ideas! That being said, I am still unsure how a person could "make" a child eat/drink anyway, lol, even if you held them down you couldn't make them swallow, ya know? it seems like a consensual approach would be the ONLY approach in a situation like this, even for a non-consensual family...


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Age isn't relevant in the validity of the needs. Obviously, age is relevant in the sense that a newborn can't breastfeed themselves or change their own diapers.


----------



## Calm

SGM, I'm not trying to be manipulative.

If you can't see the point I'm making, you can't see it. Fair enough.

I've met this discussion half way sooooooooo much more often than that "consensuality" has been afforded me. My examples are to just get to the point - the wording is off, if it wasn't, there wouldn't be so many people misunderstanding it. Even _you_ misunderstand it, because how you work CL is not how those who started the philosophy meant for it to be worked.

You keep giving me your interpretation of it when the website and Pat state specifically something else. Your definition of CL is also mine. I do what you do, and even more CL in some situations if I'm to be honest, based on some of your much earlier responses to others. That's not the point.

We all see this differently - why is that? Some actually believe everyone can get what they want and also everyone (including babies) can be self-determining because that is _their_ experience of things. Basing something you offer to others on your own experience is rife with possible problems.

Also, there is an air of something I don't want to name on this thread at times in responses. For example, the responses are often along the lines of "my children trust our bond" in other words, "your children don't and that is what is lacking in your example".

To feel it, I'll use your issue: You are looking for a consensual resolve to your breakfast choices issue. I could say, 'My children don't do that. They have trust in our bond and don't feel the need to agree with the last option I give. They just say, "you pick mum, I always like what you pick." '

I wouldn't answer that way to you because it seems so freakin' smug to me and I'm not comfortable with it, even it if is true. Why would making a bunch of assumptions about your bond and all the unspoken other assumptions in that statement be helpful to you? Esp when I can frame it in another way. If I'm so skilled at finding options in my CL life, then I can _also_ find ways to frame things that don't do that to others.

You asked a question, and there is little relevance in telling you how we don't have that issue in our home. So I would _put myself in your shoes_, because CL extends to online friends also. I wouldn't suggest you are _unwilling_ to do something by saying, "I'm lucky because I'm _willing_ to do xyz". I would assume willingness on your behalf.

I would perhaps suggest that giving options is not working for you, because even when you ask "toast?" she agrees. I would suggest that coercion is not the definition in this case, if you simply announced her breakfast for her. Much like when she was a baby, and you thrust a breast into her waiting mouth without asking - she wants what you're offering, even now when she's older. Relieve her of the burden of decision. Is what I would perhaps suggest. I might also perhaps mention that you could put out on the bench a choice of things you are willing to prepare, in the form of pictures: a picture of toast, a picture of pancakes, etc and let her instinct pick. Just tell her that breakfast is on the bench, to bring you the picture of what she'd most like. If she is like my children, she may bring you two pictures.







To prevent you coercing her, put the two she chose down on the floor and ask her to pick one of those two.

She may be visual, not auditory, which means that _hearing_ choices isn't helpful for her, she may need to _see_ them.


----------



## ~PurityLake~

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 

I would perhaps suggest that giving options is not working for you, because even when you ask "toast?" she agrees. I would suggest that coercion is not the definition in this case, if you simply announced her breakfast for her. Much like when she was a baby, and you thrust a breast into her waiting mouth without asking - she wants what you're offering, even now when she's older. Relieve her of the burden of decision. Is what I would perhaps suggest. I might also perhaps mention that you could put out on the bench a choice of things you are willing to prepare, in the form of pictures: a picture of toast, a picture of pancakes, etc and let her instinct pick. Just tell her that breakfast is on the bench, to bring you the picture of what she'd most like. If she is like my children, she may bring you two pictures.







To prevent you coercing her, put the two she chose down on the floor and ask her to pick one of those two.

She may be visual, not auditory, which means that _hearing_ choices isn't helpful for her, she may need to _see_ them.

That is a really good idea, Calm. I like it.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

It's like a car accident! I can't look away!!

No one has said to me how I work it is not how they meant for it to be worked. They do give me ideas on how I can be more consensual though, and I appreciate it, and it doesn't change my understanding any, it just helps me embrace the understanding more. I don't feel I have misunderstood the meaning of CL - I do at times misunderstand myself and my children though.

I think you really get stuck on the "half way" thing. half way being fair. etc. As Alfie put it, sometimes the best solution to a black and white problem its gray, but perhaps, orange!

We all see it differently, because CL looks different in every family, and you want to take EXTREME scenarios, and say if people don't do it "this" way, then they aren't really CL as CL is intended.

I'm sure Pat would agree that CL does not mean let your child be self determining to the point they die as child... I don't think that means I have misunderstood CL...

What I learned with my example is that my child doesn't care either, same as yours. My child doesn't need to say "you pick" (nor does she speak in sentences like that) the reason my child says whatever the last option is is because she is in a parrot stage and repeats the last few words of any sentence you say to her. She understand an option is being offered, but is only able to parrot back the last option. I do the options trying to be fun, but realized it was more for me because my daughter IS happy with whatever I choose, but thats because I know what she likes lol.

No one is saying you don;t have a bond with your child, obviously you do - YOU are the one who kept implying consensus was only necessary when there is no connection, and that is NOT my experience, my experience is that CL works without a lot of need for looking for consensus because we are connected and they know their input matters and don;t need to check for every little thing to see if their input is valid because they have learned it is, and so only speak up about what is important to them - not frivolous things. This is not an attack against you, its a defense (though I dont know why I bother) against you saying one would have to be trying to come to agreements day in and day out, and that consensus is only needed because connection has failed, when in my experience, consensus is reached more readily when connection is strong.

and yes, you are right I could show her the choices, which crossed my mind also, but I much prefer the insight that flowers offered. Perhaps when she is older having a special breakfast day will mean something to her but for the time being I know what she likes so I can just serve it to her. I hope to always know what she likes, so the whole thing may be irrelevant. I was just trying to include her in what I do with DH and DS. I know what they like also - they, like her, like both, but sometimes are in the mood for one or the other or both - where as right now, she is really in the mood for whatever you put in front of her as long as its something she likes.

Perhaps we are misreading eachother. I would rather assume I am just not understanding you and you not understanding me. I have felt as if there is some kind of need to attack CL and prove where CL would fail or that a person isn't CL if they don't let their child play in poop etc in order to make some other parenting choice look "better" or "infallable"


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I didn't put the responsibility for drinking enough fluids on her, because she was four - not her job. OTOH, I also didn't coerce her into doing anything she didn't want to do.
I think this response is like the one's I mentioned in the above post. It worked for you, and I'd love for it to have worked for me. That it didn't isn't a reflection of something I did wrong. We try things, don't we? We all as parents try things and learn. I trusted her instincts, I trusted in her body, just like you do your children. I figured that if she was thirsty, she would drink and eventually she would get thirsty.

What happened was she did get thirsty, and she drank in what I call "thirst crisis" but she was running on a deficit. Eventually it caught up with her when she exerted herself and sweated one day and her kidneys didn't keep up. I found zinc helped her thirst, and "luckily" for me, she likes smoked oysters so I keep her zinc levels stable where possible. But she still struggles with it, but we are on top of it now that she is older and capable of understanding. And that is where a little coercion when she was younger might have helped.

I modeled drinking frequently and being a naturopath, health maintenance is a big thing in our lives. We model good health care, and I don't eat dairy, chocolate and blah blah blah. I wouldn't say I put the _responsibility_ of her fluid intake on her, but I did trust that she would drink when thirsty. Which is much what you're saying. When you say you didn't coerce her, I challenge that you didn't HAVE to. When it all works out then it all works out, and can we really say that it was something we did or didn't do in each case that caused the result? If you didn't coerce your child to drink, and you didn't put the responsibility of drinking onto them, and you modeled drinking and always had popsicles and drinks on hand and even made fancy juices with umbrellas and cherries and asked friends how they do it and you tried so many things but they _still_ ended up dehydrated... would you wonder if you should have intervened a little more?

As I said in post above, put yourself in my shoes, not your own, you're already wearing them so how can you see my family when you won't get out from behind your own for a minute? My daughter wouldn't drink unless reminded and even then, unless I put it into her hand she wasn't interested. I will admit that the way we got her out of the danger zone was to tell her she "must" eat the rehydration popsicles.

It might help to know that she was hospitalised for another reason when she was 4 (four was a big year for her







) and the nurses insisted she wear the oxygen mask. She was freaking out about it. Her oxygen levels were dropping but you know what?

_*I HONOURED MY DAUGHTER!
*_

I took the oxygen supply off her. I told them, (at one point, I told a beligerant doctor literally) to F%ck off. They threatened to get a court order against me, so they could save her from her "negligent" mother and force things upon her.

And they all lived happily ever after.

I try, where I can, to honour my children and I daresay in ways few on this thread would even consider. But there have been times when it has bitten me in the beeeeehind. Hence, this thread.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

to entertain your notion though: If I am not practicing CL the way it was "intended", and lets say I was to be put into a parenting catagory, where would you place me:

I always meet the underlying needs and wants of everyone in the family.
I aim not to distract, trick, or coerce.
I let children be self determining - but would find other outlets for a mess then playing with poop, and would save them from getting him from an oncoming car if they ran into the road.
I don't force them to do things.
We always aim to find a way to meet everyones wants and needs, and no one claims to be higher on the totem pole.

what does one call that?


----------



## Calm

Quote:

It's like a car accident! I can't look away!!
Sick. All of us. It's a fatal condition. I'm drawn back here, one arm clutching the wall saying "noooooo! Don't do it, you'll only have to post!!!" and the other arm reaching for the keyboard....

sick I tell you. I'm SICK.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

so what do you do now to get your daughter to drink water? what should a person do if their child wont drink water or eat icicles, etc. I don't even mean consensually, I mean, what would even a traditional parent do in that situation? How is it "CL" that is the cause here?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I admit to being flippant at times. Do you think perhaps the very thing you accuse me of you may be guilty of as well:

Pages 1-10 (I'm sure you can quote me 1000 times as well, but I am already admitting to my flippancy!)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
*However, my son? Get real. He is 12 months old, he just mastered walking, fate will have to wait a while.*

*Consensual living with a baby... God help us all*

*Lest we forget that it has been compellingly evidenced that to engage the logic of a child at too early an age and they must forfeit certain other aspects of their development.* *A child has to be a child, and not have to go through booooooring negotiations all the time.*

My child is 10 months. I practice CL with him. No I am not perfect. Practicing CL with my son does not mean "fate wont wait" as if I'm going to let him self determine to crawl onto a train track and take a nap. The fact that I would not do that, does not mean that I am not CL. Though you seem to want to insist its one way or the other - either you let the child get hit by a train, or you aren't really CL. ??? That is the underlying message I have gotten from you throughout your posts. Only YOUR parenting is good because you are SO connected there is no need for consensus and because, unlike a CL mama, you wouldnt let your child take a nap on the train tracks... its just not true.

My children don't have to go through "boooooring negotiations" "all the time", nor have they forfeited other aspects of their development, and they get to "just be a child"... again you seem to imply that either 1) this is true or 2) if its not true, then you aren't really CL...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
_It is impossible for it to be impossible. I think people refuse to believe some things because to believe it means they have to look at it, and they feel like a failure if they can't measure up._


^this was good, I liked this. Can I echo that!! Listen to the echo









take this advice! this is what CL is about. No, the internet can't always give you the answer for your exact situation, but instead of looking at it as "all option are unusable" look at it as "what am I missing here" just because WE can't tell you exactly what you are missing, doesn't mean you couldn't figure it out, if you wanted to. but by all means, DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU... it doesn't mean CL is any more flawed then any other philosophy.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
This is confusing the heck out of you and making you answer things as though I've directed them to you. Secondly, you sound so confused and were writing things as though you didn't get the basic concept of instinct so I started from the basics.
This is why I give you basics, SB, because it seems you aren't grasping even the smallest of them.

this wasn't directed towards me... but smug much? perhaps we are all a bit guilty here?

Again, I already admit to my own smugness, I tend to get that way when defending myself from someone who I feel is being smug with me.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Before going back to quote world,, I want to point out that we all do things the way we do because we feel its best. Even many parents who beat their children think its what is best, even though we can't wrap our heads around it. So, of course, we think our own way is best, and there may be other ways we think are still good, and some things we think are bad and thats why we don't do those things. But the people who do those things will think what we do is bad. There is no right answer for everyone, as you said you cant pain the world with one paintbrush, every family has their own set of right answers. In your eyes CL may be some kind of dangerous parenting... but there ARE CL families who practice CL where it is not dangerous - that does NOT mean they are "not practicing CL as intended".

11-16

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
*I personally don't think this is going to model great things for a child.*

*I can attest that if our bond is weak, my daughter's behaviour is off.*
*I think this is how nature intended it to be.* *It's so EASY with the connection with absolutely no need for negotiation.*

*So I wonder if all the CL guidelines and all these negotiations are in fact better off as plan B, not plan A. Engage plan A (connect with child) but failing that, engage plan B (negotiate with child).*
I can't shake the notion that it is doing a disservice to our children to do things like defer to their preferences (such as staying home when you want to go out) or engage their logic (such as in negotiations) in regards to their development. I think that is addressing a symptom, not the cause.

1) but CLers do think CL models good things for the child.
2) that may be true for you, and you keep bringing up the connection thing over and over and over again as if to imply that CLer's are lacking connection and thats why they need consensus - you refuse to accept that while that may be your experience with your daughter, my experience with my children is that connection is strong and they feel they can have different wants then I do and so we work on consensus during those times. This is where my smugness came - in regard to your ongoing smugness on the connection implications.
3) oh yes, if only CLers would do what is easy and connect, then there would be no need for consensus. we must not be connected!
4) you say "if you fail at connecting, the go for consensus... we CAN be connected and need consensus, but you refuse to accept this may be true for others because it is not true for you.
5) CL is all about adressing the cause, not the symptoms. Addressing the need to eat a toilet is the symptom. Figuring out why thats enjoyable to the child, and finding a way to meet that need, is addressing the cause. Which is CL - so what you say about CL is not true *in my experience* of course, in your opinion I'm not "really CL as it was intended" because I am not a reflection of the ugly picture you are trying to paint of CL.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
at a tender age you can get empathy out of them, but like logic - is it a disservice to their emotional development? Is conceding to a child constantly teaching anything but reverse hierarchy? If this connection is lacking, the first sign is the _need_ for negotiation. Could we fairly say that CL is effective _when the connection has failed_, however temporarily?

1) insult 1: CL is a disservice to emotional development.
2) insult 2: if you aren't doing what is considered as a disservice to emotional development, then you aren't CL. If you do, then you are in a reverse heirarchy, which isn't CL either, and thereforem your parenting doesn't even exist.
3) insult 3: has it been mentioned yet that CL is only effective or necessary when connection has failed! Alas, if you are connected then you don't need CL and if you are CL then you only need to be because you aren't connected!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I am implying they _shouldn't_ engage logic too early as it hampers their development, and until proved otherwise it isn't worth the risk.
I also disagree with child centered parenting and I don't think CL need be that way, _although it certainly has the most risk of being so than any other parenting style I've ever encountered._

insult 4: logic at an early age hampers development, which is what CL is.
insult 5: CL is most at risk of being child centered parenting, at least that you have seen - and you teach classes on this stuff!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 

*I am a CC parent*, most strictly of all the "styles" if I had to classify myself. *I suggest that C: is only useful if the connection is poor, because when the connection is strong, I have NEVER needed to negotiate.*

*As a strong CC parent*, I buck against some ideas as they are not "natural" in continuum families.

just you saying you are CC a bunch of times. and also, again, how CL is only needed because there is no connection.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 

So far, my own kids have never wanted anything more than a strong connection with me. She wants for nothing else, UNLESS our connection is faulty.

I think consensual guidelines are therefore helpful _when the connection is faulty_.

the need for consensus, therefore, is a symptom, not a goal.

repeating the insulting insinuation that CL is only necessary when connection is faulty. Why not just come out with a blatant smug "You CLers aren;t connected to your children" thats the message this keeps sending.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
hence why I bang on about connection cos I really can't be arsed with the alternative.









the connection thing again. you focus on connection because you can't be bothered with CL, and CL is *only* necessary when connection has failed.

We all get flippant dear, I do it a great deal too, and its not very "CL of me" but I admit I'm a work in progress and I have been overfocused on working CL in my family and not as much in life in general, which is my down fall right now, and hence why I wouldnt officially say I am "CL" and also still learning how to apply CL more, though I am confident I have a decent understanding of what CL is, and I am confident CL is not letting your child brsh their teeth with sugar, mouth wash with soda, skip school so they can play with kangaroo pooop on the train tracks until the train comes and you don't say a word because that would be coercive and just watch them get hit by the train. No, I think I am right in thinking that is NOT what CL is.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Did you even have a 2 year old?

why? would they think the way you do if they had a 2 year old?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
*I was talking to DH today about CL extremes and he basically said that if he hadn't experienced it, he wouldn't believe it either but kids are insane, just downright mad.*

He reminded me that we basically raise our kids in the bush, and the toddler will still need to be directed, sometimes against his preferences, which may be to eat a poisonous plant at the time, or heaven forbid we interrupt his creative play in kangaroo poop.

insult number losing count here : CL kids are insane, just downright mad
and you can't be CL because heaven forbid you interrupt creative kangaroo poop play, which is something a CLer would allow,,,, or we aren't CL unless we let our children eat poisonous plants because the is their preference at the time... I feel like these things have been addressed many times by many posters in this thread but it keeps coming up. And it boils down to you saying "but then that wouldn't be CL" I just really think you don't understand what CL is, but you think everyone else is the one who doesn't understand. because we are either going to let them play in poop or we are not CL.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Learning to live in love with reality is the single best gift I can give my children. _Very few people ever learn it._

yes, and only your way of parenting can teach this. .... but perhaps it's true, we give our children a different gift - the gift to learn how to make their reality something they can love, and *only when they cant* then help them to accept reality. change the things you can, accept the things you cant. Only CLers seem to find more ways to change things as they are problem solvers by nature and very creative!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Although CL don't like to say this out loud for some reason, you do have to treat them differently, and every time they mature, just as we treat adults differently. Cos my solution was better, and much more fair.









yes, your way is better, your way is more fair, and you have to say things out loud because the CLers wont "for some reason"

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I have no idea where I've implied that. I*'ve been repeating that I am CL*, I am more CC where they butt heads but *I am definitely a CL family*. I am trying to clear up the flaws in CL, or at least, the perceived flaws and the inconsistencies.

(actually I kept reading you say you are CC you are CC you are CC lol)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I did all that with DD and to sniff my own smug, I've got that to a fine art, it's part of what I do for a living!
That's why I stick to connection; it's where this started and where it remains for me. I don't have power struggles with my children when the connection is strong - for us, it is as simple as that.

But there is no doubt that when we are connected, there becomes a natural kind of hierarchy

the connection thing again.... when connected, natural hierarchy occurs. Oh why didnt I realize this? I guess that means that CLers aren't connected! Thank you, after reading this implication 100 times I get it.... not really, just being smug









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Uh, Dar, did you read all I wrote? I finally found out the answers, even as reluctant as you've all been to hand that bit over, a couple of you finally did.

it was hard to give solutions when we haven't lived in your family for as long as you, and we are excluded from information only you are privy too. Which is okay, but it doesnt mean the answers don't exist, just sometimes the answers exist in ourselves, not in the online CL community.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I know you may not answer this, cos no one has or will but anyway...

I_f you would let him mouth the toilet, then you are definitely and unequivocably CL_

If you don't let a baby mouth the toilet, then you do not meet his wants.

yes no one has or will know the answers to your problem because there must be no possible CL solution because CL means that every single time the child is going to get their SURFACE desire met. Sorry, im confused. Or maybe you are .. Perhaps this is your confusion" CL is not about meeting the SURFACE desires and needs, its about the UNDERLYING wants and needs. But alas, in your eyes one is only CL if they meet the surface desire instantly. Because in your eyes CL means something very different then what it actually does....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I could go on.

And on.

Yet apparently it's crystal clear? Who the heck sees any of this as crystal clear other than "CL looks different in every family"? Nice way of saying "We all have to adjust it to fit cos the way it stands doesn't actually work."

The way it stands works fine, the way you try to make it sound just isnt the way it is, and the reality is CL does look different in every family because its NOT an xyz formula, its about xyz, and all the solutions in the universe surrounding xyz that will depend on the family and their underlying needs. There is no "CL means child has to be buckled in the car seat" answer. Some CL families may feel its safe to unbuckle, and some may think it is not. whether or not they think it is safe is another, separate issue, but the fact remains, if they felt it was dangerous and deadly, they would find another solution. since they don't see a big deal, they allow it. It's a difference answer for every family. And even the bible has room for interpretations.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
My daughter had to change schools simply because she was so extraordinary and I was sick of her being selected for things like a show pony because she can "do" things that blow people away (she has had teachers in tears). I pay a lot of money so she is treated like others.

wow...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 

Whatever the reason for my son mouthing the toilet, the fact remains that he screamed when I pulled him away, as he does when I stop him from doing some things.

Lack of any hierarchy at all makes me think of flowers in the attic, or a reliance that goes in all directions which seems a little, no... a LOT needy to me for an adult to expect that from a child. Take care of yourself and take care of your children. Explaining to them all the problems you have in the way children do with their parents is like, well far out, can't you work it out yourself? And if you don't, then you have a hierarchy, as soft as it might be, where the energy and nurturing filters DOWN!

"whatever the reason" - THATS THE POINT! the reason is the whole point. finding out the reason. not dismissing it. what I dont understand, is that according to you when connected then there is no need for consensus because child is happy to do whatever you want them to - and therefor wouldnt your child not care if you moved him away from the toilet? My son doesn't care when I move him away from the cat food, but say he did. Then in the future I'd probably find a different want to move him away from the cat good (Pat's toddler rule). sometimes we do act now, and explain later. sometimes our children do get disappointed (can't stop the rain) that doesn't mean we aren't CL. You seem to think "if you don't let child eat toilet, and they are upset when you move them, then you aren't CL" I dont think its that black and white. I think that yes, some CLers would find a way for the child to eat the toilet. some would find a solution for the underlying need/desire.... those who do the latter aren't a hierarchy by default.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
This is what I dig about the non child centered theory. Children aren't meant to do all that logic thinking and making too many choices, esp if they aren't asking anything, you are just giving them constant options.

So we discussed what might help and decided that a watch with an alarm would help her remember to drink. She was very excited at the prospect of having a solution to the fact that she simply doesn't remember to drink and doesn't have a "thirst cue" like others. [/QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

***The point in all this is, that when I said
"my children trust our bond" in other words, "your children don't and that is what is lacking in your example".

it was said with a bit of flippancy in response to the ongoing connection comments you were making. I must need CL because I'm not connected was how yI took you saying that CL is not necessary if there is connection.
my response was to say that we do have connection, ad my children trust it so much that they feel they can differ from me and still be accepted...

so basically - you say I am lacking connection or we would be more the same and no need for consensus .... and I say our connection is so strong that we are okay being different

that is more so you saying thats what *I* am missing then me saying thats what YOU are missing.

Now what I felt was ou were being flippant, and so I was being flippant back. In your words, smug. Now you are offended and I am sitting here asking myself if that is because you had intended to offend me? Because I thought you were being flippant and it was all in the fun of the debate, but when I do the same to you you got really upset and then now I'm being made into the villain, or yourself in the victim role... I wonder if your connection comments were more then flippant now, and now you are upset because you realize we were both being flippant? its not anything to be upset about - so we were both flippant, so what. As I said I trust it was an understanding, I am trusting you were not trying to be mean as I know I was just trying to match the rythym you set. thinking that was flippant, not mean, if it was mean, I took it as flippant. Hope that makes sense.

I can't help though, when someone tries to paint themselves as the victim, to make the conversation path is a little more clear. I really don't appreciate someone insulting me and insulting me and then when I defend myself they take my defense as an insult and make it seem as if they are the victim... I also notice this being used by a lot of debaters when they realize they are wrong or don't have a "good rebuttle" then they just bow out under the premises that someone was mean to them. sorry, this isnt just about you by the way im just ranting now, that really bothers me when people turn a debate sour in that way. some how it becomes a "won" debate for them because they claim the other person is being smug with them...


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Perhaps we are misreading eachother. I would rather assume I am just not understanding you and you not understanding me. I have felt as if there is some kind of need to attack CL and prove where CL would fail or that a person isn't CL if they don't let their child play in poop etc in order to make some other parenting choice look "better" or "infallable"
We have misread each other. This became evident only once more was said. To me anyway.

I love CL, but no doubt that love isn't evident due to the problems I've been highlighting. It is an important tool in parenting, as far as I'm concerned. I am just a bit confuzzled at the "all wants can be met" idea and the idea that all people can be self-determining. And a couple of others I can't remember right now.

When a parent posts a regular issue such as "seatbelts - how do we consensually meet this problem?" There are many of us who would feel heard a little more if they first addressed the _obvious_:

*seatbelts - how do we consensually meet this problem?*
You can't. They have to wear a seatbelt in the car or they can't go. The choice is to _force_ them to wear it, or to find a way that _they choose_ to wear it (coercion).
Let's look at options:

Coercive: You can "help" them _want_ to put the seatbelt on - easy with little kids.

Distracting/coercive/alternative: You can ask if they'd like to sing while you put it on and while you drive - great for little kids.

Future plan: You can get a better, more comfortable seat - great for babies, esp newborns. Not so good for now, however.

Compromise or impose child's will upon self: You can stay home - great when you need an excuse to stay home or if you really don't care either way.

Compromise/negotiate: You can let them sit in the car without one and play for a while, _then_ go out - they may still renig on this when push comes to shove.

Direct negotiation: You can negotiate - an option with older kids.

Alternative: They can stay home - an option if you have other caregivers.

That has little room for confusion by pretending that you can _meet_ their desire (without _changing_ their desire first!).

Quote:

This is why I give you basics, SB, because it seems you aren't grasping even the smallest of them.
I can see how that seems smug to make a point, but I actually meant it. For a while there, I truly felt you weren't following a thing I said. That changed. I have repeated myself so many times to be heard (eventually, it worked) and in return apparently me repeating ad nauseum that there were no options was comparable to giving an example that involves elves and bombs and other convoluted aspects. When all I had done was kept saying no, there are no options, no friends to call, no place to call... but it was either disbelieved, called silly, or in some other way continually dismissed.


----------



## Calm

I just got through the quotes you did and I disagree that most of them are smug. If that was your point. But we can agree to disagree and I apologise if I am the cause of any ill feeling you had due to my wording.


----------



## riverscout

So it's CL to shame?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I just got through the quotes you did and I disagree that most of them are smug. If that was your point. But we can agree to disagree and I apologise if I am the cause of any ill feeling you had due to my wording.

Ditto... though I WILL admit to being smug. and no, its not CL of me.

riverscout - I notice some like to use that as a weapon here:

We're being smug with you, but if you point it out then you aren't CL so see you are proving that smug point we were trying to make!

So, for the time being, I am acting in a hierarchy because if that means I get to be smug, I desire to be smug right now, and ya'll are meeting that need for me by being smug with me and making me feel comfortable enough to be smug back









Calm- Now I feel like saying to you what you said to SB, but that would be smug of me


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I have a hard time with the carseat issue because my children trust I will allow them to be self determining, their car seats are comfortable, they like to go places, so the only reason they would protest the car seat would be to try to assert some power over their own bodies, which they have know need to do because they know they have that power so they do not need to try to "get" that power.

I keep going back to this though, from the CL website:
"Consensual living is a process, a philosophy, a mindset by which we seek to live in harmony with our families and community. It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone's wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties. "

to me, that is pretty clear. There are a lot of options as far as the car seat is concerned. your intent in presenting those options may play a factor in whether it is an idea, or coercion. whether it is an idea, or distraction etc.

if it were an issue for me, I would consider if I had to go
I would consider going at another time
leaving the child home if I could
asking them WHY they dont want to be in the car seat:
oh you are too tired to sit up right now? we;ll take a nap before we go.
oh, the seat is uncomfortable, lets see if we can make this seat more comfortable until we can buy a new carseat. who knows, maybe some rolled up blankets will do the trick, and there wont be a need for a new carseat.
oh, you dont like the car because it gives you a headache. want to trya motion sickness bracelet?
oh, the car is sometimes too cold for you? I wont put the air on today (or ill put the heat on)
the straps feel too tight? we could do them a tiny bit looser, but keep a good fit.
the straps hurt? can we try cushioning them with this blanket?
car rides are boring? how about an activity to do on the way.

its not distracting, its finding out what the problem is so we can find the solution. it can go on and on and on - but here's the thing - someone will always say "but all 10,000 suggestions you said dont work" and the reality is, maybe its the 10,0001 suggestion that lies within THEM that will work. and the other reality is, is that if CL doesn't work with your family, that doesn't mean it doesn't work in someone elses family - it doesnt mean another family is either "CL or their child doesn't wear a seatbelt". and yet another reality is someone may aspire to be CL, and just havent figured out the CL thing yet - so they havent reached a consensus in that moment - thats what oyu want to hear right? but they still live consensually, and they don't think they "have the final say" they just know they have to do what is safest for their child and CONTINUE to look for more solutions instead of "accepting" there are "no workable solutions" they ask "how can this work" instead of dwelling on "nothing works" and they realize that it doesn't mean they aren't CL, it doesnt even mean they arent CL "in that moment" it just means they havent *yet* reached a consensus for that problem, perhaps their child outgrows it before they ever do but they are probably always trying and from what I have witnessed, this is NOT the same as "normal parenting" in the slightest. The goals are completely different, aspirations are different, thought process, and way of thinking is all different. For most CL families, once they get their CL groove going, they have a better idea of how to reach a consensus with eachother because they know eachother so well, it really is different in every family. It happens naturally.

what i see are people saying "I cant be CL because what if this" or because "well my child is this way" those who practice CL aren't wrried about why they cant be consensual, they are focused on how they can be consensual. If you know what I mean, you know what I mean. Otherwise, perhaps there is no way of explaining it, at least not that I know of. I think the definition on the website explains it beautifully though.


----------



## Calm

I didn't mention my daughter's extraordinariness to pat myself on the back but in context, it was relevant. I assume the "wow" was sarcasm.

I apologise if my repetition annoyed you, and when you found it funny I'm glad to be of service. I did admit to smug writing, it just wasn't in as many posts as you quoted. It was before you edited, and all I saw was a post full of quotes of mine after you had said I was smug. And I would call my writing more flippant than smug.

I do not know where to even begin with what you have done today. So I think I'll let it go. I feel very misunderstood and humiliated and drawn out of context.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
My daughter wouldn't drink unless reminded and even then, unless I put it into her hand she wasn't interested.

So what was wrong with that solution, then? That's basically what I would up doing for Rain with food... if I waited too long she'd be in low-blood-sugar mode and unwilling to eat (which was not fun for her, either, of course) so I took to monitoring how long it had been since she'd eaten and setting protein-rich food near her at regular intervals. I'm not trying to say that my exact solutions will work for everyone - this is about the process of finding solutions, rather than the solutions themselves.

The point I was trying to make with my example about fluid intake had nothing to do with what you "should" have done - that's not something anyone else can tell you, because we weren't there. I was sharing some ideas, but more importantly I was trying to make it clear that a solution can be mutually agreeable even if the parties involved have very different goals. My goal was to keep her hydrated, but her goal was to have fun with weird cups with straws and popsicles. The same solution met both of our different needs.

Quote:

You can't. They have to wear a seatbelt in the car or they can't go. The choice is to _force_ them to wear it, or to find a way that _they choose_ to wear it (coercion).
I would see finding a way that my child chooses to wear a seatbelt to be a mutually agreeable solution, not coercion... force is coercive, but sharing options and information that lead to them choosing to wear a seatbelt is fine... Sometimes a mutually agreeable solution winds up being exactly what one of the parties wanted in the first place, if the other person gets more information that leads her to also want it.

Quote:

I have repeated myself so many times to be heard (eventually, it worked) and in return apparently me repeating ad nauseum that there were no options was comparable to giving an example that involves elves and bombs and other convoluted aspects. When all I had done was kept saying no, there are no options, no friends to call, no place to call... but it was either disbelieved, called silly, or in some other way continually dismissed.
That does seem to be the sticking point... you believe there are situations without solutions, and I think you're refusing to be open to the myriad of solutions available in any situation. It can be hard to see them - even now I don't always see them - but I believe they're there... and the longer we've done this, the easier they are to find.

If I don't believe that there are situations without solutions, I'm certainly not going to accept that yours is one, especially since we've offered many solutions without even having all of the relevant information. Ultimately, though, other people can give you examples of solutions, but the people involved in a situation need to find their actual mutually agreeable solution themselves.

dar


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

if your flippant im flippant if you're smug im smug. yes i admit to being human and getting annoyed by the same insult after insult after insult.

I have felt manipulated, drug out of context, and like a "less than" by the continuous implications in the posts I quoted.

I do not wish to upset you, my only reason for the quotes was to help you understand why *I* felt misunderstood. Why *I* felt like you were being smug - so you could maybe see I am not necessarily trying to be smug with you, but was just matching your rythym throughout the debate.

btw, I only used smug as it was your word. I agree we were both being flippant more then anything


----------



## tjlucca

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy2abigail* 
Ok, so I just went back and read your response, Calm, and I totally agree. I've never been so resentful and irritated with my child as the months when I tried to be 100% consensual.







You just can not expect a 2-3-4-5-6- year old to be rational sometimes, and that's ok. It simply means that they are developmentally on track, and you have to step in and help them out. Not in a mean way, but in a loving and gentle way. I find I am much more patient and my kids are all much happier when we live this way, when they don't feel the need to negotiate every. single. thing. all. day. long.







: Sometimes I pull the mama card, and you know what, it's ok.










This has been my experience as well. I tried to go 100% consensual with DD, really from day one. By the time she was about 2 1/2, I was going crazy with the lack of cooperation. Toddlers are egoic and developmentally sound simultaneously. DP and I step in to make decisions when necessary. Some days we barely step in at all, other days she needs allot of guidance and support. All of which I believe to be healthy and nurturing.


----------



## WuWei

Janine, I believe, and totally trust that you are exactly the mama that your daughter and children need you to be.









Fondly,
Pat


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Janine, I believe, and totally trust that you are exactly the mama that your daughter and children need you to be.









Fondly,
Pat

I agree, despite my flippancy, and I think I've said this a few times but Pat has a much better way with words


----------



## Calm

dar, I have lost energy to check previous pages, so if i did indeed leave off the most vital information then I'm sorry and i'll clarify. She wouldn't drink, even when handed the glass much of the time, but at least some of the time she would if handed the glass. It still didn't stop the dehydration because she'd only sip and she'd complain and i felt pushy/coercive.... why am i explaining this? Sigh. I tried to stop my child getting sick. Please trust that. It is the absolute last thing i would want. I tried it consensually but she fell into the pit much faster. Then, I used nutrients and if that still failed, which it did largely, I ended up having to _make_ her drink water. That is why i gave the oxygen example. To show that I will go to unusual lengths to _not_ impose on her, so that this water example is taken as seriously as it was - it is an issue in our life. We've tried everything. but now, luckily, she is older and at least will drink water instead of fighting us or refusing because she understands. I just can't see how I could have been consensual when she was younger and still had her drink the water. we tried. we did. _*There was no consensual solution that kept her health intact.*_ For us. for you, you said it worked, for us, as you can see, it didn't. Perhaps consensual living involves allowing a child the ultimate self determination. PAt won't say. MEaning, perhaps if she is to let herself get sick and die, that is the only way you can live consensually, allowing her free will and not imposing my will on her, my will for her to live and be healthy. Again, i am NOT saying CL is unhealthy... sigh... but I'm sure it sounds like I am but i'm close to sick of the manipulation of my words at this point and feel like crap... sooooo. Think what you will, in some cases, there is no consensual solution. Telling me "surely there must be, you just didn't see them" is not trusting we tried everything.

Many typos, I know. baby in tow...


----------



## Calm

thanks pat, btw. I know you trust that. as I do you.

SGM no hard feelings, it's just been an exhausting thread and i'm already sleep deprived


----------



## Calm

btw, I am open to suggestions about the water issue. perhaps a fresh look at this will help people see something i didn't. i think i got back to a consensual arrangement with it via the watch alarm solution, but that didn't fit her when she was young. Any ideas how it could work with a younger child? Given the situation I had, which is that we modelled it and so on... it came down to reminding her and hoping she didn't fight me over it or tip it down the sink while i wasn't looking.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I think we all feel like our words have been manipulated at this point. I felt that way long ago in this thread. Perhaps that why so many people have died off from responding here.

Calm, I think what it comes down to, in its simplest terms, if while you can continue to look for consensus, if "in the moment" the situation is life or death, the parent will choose life for the child. I don't think that means that the family is a heirarchy - we could choose life for our neighbor by stopping them from getting hit by a car, but that doesn't mean we have the "ultimate say" in their life or that we are higher on the totem pole then they are. we are still "at a round table" with them. You know, our children might do that for us one day. Handing her the glass of water is no more coercive then it would be to squeeze a little breastmilk onto your nipple to encourage your baby to latch on.

And there ARE always solutions, even if we don't see them. I trust you tried everything you could think of. I might not even be able to think of anything you didnt think of.

but here it goes:
dar suggested a popsicle stick
i suggested juice instead of water
there are ice cubes (which could be juice or water)
could "eat" the water with a spoon
eat cereal with milk in it
eat soup
eat lots of watermelon - watermelon is 90% water
"crazy straws" worked for me when I was a child

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your child wasn't "against" being hydrated or drinking, she just didn't get thirst cues? Your timer idea sounded like a solution to me. If she agreed and was happy with that solution, that sounds like a mutually agreeable solution to me.

Perhaps coercive is the word that is confusing you. Think of it this was, coercive is more "tricking" someone into wanting what you want. A mutually agreeable solution would be finding a way all needs/wants can be met that everyone can be happy with. It's hard to offer solutions when all the solutions you say wouldnt work OR are coercive. It feels like you just want to discredit all possibilities to prove some kind of point, but the reality is, what you are calling coercive is not coercive. An example of coercive would be "you can play with your toys only after you take a sip of this water" "we will go to the park after you drink this water" "you can have a cookie if you drink this water!" - basically bribing or threatening to get them to do what you want - or otherwise manipulating them. It would not be coercive for your husband to say "You haven't had dinner yet, want to order a pizza?" Just noticing and making a suggestion. Now if you were refusing to eat and near death, and he checked you into the hospital to get health then yes he has temporarily stopped you from being self determining - not because he is higher on the totem pole though. So the two issues I see are 1) you see mutually agreeable solutions as coercion so you feel that CL is one big contradiction 2) you feel that you aren't CL if you aren't letting child be utterly self determining, and so when a child almost dies, if a parent interferes, that means they aren't CL because they used some kind of veto power for their health. REALITY of CL: 1) mutually agreeable solutions are not coercion and 2) saving someone's life does not mean you are higher on the totem pole then they are.

In cases of life or death though, once again, I say that do what you have to do in the moment, not because you are "ultimately a heirarchy" but because CL does not mean self determining to the point of death. Because with CL you can still sit at a round table and safe your neighbor or childs life, and they could also save yours.

There are probably a ton of other solutions I am not even seeing here. Do you know why your daughter didnt want to drink though? just because she didn't remember and was happy to drink when reminded? (reminding is not coercive, its informative - you can say "You haven't had anything to drink in several hours, which could lead to dehydration. Here is a drink" Or perhaps she didnt want to stop to take a drink and be distracted from play. "Would you like to take a sip from this straw while I hld the glass, that way you don't have to stop what you are doing for a drink?"

I don't think giving information or making suggestions is coercive
I don't think making a choice to save your childs life is "not letting them be self determining" and therefore "a hierarchy" and "not CL"

But Calm, in the end it sounds like what you are doing works for you! You don't HAVE to be "CL". It doesn't really matter what you "could have done" you did what you did and it worked for you and your daughter. It doesn't matter what Pat or Dar would have done. I mean if you want ideas great, who doesn't want ideas! I think I would feel more like it was a request for ideas if someone said "This is what I tried, anything else I can try in the future?" instead of "I know I tried everything, and if you say I didnt then you aren't trusting me, and if you said I did try everything then you are admitting CL doesn't really exist" I just feel like there are alterior motives and if I am wrong I am sincerely sorry, but that is what has made this thread so frustrating I think for everyone who felt frustrated.

Whatever it may be - accept that CL families don't usually think "i tried everything" but more so "what havent I tried." Accept that its okay if one person is CL, and its okay if you are not CL. Accept that it works for who wants it to work, and if they don't want it to work or feel it can't work or whatever that is okay too! No one is less then you or more then you, just different. I mean, I'm having a hard time even understanding the water thing at this point because it sounds consensual and then you say its not consensual - so she wasn't happy with the "'reminder" solution? Then okay, that wasn't a CL solution and you needed to find one. But what I am understanding, perhaps falsely, is that the reminder solution was fine, but are calling it coercive... I won't get into why I feel you are calling it coercive but I will say that if you felt you were being coercive then fine you were being coercive. I can offer a reminder to my child without being coercive though, so while I trust you did everything you could think of, would be nice if you could trust that other CL parents can come to consensual solutions without being coercive or turning into a hierarchy or letting their child self determine their way into the hospital.

Do what works for you. Others do what works for them. You sound very happy with the way you parent, you do what you think is best, and many other parents here feel the same way, even if its different then what you do. I know you just want it to be said that CL can't work for some families, but I think what the bottom line is CL isn't RIGHT for some families. It could work for any family, but they decide what is right for them and they decide on something else and that is okay.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
For a couple of years now... not sure how long but a while, I've only read the CL group messages in my email box. I go through phases where I read stuff and then months go by where I just delete the updates. Today, for the first time in at least a year, I actually visited the group itself and read the front page. I copied this from there:

The bold is mine.

I was specifically looking for particular wording and didn't find it on that particular definition. I didn't find "all wants can be met", for instance. So although there is still a gaping hole there for such things like babies/children who can't negotiate or clearly express their desires, I like that the _underlying needs_ are said to be met, NOT "all wants".

Obviously, negotiation is ok. Mutually _agreed_ upon solutions are ok, regardless of how happy or disappointed it makes anyone. Regarding age, this is what I initially thought it meant, that the needs and wants are equally valid (meaning, all humans are equal, regardless of age), but that doesn't necessarily mean all those needs and wants are met in the same way. Finding mutually agreed upon solutions with a baby is almost impossible at times, so we have to assume that the _negotiating_ mentioned isn't for babies, nor for toddlers and depending on the child, perhaps for even older children.

Therefore, to meet the desires of a baby, I have to use a different approach than meeting the desires of a teen. I can negotiate with a teen, and explain and use logic. With a baby, I may be reduced to coercion and imposing my will upon them (redirection). This becomes less so as they mature into a better understanding of things like hygiene and safety. Hence why I drive and they passenger... until they can drive and then they are welcome to do so or _negotiate_ with me who will drive on a particular day.
.

And that's what I meant when I posted way back when about going from a more parent directed (hierarchical if you will) to a consensual agreement as the kids mature. Before children can articulate what they need/want and then negotiate, they need the maturity and tools to do so. And there are times when what they want can be harmful to them. That's when parents need to step in and say no.

A lot of what I'm reading on this thread, is just common sense wrapped up in modern, fancy sounding terms. And other parts is taking what is good parenting when the children are older and using it for all children regardless of the personalities of the child or their age. In the life of a child, the baby is the dictator. By the time the child is a toddler/preschooler, the parent has become a benevolent dictator. Around school age, the dynamic becomes more of a republic. And by the time the child is a teen, it becomes an Athenian democracy with veto power in the hands of the parent until the child has reached legal age.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Chris - There is nothing wrong with what you describe, that is what many parents prefer and consider to be common sense. It is not the same as consensual living though, and consensual living to some other people is what feels right.


----------



## ernalala

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy*


Either Saturday or Sunday morning I cook anything anyone wants for breakfast (my kids are really happy with anything you put in front of them as there is always a variety to eat anyway) so I ask what they want for breakfast. My husband can easily tell me what he wants. My son, 3.5, needs ideas, and so I will give him some and he will let me know. Well, my daughter needs ideas too but she ALWAYS takes the less choice you offer... such as:
fried or eggs with ketchup (that means scrambled)?
"ketchup"
applesauce or cantaloupe?
"cantaloupe"
bacon or sausage?
"sausage" (but she wants bacon)
then I say, to check, "sausage or bacon?" and she says bacon.
toast or no toast?
"no toast" (but I know she does want toast) and when I check "no toast or toast?" she says toast.

I literally checked this bu asking her
"chocolate or poopie" and she said poopie.


laughup. Sounds very familiar: I also use(d) to reverse choices offered and the result was the same (last option, or last remembered one .

What I often do now, when I fear it might go this way again, is showing the options and let them pick one or let them take the wanted food from the fridge/cupboard/drawer (mostly what happens especially my very independent little one







), then I can be more sure they pick what they really want, not what they last heard and like to repeat. Of course, you can't do it for foods you still need to prepare. Often I just suggest we'd eat and then I say 'let's make x' and they may just be ok with that, or I make it, and they eat it, or they offer another food they would like more at that particular time, or say they wold like to have the one I offered later today, or tomorrow.
Open ended questions often do not work here either for the 3y old. Sometimes I ask further: 
'applesauce or cantaloupe?' (just to use yr example)
'cantaloupe'
1. 'or applesauce', then a 'no' or 'yes', if 'yes' I may ask again and ask if he's sure.
2. 'so, cantaloupe: sure? Again, yes or no?' and then the real answer, if no I'd have to try again .

I fact, I know his particular preferences very well, only never sure when he would like to eat each of those . I may say: 'Hey look, we got WATERMELON' and that's enough , or uhm I hear smacking sounds from the kitchen, go and have a look and he is mouthing a large piece of watermelon which he served himself from the fridge lol. My 5y old is the opposite. I'll almost have to suggest and offer foods or he won't think of asking untill he gets totally cranky of hunger lol.

It may still happen that he will change his mind on seeing the actual food. Or that he won't eat what he asked (often







). Frustrating at times, but, well no big deal, I know this and so expect it half of the time anyway. He will outgrow it some day hopefully







).

I was also thinking of showing sketches, or a cookbook of the foods you have to offer (you may find this ridiculous or going too far, whatever), since that may be more realistic/appealing to her than just words. As a matter of fact, here (in Turkey) menus are often displaying a show of pictures of all the food choices! Very easy too, for foreigners who do not know the local language (well), or illiterate people who can't read the menu either, and, for children. Actually, that's often the way we let our children help choose their meal when eating out. Often us parents decide on 3 meals (for two adults and two little children) which we know we all like and we share everything, but noone has to eat from all and someone may decide to have one of the meals almost exclusively for him/herself, and we can always order something extra when needed .

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy*


Or if she is just happy with either and doesn't care, does it matter if she always wants to pick whatever the last option is?


Maybe, maybe not . And in addition, you also have the kind of people that sometimes first choose option a and then last minute change their mind to option b (dh when ordering at a restaurant, and confusing the waiter, not my prob at least, lol).

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy*


Another example:
My son hates baths. I used to make him take them, but that only made it worse and made me feel terrible. ... NOW he asks to take a shower twice a day (but accepts only having 1 shower) and he washes his own face, and even cleans his own ears now! I do still wash his hair when it needs it, which really isn't even as often as once a week like I thought it would be.










Good example of how things seem struggles or issues at first and how things resolve themselves over time without any form of 'coercion to make such happen'. Your son learned to take baths/wash his hair regularly by a non-coercive attitude where the 'now and then of washing oneself' is not seen as important, but the trust, that now and later, your son will decide for himself what suits him best, and his attitude regarding bathing/shampoo may change over time. 
That's the way I like it to happen, too. I mean, I would still be okay with it if DS would only wash as 'often' as in the beginning, if I feel the need to wash myself and my own hair daily, that's fine. And he can do it differently. There's no 'house rule' for all of us to wash daily or only weeklly or anything like that. Nor is the time of day for it important (just not during dinner time, that's all). But I would be definitely proud of him handling his needs as he deems it proper, not as someone else finds it should happen.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy*


Wake up. Have a discussion about what time to get out of the bed. Child decides to get out of bed an hour after school starts and parent agrees even though they want child to school on time. At breakfast, child chooses a bowl of ice cream. They decide to brush their teeth with sugar afterward. ... they go home, and stay up till 3 in the morning eating candy, because the child didn't want to go to bed.












Quote:



Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy*


in reality, at least for me, its more like this:

Child feels confident their say matters, so they don't feel the need to try to exert power at every turn. They go with the flow and speak up about the things that are important to them. Child wakes up and gets out of bed. Asks what is for breakfast and the parent says she is making pancakes, but there are a few other things in the fridge as well. Child says pancakes sound good....the result is not always the child getting whatever they want, and life does not turn into either the child doing crazy things from dawn til dusk, nor does it mean that every second of every day is spent trying to reach a consensus.


Sounds exactly as it usually happens in my family on the really good and average days and striving for more of this in the very near future







:

Actually, my kid played in poop lol







. I didn't want him to. They just recently fertilised the grass in the park, and I hoped to avoid the issue by focusing on play on the playground alone and mentioning the park was smelly because of the use of fertiliser so we'd rather not stay too long today (I was really bothered by the smell but not them . And exactly that day my 3y old had in mind to go and gather branches and stones and yes he handled some 'poop' too. As long as he wouldn't touch his mouth afterward I decided not to make a major deal out of it and just make sure he would know that on coming home he would have a change of clothes and have his hands/face washed. Which was no problem (could be he would have a major upset for the change of clothes/handwashing so that would've been much more tricky).
Then we talked, or say, I suggested we would wait a few days before we would play there again because of the fertiliser. Which they found ok, just as they mostly get it when I say it is not a good idea for play in the park since everything there is wet an/or muddy because of the rain/snow. I do not say NO here, I explain why better not and this mostly is agreed upon. If they still want to go to the park when it has snowed/rained, we may go there and then they'll see it is not so fun to play there anyway, or get cold/wet and then we'll quickly go home for a change of clothes and hot chocolate .


----------



## ernalala

I also wanted to add that indeed to me 'compromise' has a positive connotation! (I'm from Western Europe)


----------



## bigeyes

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Theoretica* 
But see, that's exactly the thing...there are times there IS no 'mutually agreeable solution' BECAUSE the parent has to put their foot down and the child has to do something they just don't want to do.

Yup.

When ds was small, I would say I was almost completely CL. I didn't understand what people were talking about when they complained about how difficult toddlers were. When he started school, he did his work without any problems, and there were no power struggles that I can recall.

Everything changed when I married dh. Dsd has psychological issues that unfortunately require a lot more structure and many more rules than I'm used to. There is no CL with her, because that would mean total chaos.

As she's shown more responsibility and earned more trust she's been granted more freedom, and we do consider both of their opinions in some decisions, but we have the final say in most matters.

Sometimes what you prefer and what works with your children are not the same thing.


----------



## ernalala

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigeyes* 
Everything changed when I married dh. Dsd has psychological issues that unfortunately require a lot more structure and many more rules than I'm used to.

Not regarding your particular situation, but regarding CL, I do think that providing or existing of structure and cl are not two things needing to exclude each other (eg certain predictable daily schedule, moment/way of dinner to be held, 'going to bed-ritual' etc. ...) I see the need for structure like that in both of my sons, predictability to some extent. Still, the way we get through the day is not by enforcing such a structure, it is more like the way we are used to doing things. And it is largely open to flexibility, too. I also see that this kind of 'structure' can fluctuate from one 'model' to another. My ds2 is very attached to predictability of things and on the other hand he can be very unpredictable himself, and sometimes it may really upset him if something goes (even slightly) different than he expected, sometimes we may see that coming and sometimes it happens out of the blue or he gets upset because of something we wouldn't have imagined. We cannot always predict when and how such will happen, but we do our best to prepare him for changes (which we think might create a problem for him when introduced too much of a sudden) and include as much as possibly the for him familiar and predictable things still, when possible. And, often he surprises us in such way that HE changes the for us/him predictable, preferred structure to a new 'thing' that may again last for several days/weeks/months, or which lasts only one day while another of these predictable schemes might be preferred the next. We are working a lot on getting his 'clues' so that we can deal with situations as cl as possible for all of us. And yes, cl lately means a lot of working around him for it to work for all of us to a satisfiable extent. We experience our ds2 as very high needs over the past year or so, but I personally experience that it works best between him and others when his high needs are largely addressed to make it workable for everyone. He needs structure in his environment and in time on some level, but what he doesn't seem to need (to the contrary) is structure provided by others of what HE should DO or how/when he should do that. TOUGH.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigeyes* 
Sometimes what you prefer and what works with your children are not the same thing.

I agree. If you find that cl does not work for your family, or in relation with a member of your family, for whatever reason, then that's obviously not the way to go. You may still see CL as a way of living towards other members of your family and in relation to other people though. CL sometimes just can't work well because of lots of opposition to it from someone you try to be cl with, too.


----------



## ernalala

Maybe 'smug' and 'flippant' both have a different connotation where you ladies live


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I think we all feel like our words have been manipulated at this point. I felt that way long ago in this thread. Perhaps that why so many people have died off from responding here.

Calm, I think what it comes down to, in its simplest terms, if while you can continue to look for consensus, if "in the moment" the situation is life or death, the parent will choose life for the child. I don't think that means that the family is a heirarchy - we could choose life for our neighbor by stopping them from getting hit by a car, but that doesn't mean we have the "ultimate say" in their life or that we are higher on the totem pole then they are. we are still "at a round table" with them. You know, our children might do that for us one day. Handing her the glass of water is no more coercive then it would be to squeeze a little breastmilk onto your nipple to encourage your baby to latch on.

And there ARE always solutions, even if we don't see them. I trust you tried everything you could think of. I might not even be able to think of anything you didnt think of.

but here it goes:
dar suggested a popsicle stick
i suggested juice instead of water
there are ice cubes (which could be juice or water)
could "eat" the water with a spoon
eat cereal with milk in it
eat soup
eat lots of watermelon - watermelon is 90% water
"crazy straws" worked for me when I was a child

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your child wasn't "against" being hydrated or drinking, she just didn't get thirst cues? Your timer idea sounded like a solution to me. If she agreed and was happy with that solution, that sounds like a mutually agreeable solution to me.

Perhaps coercive is the word that is confusing you. Think of it this was, coercive is more "tricking" someone into wanting what you want. A mutually agreeable solution would be finding a way all needs/wants can be met that everyone can be happy with. It's hard to offer solutions when all the solutions you say wouldnt work OR are coercive. It feels like you just want to discredit all possibilities to prove some kind of point, but the reality is, what you are calling coercive is not coercive. An example of coercive would be "you can play with your toys only after you take a sip of this water" "we will go to the park after you drink this water" "you can have a cookie if you drink this water!" - basically bribing or threatening to get them to do what you want - or otherwise manipulating them. It would not be coercive for your husband to say "You haven't had dinner yet, want to order a pizza?" Just noticing and making a suggestion. Now if you were refusing to eat and near death, and he checked you into the hospital to get health then yes he has temporarily stopped you from being self determining - not because he is higher on the totem pole though. So the two issues I see are 1) you see mutually agreeable solutions as coercion so you feel that CL is one big contradiction 2) you feel that you aren't CL if you aren't letting child be utterly self determining, and so when a child almost dies, if a parent interferes, that means they aren't CL because they used some kind of veto power for their health. REALITY of CL: 1) mutually agreeable solutions are not coercion and 2) saving someone's life does not mean you are higher on the totem pole then they are.

In cases of life or death though, once again, I say that do what you have to do in the moment, not because you are "ultimately a heirarchy" but because CL does not mean self determining to the point of death. Because with CL you can still sit at a round table and safe your neighbor or childs life, and they could also save yours.

There are probably a ton of other solutions I am not even seeing here. Do you know why your daughter didnt want to drink though? just because she didn't remember and was happy to drink when reminded? (reminding is not coercive, its informative - you can say "You haven't had anything to drink in several hours, which could lead to dehydration. Here is a drink" Or perhaps she didnt want to stop to take a drink and be distracted from play. "Would you like to take a sip from this straw while I hld the glass, that way you don't have to stop what you are doing for a drink?"

I don't think giving information or making suggestions is coercive
I don't think making a choice to save your childs life is "not letting them be self determining" and therefore "a hierarchy" and "not CL"

But Calm, in the end it sounds like what you are doing works for you! You don't HAVE to be "CL". It doesn't really matter what you "could have done" you did what you did and it worked for you and your daughter. It doesn't matter what Pat or Dar would have done. I mean if you want ideas great, who doesn't want ideas! I think I would feel more like it was a request for ideas if someone said "This is what I tried, anything else I can try in the future?" instead of "I know I tried everything, and if you say I didnt then you aren't trusting me, and if you said I did try everything then you are admitting CL doesn't really exist" I just feel like there are alterior motives and if I am wrong I am sincerely sorry, but that is what has made this thread so frustrating I think for everyone who felt frustrated.

Whatever it may be - accept that CL families don't usually think "i tried everything" but more so "what havent I tried." Accept that its okay if one person is CL, and its okay if you are not CL. Accept that it works for who wants it to work, and if they don't want it to work or feel it can't work or whatever that is okay too! No one is less then you or more then you, just different. I mean, I'm having a hard time even understanding the water thing at this point because it sounds consensual and then you say its not consensual - so she wasn't happy with the "'reminder" solution? Then okay, that wasn't a CL solution and you needed to find one. But what I am understanding, perhaps falsely, is that the reminder solution was fine, but are calling it coercive... I won't get into why I feel you are calling it coercive but I will say that if you felt you were being coercive then fine you were being coercive. I can offer a reminder to my child without being coercive though, so while I trust you did everything you could think of, would be nice if you could trust that other CL parents can come to consensual solutions without being coercive or turning into a hierarchy or letting their child self determine their way into the hospital.

Do what works for you. Others do what works for them. You sound very happy with the way you parent, you do what you think is best, and many other parents here feel the same way, even if its different then what you do. I know you just want it to be said that CL can't work for some families, but I think what the bottom line is CL isn't RIGHT for some families. It could work for any family, but they decide what is right for them and they decide on something else and that is okay.

This whole post shows me that you still don't understand what I'm doing here and that you never really understood me at all. I appreciate your suggestions, but I'm afraid now to address them, honestly, I'm afraid to answer what things I've tried and why something won't work because I'll then be just told I'm "disregarding" suggestions.

It's ridiculous.


----------



## ernalala

My one son wouldn't eat or drink when not being suggested food or drink. Well, food he will get but we have to do our best to remind him enough (without getting irritating). But drinking has been an issue, too, especially plain water. Now he's slightly better at it. At 5, he finally seems to get the point that it is important for his body to be healthy to take enough fluids but he st,ll needs reminders in terms of offerings or just putting it in front of his nose







. I sometimes hold a glass of water or fruit juice at his lips and ask for him to take a few sips because it's been so long since he's been without drink. When he doesn't feel to take a sip, I do insist to take at least one (because of the real danger of dehydration) and usually he takes at least a few, and I may repeat that later. And yes, plenty of juicy fruits, watermelon in Summer, fresh fruit juices and home made popsicles, soup in winter good for getting the vegetables in in some form too), cucumber, ... I do check his skin for signs of dryness, too. I am the kind of person that may forget to drink, too. During my first pregnancy I had an acute kidney crisis that almost caused my baby to be born at 31,5 weeks (and most likely still caused the preterm birth at eventually 34,5) and I assume I just had not been drinking enough water, just forgetting and not even realising







. I'm not as much saying that I caused the premature contractions/problems but it must have been at least a factor involved. And yes, now I need to consciously remind myself and others around here to drink water or other fluids. Health issues are often safety issues imo.


----------



## ernalala

I came into CL because it sounded a much better way to me and there was this 'click' that I just couldn't ignore







. I never got into CL being absolutely convinced that all I should achieve, or all I will be doing from now on must and will be 100 percent cl; I know am prone to failing such because I am a perfectionist trying to let go of 100-percent-perfectionism, because exactly that may be often standing in my way. I do see flaws in CL, if what you expect is that it must happen all the time, for everyone involved, in every type of situation, and so on. Not being able to ever see this ideal fully applied to my personal life does not mean that I can't embrace CL as a philosophy and a much preferred way of living and try to apply it as much as possible into my personal relationships.
I will not let CL take over everything in my life as a 'must be'. I will strive to apply it as a peaceful tool as much as I can. That's how it'll work for me.
And it's not so that I'd not been applying anything CL in my life before I even got to know the 'movement/concept' or definition, but definitely not enough to my liking .


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ernalala* 
Not regarding your particular situation, but regarding CL, I do think that providing or existing of structure and cl are not two things needing to exclude each other (eg certain predictable daily schedule, moment/way of dinner to be held, 'going to bed-ritual' etc. ...) I see the need for structure like that in both of my sons, predictability to some extent. .


I totally heard you on this post! due to my sons special needs, he NEEDS structure. What he doesn't need, is that structure to be enforced against his will. The structure is there because it meets his need to know what happens next. but if he wants to skip what happens next, or do something else instead, that is okay too. Flexible structure. In the end, it's just about meeting whatever the needs are at the time. On most days, those needs are the same, in the same order, on other days, structure is not needed or part of the structure just does against another need that he is having that he doesnt normally have on a day to day basis (example: say he is sick - usually on those days he just wants to lie around, so structure goes out the window.)


----------



## kay4

I chose

Quote:

Hierarchy with guidelines, routine, soft structure; most decisions made for children.


----------



## Calm

Ernalala, it is a sticky situation, no doubt. I love soup and wish my daughter ate it but she cringes more at that than she does a glass of juice. It's almost like her body rejects fluid, and she used to love fruit. She still likes it but not like she used to. We've managed to keep her hydrated, I think, since the incident, however when we were trying to do it consensually, it didn't work. And I see that the thread agrees now that sometimes you have to step in, if it is health related, and impose your will when necessary. My point has been made.

Quote:

An example of coercive would be "you can play with your toys only after you take a sip of this water" "we will go to the park after you drink this water" "you can have a cookie if you drink this water!" - basically bribing or threatening to get them to do what you want - or otherwise manipulating them.
They are examples of coercion, yes. But they aren't the only types of coercion. I also listed in an earlier post examples of coercion that sound much like distraction or alternatives but are in fact, "getting someone to want what you want".

Quote:

It would not be coercive for your husband to say "You haven't had dinner yet, want to order a pizza?"
No, that isn't coercive as far as I'm concerned. That is a suggestion because I hadn't even chosen anything. If I had already made dinner, or told him I'd like Chinese and he suggested pizza that also wouldn't be coercion, that would be a suggestion - he isn't persuading me in any way. However if I had told him I wanted Chinese, or had already made dinner and he used _persuasion_, _pressure_ or tried to _compel_ me in some way into pizza, then we've moved into coercion.

Quote:

1) you see mutually agreeable solutions as coercion so you feel that CL is one big contradiction
See, I cannot for the life of me see how you've arrived at apples when I've been saying minivans. I do not see mutually agreeable solutions as coercion. These point-form layouts you've been doing are often based on logical fallacies. _*I*_ see something as coercion that _*you*_ see as a mutually agreeable solution, therefore you think I see mutually agreeable solutions as coercion. Logical fallacy.

Let's say, Mr A thinks persuading a child with a song to put their seatbelt on is a mutually agreeable solution. Mr B thinks persuading a child with song to put on a seatbelt is coercion. Therefore, Mr B thinks CL is contradicting because it _says_ it doesn't use coercion yet the advice Mr B is given is coercive.

First one must understand that I do see persuasion as coercion. Otherwise yes, you are going to say that I think mutually agreeable solutions are coercion - but only because you are seeing the situation through your eyes, not mine. I can see the situation as you see it, and have tried rephrasing these things to help you change that perspective but you still don't see it, as evidenced by some of your responses, such as the one quoted.

Quote:

2) you feel that you aren't CL if you aren't letting child be utterly self determining, and so when a child almost dies, if a parent interferes, that means they aren't CL because they used some kind of veto power for their health.
Yes, I have been lead to believe that if you aren't letting a child be utterly self determining you are not CL. This is because I have been told that by Pat. Ask her yourself, she doesn't make a secret about it. If a parent intervenes they aren't being CL because CL stands for _consensual_ living - and intervention and imposing one's will is _not_ consensual - life or death situation or not.

FTR, I agree a parent has intervention power, esp for health issues, however, I also know that this is against CL. If you think it isn't, you need to send a quick question to Pat or Anna and have that cleared up before you respond. Technically, of course it sounds harsh and based on a dangerous premise and perhaps would benefit from a line being drawn where consensual living must give way to intervention parenting. But they haven't drawn that line, even though I keep pleading that they _*do*_ draw that line. I think deep inside they know that if they start drawing lines, then they are on a slippery slope. Standing firm on blanket statements is actually easier than explaining exceptions to a rule because exceptions are subjective.

Quote:

REALITY of CL: 1) mutually agreeable solutions are not coercion and
agreed.

Quote:

2) saving someone's life does not mean you are higher on the totem pole then they are.
It's not about totem poles. It's about using power against another against their will or wishes. Again, exception to every rule: suicide. I've known two people who suicided, one of them was my oldest friend's brother who I've known for 30 years and he jumped off a cliff 7 days ago (yes, I'm still in shock). The other was my brother's girlfriend who carried around a lethal dose of valium in her purse for as long as I knew her "just in case".

I believe all people deserve the right to life. I also believe all people deserve the right to death. I tried to help, I tried to meet underlying needs and desires but ultimately, it's their decision and depending on one's beliefs will depend on just how much you impose your will in such a situation. I have saved two others from suicide. My brother, numerous occasions, and my best friend, a couple of times. I imposed my will on them several times to save their lives, it wasn't easy, let me tell you. They put up a strong fight, sometimes physically.

Where do we draw the line? And why do we draw said line?

Just because these kinds of situations aren't a part of someone else's life doesn't mean some aren't grappling with moral judgments of this calibre in theirs.

My motive in all this, which I've said a few times (sorry for the repetition but what else am I to do?) is to perhaps make it clearer for some who need a couple of the finer points cleared up. And also to see if we can find a "consensual solution" to this problem, perhaps in the form of rewording the CL website, or how Pat frames things... not sure, just suggesting.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Simply put, I don't think its a matter of parent having intervention power, I see it as one human having the ability to intervene to help another human being in a life or death situation. I do not feel that by doing so you more from consensuality to hierarchy. I think Pat's definition is very clear, I personally cannot think of how it could be reworded unless the intent was to make CL sound like something it is not.


----------



## Dar

I thought this was a great post... I just quoted a few things I wanted to add to.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 

In cases of life or death though, once again, I say that do what you have to do in the moment, not because you are "ultimately a heirarchy" but because CL does not mean self determining to the point of death. Because with CL you can still sit at a round table and safe your neighbor or childs life, and they could also save yours.

And really, kids don't want to become seriously ill or die... if they're making choices that will most likely have this result (like walking in front of a truck) then we save them, because we believe this is truly what they want. Maybe they don't see the truck... maybe they don't really understand what will happen when the truck hits them... maybe they think the truck will stop... whatever. I assume that if I was able to truly convey all of the relevant information in a way that my child understood, she would also choose to get out of the truck's way, because I believe she's an innately rational being with a strong sense of self-preservation.

Quote:

I don't think giving information or making suggestions is coercive
I don't think making a choice to save your childs life is "not letting them be self determining" and therefore "a hierarchy" and "not CL"
I'd go even further and say that giving information and making suggestions are not only not coercive, they're also _necessary_ for parenting in this way.

And on the topic of helping someone else come up with solutions... when Rain was 6 or 7, I remember one time she hadn't eaten anything for a while and I was worried that she might melt down, but she was also tired and I thus already on edge, and I was concerned that suggesting food or even leaving it near her might provoke an outburst... but I really wanted her to eat.

But... this was her Orphan Train fascination period. So, I cooked up some potstickers, threw them in a battered old bowl and put them under the kitchen table, and called out, "Orphan Girl? Where is that orphan girl we got from the train?" When she came running over, I glared at her and said, "You're too slow, so you get no dinner tonight! Now, pick up that bowl of food under the table and take it out to the dog - quickly, or you'll get no food tomorrow either!" We, um, had no dog at the time... so she crawled under the table and grabbed the bowl of potstickers and scurried off into a corner of the living room, where she hid beside a bookshelf and scarfed down the potstickers.

Would this work for anyone else's kid? Probably not? But it worked very well for us, because potstickers were easy for me to make, and because she was willing to eat if it was part of pretending... so, would any of you have suggested this as a solution for us? Probably nope again... because it's really hard to know what will work for someone else.

bigeyes, I've been following some of your posts about your stepdaughter, and it's clear that you're a really caring stepmom and have devoted a whole lot of time and energy to finding the best way to parent her. I really think that an older kid who has been parented in a very different way for many years may not be able to get her needs met through this kind of parenting right away. Right now, maybe meeting her needs means making decisions for her, if she's not able to do so safely and rationally...

Dar


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Okay Pat, for the record, if your child is about to get hit by a bus, can you move them out of the way while practicing consensual living?

Raising Our Children Raising Ourselves talks a lot about letting a child be self determining, even in dangerous situations, because you can still give them the chance to make a safe choice - BUT if the danger is "in action" then you act first, talk later.

example:
child playing in street. no cars coming. you give the child information and let them make a choice

example 2:
child playing in street, car is coming quickly and doesn't see child and child isn't about to move out of the way, you grab child out of the way of the car, preventing the child from being hit by the car, and then explain it to them.

As put, this is not about parental veto power, intervention power, etc. It's not because you are the parent you are allowed to "stop them from being self determining to the point of death" - this is something that can be done, one human to another.

I think one of the big questions with CL is "would I do that to my friend"
Like, would I tell my friend they MUST get out of the road? no. Would I move my friend out of the way quickly if they were about to get hit by a car? yes. not because I am not allowing them to be self determining. not because I have more power then them.

I feel like the idea of self determination is being ostracized to make CL look like a dangerous way of parenting.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Okay Pat, for the record, if your child is about to get hit by a bus, can you move them out of the way while practicing consensual living?
She is going to say yes because that is mutually agreeable - you don't want the child to be hit by a bus and the child _also_ doesn't want to get hit by the bus. Not a good example. So can I try one?

*The child wants to play on the highway, cars everywhere, but they insist they will be careful. Can you let them and still be consensually living?*

This example is _opposing_ desires. The child wants one thing, you want another and the health of the child is at stake. Can you impose your will (ie, say "no, you cannot play on the highway") or use coercion (eg, say, "but the park looks good, wouldn't you prefer to play in the park?")?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
I thought this was a great post... I just quoted a few things I wanted to add to.









And really, kids don't want to become seriously ill or die... if they're making choices that will most likely have this result (like walking in front of a truck) then we save them, because we believe this is truly what they want. Maybe they don't see the truck... maybe they don't really understand what will happen when the truck hits them... maybe they think the truck will stop... whatever. I assume that if I was able to truly convey all of the relevant information in a way that my child understood, she would also choose to get out of the truck's way, because I believe she's an innately rational being with a strong sense of self-preservation.

I'd go even further and say that giving information and making suggestions are not only not coercive, they're also _necessary_ for parenting in this way.

And on the topic of helping someone else come up with solutions... when Rain was 6 or 7, I remember one time she hadn't eaten anything for a while and I was worried that she might melt down, but she was also tired and I thus already on edge, and I was concerned that suggesting food or even leaving it near her might provoke an outburst... but I really wanted her to eat.
*
But... this was her Orphan Train fascination period. So, I cooked up some potstickers, threw them in a battered old bowl and put them under the kitchen table, and called out, "Orphan Girl? Where is that orphan girl we got from the train?" When she came running over, I glared at her and said, "You're too slow, so you get no dinner tonight! Now, pick up that bowl of food under the table and take it out to the dog - quickly, or you'll get no food tomorrow either!" We, um, had no dog at the time... so she crawled under the table and grabbed the bowl of potstickers and scurried off into a corner of the living room, where she hid beside a bookshelf and scarfed down the potstickers.
*
Would this work for anyone else's kid? Probably not? But it worked very well for us, because potstickers were easy for me to make, and because she was willing to eat if it was part of pretending... so, would any of you have suggested this as a solution for us? Probably nope again... because it's really hard to know what will work for someone else.

bigeyes, I've been following some of your posts about your stepdaughter, and it's clear that you're a really caring stepmom and have devoted a whole lot of time and energy to finding the best way to parent her. I really think that an older kid who has been parented in a very different way for many years may not be able to get her needs met through this kind of parenting right away. Right now, maybe meeting her needs means making decisions for her, if she's not able to do so safely and rationally...

Dar

That example was a great example of the point I tried making in a few other posts... sometimes we could get a list of 100 options that wouldn't work for us, but if *we* WANT to find an option that works for us, we get really creative, we think outside the box, and we figure out a solution. Is it always in the very moment? no, sometimes we need to mull it over... but how often are we in a situation that is TRULY life threatening *in that exact moment* ? I mean for me, that hasn't happened yet. So letting them "do whatever" until I find a solution we are ALL happy with and is safer in the long run is fine. if it IS an in that moment life or death situation, then we act first, think later. Again, not because they are simply a child and we have some kind of power, status, whatever you want to call it. Just decency from one human to another.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
She is going to say yes because that is mutually agreeable - you don't want the child to be hit by a bus and the child _also_ doesn't want to get hit by the bus. Not a good example. So can I try one?

*The child wants to play on the highway, cars everywhere, but they insist they will be careful. Can you let them and still be consensually living?*

This example is _opposing_ desires. The child wants one thing, you want another and the health of the child is at stake. Can you impose your will (ie, say "no, you cannot play on the highway") or use coercion (eg, say, "but the park looks good, wouldn't you prefer to play in the park?")?

I think you meant can you stop them and still be consensually living, and I really think that depend on whether or not they are TRULY in imminent danger. There may (or may not) be a way to allow this safely, but in this case I think its more likely that there is an underlying desire or need, and that you could find another thing for the child to do that they would mutually agree too. If they are thrill seeking, you can find a safer way for them to get a thrill. It's not black and white.

If it were my child, I would probably suggest sky diving, parasailing, or something similar to meet their need for a thrill. Thats not called being coercive, thats called suggesting other ways to meet the child's underlying need or desire. The surface desire of playing hopscotch on the interstate is not the underlying desire.

another solution may be to go that interstate during rush hour ,when there is a traffic jam, and hand out free flowers or sell flowers or something, you can do this with the child to make sure they are safe, they get to experience the highway with lots of cars around, if they are just curious what its like.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
First one must understand that I do see persuasion as coercion.

I think it all depends on how one is attempting to persuade...

So, we're going out for dinner - Rain wants Sweet Tomatoes, I say I want Ethiopian food.

Scenario 1: She looks down, drops her shoulders, and says in a low, sad voice... "Please..." In other words, the guilt trip thing = coercive.

Scenario 2: She says, "Well, we have a coupon for Sweet Tomatoes, so it would only be about half as much to go there..." Persuasion, but non-coercive. She's sharing information that I had forgotten, and that she thinks will influence my decision. Since I don't have a super-strong desire for Ethiopian food tonight, and I have do have a strong desire to save some money this month, this information changes my preference. We both get what we want, even though she persuaded me.

As far as life-threatening situations - no rational person wants to die or become seriously ill. If someone is making the choices that lead to this, I assume that either he's lacking some sort of information or understanding of that information, and that with this he would choose differently... or that coercion in some other area is leading him to make a faulty decision here... or that a health problem (such as illness) is influencing his decision-making. I wouldn't allow a toddler to walk in front of a car, just because I can't yet competently convey to her the danger posed by cars. If she understood, she would stop walking, but she doesn't. If I can find a not coercive way to get her out of the car's path, that's better, but if not then doing a small thing that she doesn't prefer is preventing the occurrence of a much bigger thing that she doesn't prefer either.

dar


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

well put dar!


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 

*The child wants to play on the highway, cars everywhere, but they insist they will be careful. Can you let them and still be consensually living?*?

I find it hard to imagine this actually happening. I think my first step would be to make it really clear what cars can do. One of the things we did when Rain was 2 was run over a watermelon with that car, and some other stuff. We also raced against cars, with Rain running on the sidewalk with me while another adult drove down the street. We lost. We also went downtown and crouched down in between two cars that were parallel parked on a busy street - from that angle, you can really get a sense for just how fats the cars are going.

I'd also figure out why the kid wanted to plan on a busy highway - what is he going for? Would a big empty parking lot meet the same need? A street with no traffic - we actually stopped and examined a highway in the middle of nowhere for a while, because we wanted to know how long the white dashed lines really are. They're really long.. over 6 feet, IIRC. We laid down next to them and they were longer, anyway.

Dar


----------



## UUMom

Flowers! I am really enjoying your posts! And Super Glue Mommy, I love what you have to say. The whole food issue also rings so true for our family. Why force/fight etc when there are so many ways for children to get the nourishment they need. Oh, and the waldorf dogma sends me as well, but I like what you had to say there, Flowers.

Good stuff. I also love the Orphan Train story from Dar. lol There are so many ways for needs to be met!


----------



## bigeyes

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
bigeyes, I've been following some of your posts about your stepdaughter, and it's clear that you're a really caring stepmom and have devoted a whole lot of time and energy to finding the best way to parent her. I really think that an older kid who has been parented in a very different way for many years may not be able to get her needs met through this kind of parenting right away. Right now, maybe meeting her needs means making decisions for her, if she's not able to do so safely and rationally...

Dar

Thanks. It's heartbreaking, because I really enjoyed being a more relaxed parent and could never have envisioned this type of scenario. It's not at all the way I planned things.


----------



## UUMom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigeyes* 
Thanks. It's heartbreaking, because I really enjoyed being a more relaxed parent and could never have envisioned this type of scenario. It's not at all the way I planned things.

I have a bio child who needs something a bit different. It can be frustrating. What works so well for some folks needs tweaking for others. One of our children is challenging in ways our relaxed parenting wasn't prepared for. DC needs specific direction sometimes, and has from toddlerhood. I wasn't even sure what the needs were at first. There was quite a bit of trial and error communication-wise, on our part. I was like "Woah!" I know what we do is respectful parenting, but DC clearly has some needs the sibs do not.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

So, we're going out for dinner - Rain wants Sweet Tomatoes, I say I want Ethiopian food.

Scenario 1: She looks down, drops her shoulders, and says in a low, sad voice... "Please..." In other words, the guilt trip thing = coercive.

Scenario 2: She says, "Well, we have a coupon for Sweet Tomatoes, so it would only be about half as much to go there..." Persuasion, but non-coercive. She's sharing information that I had forgotten, and that she thinks will influence my decision. Since I don't have a super-strong desire for Ethiopian food tonight, and I have do have a strong desire to save some money this month, this information changes my preference. We both get what we want, even though she persuaded me.
I love this! Woot! I agree! Now you put it that way, I can see a more subtle type of persuasion that may not be coercive. Hmm, I'll have to think about it now because I wonder if we can trust ourselves to know when we are being one or the other?

Quote:

I wouldn't allow a toddler to walk in front of a car, just because I can't yet competently convey to her the danger posed by cars. *If she understood, she would stop walking, but she doesn't.* If I can find a not coercive way to get her out of the car's path, that's better, but if not then doing a small thing that she doesn't prefer is preventing the occurrence of a much bigger thing that she doesn't prefer either.
This is what some of us mean by consensuality grows with age, I believe. I understand what is meant when we say "regardless of age" for respect, consideration, and so on. But age is not irrelevant, as someone suggested earlier, when _mutual agreements_ are considered. Sometimes some mamas are relegated to guessing what our babies would prefer or want (I haven't had to guess my son's _needs_ very often though). It is very hard to live consensually with a baby who is experimenting and needs redirection and reaches an age where redirection doesn't work any longer and will fight you for the right to experiment with something you cannot allow them to. Maybe some outlines for signs of readiness in a child and maturity for when the parent can give more slack, more "self determination" - an outline might help, although I haven't thought that through, just thinking as I write.

Quote:

I find it hard to imagine this actually happening.
It's hard to imagine having to pull a child out of the way of a bus, too. And many kids play on busy roads, unfortunately. But that's not the point, just as most of the examples aren't really the point, the point is to find where the breaking point is, for if there is one, and we are only NOW finding that there are several of them, then making those clear can only help parents navigating Consensual Living. Don't you agree?

Quote:

I'd also figure out why the kid wanted to plan on a busy highway - what is he going for? Would a big empty parking lot meet the same need?
I had an aha! moment with my husband only half an hour ago, which stemmed from your use of the word "need" here. I was thinking, bloody hell, now not only would it be a _need_ to play on a highway, but it is a surface expression of some _deeper_ need! I feared us going down the rabbit hole again and I've been discussing this thread with him. I updated him with the road example SGM gave and the one I gave in response to find out from the upper hierarchy of CL







- joke - from Pat if there is a "breaking point" in CL, or if we leave self determination to stand, unchecked. If we leave "all wants met" unchecked. If we leave "consensual" regardless of safety or health. If we treat a baby consensually, even when they can't reciprocate nor understand and just do things without an underlying need, but just because they haven't seen/heard/felt/tasted/touched it before.

DH then asked me if I believe every action has an underlying need or desire. I said no, not always, He said, "bingo". I looked at him like he was made of foofy. So he explained that perhaps CL is based on every action having an underlying need or desire, and that I do not believe that it _always_ does, then we have an impasse.

Clever boy, my man.







Cos I think he nailed a big problem for me with the understanding of CL, and I will have to think about that, also. Sometimes we, even adults, just "do stuff", but especially kids, who have no baggage or alternative reason - my son sees the toilet and wants the toilet. Simple, based in the "now", and rather beautiful (and such innocence probably won't last







). Are we to assume he thinks "hmmm, I'd love to put something hard and cold and covered in filth into my mouth, let me see if the toilet door is open and if not, perhaps mum can offer me a large pebble, which is also hard, cold, and covered in filth..."

Can we agree that sometimes options/suggestions/alternatives _are_ simply coercion, it is only "looking for the deeper need" to the parent, who hopes there is one. The younger the child, the less likely there IS to be an underlying desire in the action or behaviour they are currently doing. For a need, I daresay there is an underlying need, but I am not yet convinced there is one for every want, or for ANY want in a baby.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

i think when someone says age is irrelevant they mean that age does not mean you cannot have mutual agreements, age does not mean you cannot have mutual respect, etc. I don't think it means that your neworn can pack them selves a lunch and walk to college.

as for a "breaking point" I wouldn't use that term, personally. I am unsure what you mean by breaking point? It is still being consensual in that case. breaking point to me implies something else. whatever you call it though, the "breaking point" is probably at a different place for every CL family.

Yes, maybe you have found YOUR breaking point lol. You don't think everything has an underlying need or desire, where as a lot of CL mamas do. I never EVER just do something, there is ALWAYS a reason for doing things, even if I dont conciously make the connection in the moment, if for some reason my desires were going to upst those around me, but I still wanted to do it, I could figure out WHY it was important to me, and find a way to meet that need/desire without upsetting those around me. With upsetting not being the best term in this case either, much like the words "breaking point".

I can agree that sometimes options.suggestions.alternative ARE coercion, BUT that there are always options.suggestions.alternatives that ARENT coercive.

In the toilet example I dont see "and covered in filth" as part of the equation, and while the child may not be able to think a complex thought like that, that doesn't mean that sometimes else hard, cold, (and probably smooth, not flilthy) would meet his need/desire. You mean to him he thinks "I want to eat this toilet"... probably though I am not claiming to able to read the mind of someone else's child. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a mutually agreeable solution to be found that meets his (possibly unknown) underlying desire for something hard cold and smooth. Also, I would think the reason that a toilet is not okay is because of the germs, and perhaps disinfecting wouldn't be enough for you, but if its because of the "filth" then why would you offer something else that is ALSO filthy? you could offer a cold hard smooth CLEAN large pebble...

I really don't think its a "breaking point", I'm sure you just didn't have a better term for things. It's not like there is some point/instance in which you "stop being CL". There is a point, that is different in every relationship (in this case family) where you will meet a bigger need instead of a smaller need first, and then meet the smaller need secondarily. (stop child from dying, THEN figure out a solution regarding highway play) that is not the point in which CL has a breaking point though - as its still doing EXACTLY what CL is - meeting ALL the underlying needs and desires of all affected parties in a given situation. And, it has nothing to do exclusively to parenting. AND a child could do the same for their parent. It's not any shape or form of hierarchy. It's not a broken moment. I don't think thats what you were implying though, but just think "breaking point" _could _imply that, which would be incorrect and as you fear PAt's wording may be confusing, and I dont, I think the breaking point wording could be confusing, and you probably don't. Should we all go looking for the "breaking point" in every form of parenting? Perhaps if this is considered a "breaking point" (which I personally don't, I still consider it consensual by the definition Pat has on the CL website) but if it takes 24 pages to find a 'breaking point' then wow, CL is more amazing then I thought because I could find a breaking point for simply "AP" or anything else much easier! Took a lot of unrealistic hypothetical situations to get to this "breaking point" and even in "breaking" it is still consensual. That's a real Ah Ha moment to me









Perhaps this is one of those situations we should all do the work and ask ourselves if we are being manipulated, or if we are being manipulative? I do not intend to manipulate your words, but you feel I am when I feel confused by the terms you use. And likewise, you are in the same boat with the wording on the CL website.

Your opinion on underlying needs and wants may be why you don't feel CL is right for your family. Thats okay. It is right for other families though, and other families ARE able to see the underlying wants and needs of people of all ages, and to see them all as equally valid. And even when they stop their child from being hit by a bus, its STILL living consensually, it is not a breaking point, its not the point where it becomes a "hierarchy" but I feel this thread is not going to rest until that point is falsely proven. It would NO be helpful to CLers if someone told them how to practice CL, how to let their child be self determining. Because no one can know what is best for another family then that family. I believe that is why the website doesn't say "do it this way" but just an overall philosophy that I think encompasses the essence of CL P.E.R.F.E.C.T.L.Y - at least CL as I know it, use it, and hear others use it. I don't think it should be reworded to appease those who discredit CL. I think it should be left as is, to honor those who practice CL. Why is it so important that someone who doesn't want to use CL understand what it is, and those who do practice CL why should someone tell them what the "breaking point" should be in their family.

I think I'm doing a bad job of explaining this, sometimes it's hard to explain common sense, because its hard to break down the basics. I feel like I'm trying to explain that 1= .25 + .25 + .25 + .25 and then being asked if I can break that down even further. I think "1" is a simple enough way to explain "1", and I can't seem to break it down any further then I already have and I don't see the point - people are happy with the way they are parenting, if CL was right for them, then like every other CLer they would "get it" and wouldn't need it broken down any further then it already is. Why can't it just be okay that you use CC and some use CL and some use AP and some use something else, and some don't have a name for what they do, or draw from several things.... why can't that just be okay? why do we have to rip apart a single way of life so that everyone can understand it? Should they start making Christians go to court and rip apart their religion? Then tell them their religion is imperfect because the lawyers were able to manipulate it to look that way. It is the truth for them, if others believes the same truth it would e the truth for them also, and someone else may have a different truth. why do we have to rip it apart? really its upsetting me at this point that we need to make sure the whole world knows that there is some "breaking point", when in our eyes, we don't see that AS a breaking point, we see it as part of CL.

alas I must resign. I feel like I am trying to describe the color red to someone who is wearing blue shades. To them, the truth is what I represent is purple. I need to just accept that they see purple, and realize that's okay, and does not change the fact that what is sitting before me is, in fact, still red. Or perhaps I am a mechanic with a car that runs perfectly, and the person stocking the produce section of the grocery store wants to tell me that my car is broken. Well, as long as it gets me where I need to go, and the car is driving smoothly, handling well, performing at it's best - *for me* that is all that matters. I am after all, the mechanic and in addition to that, I am also the driver, so I know that I know my car better then anyone else, even if someone else doesn't think so. They can tell me my engine must be dead because of how many miles I drove, but my car still starts when I leave the grocery store... and this is me, leaving the grocery store now...

*Am explaining something IN MY LIFE to you. I am able to check myself to make sure I am not wearing any glasses. It would be the equivalent of standing in a room and it being VISIBLE that I have no glasses on, but the other person does. Or if I am IN a room surrounded by blue glass, with the color red, and someone is outside the room looking in at the object I am holding and thinking "she's holding a purple object"... I'm saying "actually its red!" and them, realizing that I am in the room with a blue window between us they can say "oh maybe it is red, but it looks purple from here!" but instead they are saying "nope its definitely purple, maybe its just more of a reddish purple but its definitely purple."

All I'm asking, which you refuse, is here I am trusting that it looks purple from where you are standing, buts I'm in the same room with this, and it's red, so my truth is that the object is red. I will not sit here and tell you that you are wrong about your life, and that your theory on life is wrong, so I do not appreciate that being done towards me, which is why I am done here.

simply put, you don't get it the way I do.

to you, consensual living is not the same as what consensual living is to me.

to me, yes there is an underlying desire for mouthing a toilet, even if ym child doesn't have the complex thought of "I want something cold and hard and smooth" they probably ALSO arent thinking "I really want to mouth this toilet here"

And so far, I have seen a consensual solution to everything brought up here that I could apply in my family, I want CL to work for me, and so it does, and helping someone who DOESN'T want to practice CL isn't useful. It would be useful to help some one who does want to practice CL. It would not be helpful for me to teach japanese to someone who just wants me to teach it to them, but has no desire to speak or learn the language.

must.stay.away. lol - before some one tries slashing my tires just to prove my car really isn't running well LOL


----------



## ernalala

Regarding the toilet example.
Some people already mentioned that the need could be wanting to teeth sth hard and cold, which is actually what relieves teething pain/discomfort best. So that's a need that could be looked at.
You say that your son wants to moth the toilet as soon as he SEES the toilet. So it may be that he has a fascination for the toilet as it is and not only the feel of it when mouthing. Just as my toddler would have liked to use the toilet brush for play ('a brush is a brush is for cleaning the toilet, the floor,
the wall, teeth, brushing hair',...







), which I could not find ok at all. For this object, out of sight meant out of mind. A toilet cannot be moved away. You may lock the bathrooms to avoid his seeing and wanting to mouth the toilet. Use a lock for the toilet. But I do think that something I would try to do was having the toilet 'out of sight', like a cover of some kind: a large towel, a large cardboard box, for as long as it takes for him to understand mouthing the toilet is not such a healthy choice. Or, you may help him in his fascination with the toilet by joining him in touching the porcelain, opening/closing, flushing when needed, watching the flushing, cleaning the outside with a wet cloth, having some suction toys aytached to the lid, attach stickers all over which may fascinate him more than teething it, etc. And then always wash hands afterward, so he learns the hygiene issue related to touching toilets. You may reject all of these as 'not workable with your son', or 'coercive' in your opinion, which is your right, but these may be things I would come up with in my family if the issue needs a more creative approach and help me avoid pulling my child away from it against his will.
And yes, this probably sounds nuts to many, but I am happy to come up with a nutty solution that takes away my stress and address or redirect his strange need rather than not and have a screaming fit/struggle about it where no-one is happy.

--------------

Last weekend we had a situation where we had to choose for a non-cl approach because of a lack of time but in reverse I see that how hard it may still have been, we could have thought to come up with another way and reduce acute stress for all of us involved. But, we cannot predict everything to the very last outcome either (involving our high needs ds). I also see this as part of (striving for) living cl, re-thinking situations and learn how to deal more cl with those in the future, definitely not planning to make the same mistake when it comes up again.

--------------

Also.

Some have been vegetarians all their lives because they have been raised in a vegetarian family, in a meat-eating society (some may have been raised in a cl household in the middle of a not so cl environment).

It's not because in the past you have been eating meat and you converted to an ethical vegetarian, but had one piece of meat during your vegetarianism, that you are all of a sudden not a vegetarian anymore (being cl and once in a while having done something less cl).

Some may also strive for vegetariansim and see the initial starting phase as hard, and may start to live as a vegetarian gradually to eventually reach the goal to become an utterly strict vegetarian (step by step learning to live more consensually, which is a way of consensual living since the goal is more and more becoming cl).

Some are attracted by vegetariansim but won't apply it completely to their lifestle and eat meat occasionally, those may not be vegetarians in the true sense, but they do not claim to be either (meaning, picking stuff from cl that applies to you, therefore not being totally cl but choosing from cl what works in your life and that being ok, too).


----------



## forlovebaby

She had to freeze and then follow my instructions to walk back to me.


----------



## ernalala

QUOTE=forlovebaby;13544895]She had to freeze and then follow my instructions to walk back to me.[/QUOTE]

THAT might look like what I would do in a public toilet but I can't imagine me doing such at home where I could handle the situation totally differently. This issue at home will not be way as big as outdoors or at someone elses home.

Still, in a public place I would not truly expect my son to 'have to freeze' and I would not order or instruct my child, rather redirect and explain and as a last resort remove if he would not restrain himself from touching/mouthing the gross public toilet (could all happen in a matter of seconds). If I would say 'stop!' or 'no!' it would come from a place of concern, not hierarchy (as I think you do, too?). I would also try to avoid having to go in a public toilet cubicle with a toddler that will want to touch anything, when possible







.

[


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I never EVER just do something, there is ALWAYS a reason for doing things, even if I dont conciously make the connection in the moment, if for some reason my desires were going to upst those around me, but I still wanted to do it, I could figure out WHY it was important to me, and find a way to meet that need/desire without upsetting those around me.
But that's you. Not only that, you're an adult, not a fresh baby without baggage who is devoid of underlying wants.

Quote:

I can agree that sometimes options.suggestions.alternative ARE coercion, BUT that there are always options.suggestions.alternatives that ARENT coercive.
There's that "always" again, when we've shown there aren't _always_ consensual options.

Whether I can even meet some underlying need when DS plays with the toilet (doesn't always mouth it), I still have to take him away from the toilet _*against his will*_ (he has cried before, or screamed out in anger - he makes no secret it is not a mutually agreeable action). What about that?

All the times I move him from danger or health risks, of course I supplant with an alternative. That isn't where this is failing for me, it is failing to be consensual. Of course it can't be, but that's my point. Of course I have to sometimes move him out of harm's way, that's my point. Of course he is going to rile against having my will imposed on him "for his own good", but that's my point.

Another consideration is that he isn't banging on the toilet door to get in. He doesn't even think of it until he sees it, hence what I mean by "living in the moment". He honestly doesn't have an ulterior need, it really is a baby thing... sees it, wants it. I could be holding anything, absolutely anything, and he will want it.

I use this to our advantage by luring him from something he can't have to something he can have. Most of the time, this works but sometimes he puts up a fight because he doesn't like his will being trampled on. And I think, _*that*_ is his underlying need - to be allowed to do what he likes without annoying parents stopping him. But I can't meet that need all the time, even though my home is akin to a zen monastery. I have a daughter and stuff gets left out, doors get left open... you know how it is. And he wants to freely mess up her stuff and eat the dog's toys (yuk!), and I can't let him. He doesn't like being thwarted, and I empathise with him about it, and he shoves his thumb in his mouth and pouts - _concedes_, you could call it but I don't think it is at all consensual. If it was consensual, _*both*_ of us getting what we want then one or both of us would have to _change what we want_ a little. I can't change into thinking it's ok for him in harm's way and he won't change so... no consensus. I can reach a consensus with my daughter cos I can discuss it with her. Even if disappointment is involved, at least a _*mutual agreement*_ can be reached.

Now I'll sit back and wait for _*another*_ suggestion that involves "offering him something else" and then I'll wonder if I'm talking to myself over 'ere. That answer is ignoring my question altogether which is that I have to do something to him against his will.

Would CL let him play in the toilet, this is my question for Pat - pure CL, would it do that?


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Your opinion on underlying needs and wants may be why you don't feel CL is right for your family. Thats okay. It is right for other families though, and other families ARE able to see the underlying wants and needs of people of all ages, and to see them all as equally valid.
I do activism for peta, but my dog isn't abused. This doesn't have to be just about me. Other families are able to work with CL in their lives, and perhaps even believe a baby grabbing for everything including a toilet is some deep seated need for something else (are you kidding about that, btw, cos that's reaching a bit, even for this discussion).

But what about the families that keep asking these questions? What about those that are trying this and can't get anyone to validate they were left without options because of this insistence, that "there are always options, there are always options, there are always options" and that _all wants can be met -_ so that when they simply cannot find a way to meet a desire in their child, even after asking others, they feel (or are outright told) that they "just couldn't see it".

How invalidating. I don't think that is hearing the parent. You've found solutions for most of your issues at home, so have many others... does that mean others therefore _*must*_ be able to, that there _*must*_ be a consensual solution simply because someone else found one in a different situation? Again, that is a glaring logical fallacy!

Because you have an underlying need for every need you have, and an underlying want for every want, does that mean everyone else in the world must therefore have one? What is that conclusion based on? What if my son just wants an apple... but we don't have an apple. Do I look for an underlying need... which would be, let me guess, he wants something sweet... or he wants fruit... or he wants something red... Is it possible that he just wants a freakin' apple? Is it possible, in this realm of supposed possibilities that he just _wants_ what he _wants_?

Research is providing evidence for that which the rest of us already knew - human nature is such that we want things (incl. people) we cannot have or that are harder to attain. I see this in full unbridled action in a baby as they will freak out when you take them from something or somewhere and they want what others have.

Regarding ripping apart, you are getting pretty passionate about this and that's fine, I have my moments too but I've said over and over what i'm trying to achieve here. It isn't that big of a deal, I can certainly live without proving a breaking point because I think I already know where those points are. I'm showing them for others. And yeah, I do the same with religion. Regularly.

Such philosophising and details aren't for everyone. I'm a very scientific minded person, I love looking at a cell, and then looking at what that cell is made of, and getting to the quantum mechanics, and then breaking that down... is the quark really the end point? Let's talk about it. That kind of thing. That's me. If it's not you, then why are you in the discussion? Perhaps it _*is*_ something you like to do, I'll tell you now that you're good at it and we usually like things we're good at.

Quote:

alas I must resign. I feel like I am trying to describe the color red to someone who is wearing blue shades. To them, the truth is what I represent is purple. I need to just accept that they see purple, and realize that's okay, and does not change the fact that what is sitting before me is, in fact, still red
What if you're describing red to me and you're wearing yellow shades? I'm wearing blue shades, you're wearing yellow shades, so red, the "truth", looks different to both of us, have you considered that consensual option? Why must it always be the other person who is wrong and unwilling and unable? If I were watching this discussion as an outsider for instance, I'd probably say we are both misunderstanding each other and we both have valid points and both also have gone in circles and both have been frustrating. Unfortunately, you are the one who was willing to take this on with me, when really I needed Pat to do that, but she is having very big family issues right now so I can't expect this little convo rates high on her radar right now and I'd worry if it did! You can only give me your perspective when I really need "the" CL perspective, kwim?


----------



## Calm

Oh! big time cross posts! I had the window open for hours, sorry about that, i should have refreshed the page first.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

But I do think that something I would try to do was having the toilet 'out of sight', like a cover of some kind: a large towel, a large cardboard box, for as long as it takes for him to understand mouthing the toilet is not such a healthy choice.
Hey, that's good! I'm going to do this. It's non coercive, and prevents having to move him against his will. I can't control my daughter unfortunately, and if it wasn't for her he'd never get into the bathroom (things were easier when she was an only child baby). So it will also rely on her replacing the cover adn we already have trouble getting her to shut the door. We have considered an automatic closure as the only problem really is the door being accidentally left open, but we can't make it fit as the toilet is a tiny room of it's own. Good idea though, and I will incorporate it into the overall "no toilet for baby" plan.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Okay so basically, you want Pat's perspective only, because she coined the term, and only if Pat says what I am practicing is consensual living then is my experience "THE" CL experience.... "THE" CL experience that is different for every family and based on a philosophy not a strict set of rules. Why did I look?! Of course my tires got slashed by the produce section person whose life mission is to prove to my that my car won't drive me home today without fail.


----------



## transformed

Quote:

So, we're going out for dinner - Rain wants Sweet Tomatoes, I say I want Ethiopian food.

Scenario 1: She looks down, drops her shoulders, and says in a low, sad voice... "Please..." In other words, the guilt trip thing = coercive.

Scenario 2: She says, "Well, we have a coupon for Sweet Tomatoes, so it would only be about half as much to go there..." Persuasion, but non-coercive. She's sharing information that I had forgotten, and that she thinks will influence my decision. Since I don't have a super-strong desire for Ethiopian food tonight, and I have do have a strong desire to save some money this month, this information changes my preference. We both get what we want, even though she persuaded me.

*I love this! Woot! I agree! Now you put it that way, I can see a more subtle type of persuasion that may not be coercive. Hmm, I'll have to think about it now because I wonder if we can trust ourselves to know when we are being one or the other?*
1. Thats a great exchange between 2 people. What do you do when there are 5 that want different things?

2. What if your desire for Ethiopian _was_ really strong. Do you just give it up so your child can have what they want?


----------



## contactmaya

I am very grateful to people on this thread, in particular Calm and SGM. Sure you are here for your own reasons, but the fact that you put the effort into keeping this discussion public is very helpful. I dont know how you keep up with it, with 3 kids, but you do, and that is amazing.
(Btw Calm, i think the 'wow' was in amazement, not scarcasm-i just skimmed over that bit)

You must be totally exhausted, i for one, cant keep up, but am copying for reading later.
Im only on p 14 (but skimmed later stuff)

Maya

...still trying to find the answers to my own questions....


----------



## WuWei

There is no CL hierarchy.

I can't change reality. That which I can change, I choose wei wu wei.

I *can* delight my son toward a mutually agreeable alternative, by scooping him up and _zooming_ him around like an airplane, initiating a giggling tickle chase, by excitedly offering "Let's go blow bubbles outside!", by squatting down and offering a piggy back ride, etc. (Please read the "Leaving the Park" thread linked earlier, for more information about "The Toddler Rule": _it is easier to let go of what you have in your hand (literally or figuratively) when something more desirable is available._)

*There were some 40-50 threads linked about creating mutually agreeable solutions with non-verbal toddlers.* I *trust* that there are infinite possibilities and infinite solutions. And I can't imagine that with our dynamic that our son experiences information as coercive, cause he doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do. I just asked him, "Ds, do you have to do anything you don't want to do?" He said, "Um, no." I asked him, "Have you ever had to do anything you don't want to do?" And he replied, "No.". Ds trusts that I am not coercing him to do anything he doesn't want to do. As per his dissent, we halt and seek other alternatives which are agreeable to both of us. He has autonomy over his body.

Also, earlier, I handed him three cookies. He said, "I only want one cookie." The point is, just because one has never heard or seen something, doesn't mean it can't or doesn't exist.

Pat


----------



## WuWei

My comfort with ds's autonomy has developed over the 8 years of his life, not in a short period of time. I trusted him at birth to know what he needed, I just kept trusting and remained attuned and attached to his cues and communication.

Our family mission is to 'nurture a healthy (emotional, spiritual, intellectual and physical) foundation from which to explore the world with Trust'. I choose introspection and self-inquiry before choosing to intervene verbally when "What If?" fears pop up. In situations of "safety", my template is "Will his action PROBABLY cause ds to go to the Emergency Room?". That allows me the space to put my reactive fears into perspective. 

However, my intervention wouldn't be to express about my fear of him probably going to the emergency room; it would be to offer alternatives which address his desire and my concerns concurrently. My desire is to find a mutually agreeable solution about anything except/including in a life threatening situation. Life threatening means that I don't even have time to stop to think 'Is this consensual?' and I act without hesitation or doubt, before, or after the intervention. (ie. I'd pull him/anyone out of the path of the proverbial oncoming truck.)

Based upon those principles for controlling *myself*, ds has freely made choices which have not lead to any emergency room visits, nor anything life threatening. Our relationship is connected and he is capable of acting safely; and he trusts me to provide him with relevant information, upon which he chooses to act, or disagree. The key is me Trusting him, I trust that he has important and valid reasons, feelings, and needs for all behavior and choices.

I work to honor those and to support them by facilitating him to do what he wants/needs/desires to do. Concurrently, he relies on me to provide information; and I provide information about how his actions may impact himself or others. The engagement necessary to be a Trusted Advisor is much more interactive and two-directional than 'because I am the mom and I know better'. It means believing that I *don't* know what is best for another person. And that is a completely different way of interacting with children/people.

However, if an action of ds/anyone is, or would, cause me (or another) physical pain, such as swinging toward me with feet extended, I would definitely express my desire for him/them to avoid doing so. So, yes. My verbal "intervention" definitely has the agenda of changing his behavior, because it directly affects me. And I have explained my feelings and needs and make a request. He has autonomy over his body.

Pat


----------



## UUMom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *contactmaya* 
I am very grateful to people on this thread, in particular Calm and SGM. Sure you are here for your own reasons, but the fact that you put the effort into keeping this discussion public is very helpful. I dont know how you keep up with it, with 3 kids, but you do, and that is amazing.
(Btw Calm, i think the 'wow' was in amazement, not scarcasm-i just skimmed over that bit)

You must be totally exhausted, i for one, cant keep up, but am copying for reading later.
Im only on p 14 (but skimmed later stuff)

Maya

...still trying to find the answers to my own questions....

I agree. I thought it was very thoughtful, repectful discussion, given this difficult topic. I don't know CL as much as I know NCP.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Pat you always have such a better way with words then I do. I completely agree with everything you have just said, and it is totally in line with my belifs about consensual living - even though I obviously am still aspiring towards embracing it as fully as I understand it.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I *can* delight my son toward a mutually agreeable alternative, by scooping him up and _zooming_ him around like an airplane, initiating a giggling tickle chase, by excitedly offering "Let's go blow bubbles outside!", by squatting down and offering a piggy back ride, etc. (Please read the "Leaving the Park" thread linked earlier, for more information about "The Toddler Rule": _it is easier to let go of what you have in your hand (literally or figuratively) when something more desirable is available._)

I have a toddler (2 yo son). We use these techniques *all the time*! In fact, I used them countless times today to guide him, happily, into the car, into the library, around the library, to the checkout, into the car, into Target, to pick shoes he loves, through the toys (just playing), to the checkout, and then we got stuck at the water fountain. He needed a drink--got his drink--and then wanted to wash his hands in the fountain. Can't do that, and, really, it is time to go (8 yo dd is also along, so her needs to consider as well--and mine, too!).

Frankly, I was out of steam. I tried a few playful ideas to get him to come along, but, in the end, scooped him up and carried him (fighting) to the car. Dd was ever so helpful, holding doors for me as I scurried!

I am comfortable with handling the situation that way, but I am wondering--does CL expect an infinite amt of patience and energy?


----------



## flowers

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
I am comfortable with handling the situation that way, but I am wondering--does CL expect an infinite amt of patience and energy?

This is where your needs come into play. Sometimes I am just done and that is it. I need take a minute and stop being fully engaged and make myself a cup of tea and clean off the counter so my head can be straight. So if I've just been reading books, or dancing with them and this arises I take care of myself. Ds1 might whine in opposition and I will explain to him that I need "me" time, some space (which he now asks for) and ds2 (18 mos) might fuss and plant himself at my feet and cry. That's okay. Sometimes my need trumps. More often than not ds2 will get distracted by something else and move along keeping himself busy allowing my respite and other times his emotions might move to a level of distress that makes it apparent that his need to feel comforted by mama trumps my need to to have a free minute. In my experience it works out. Mama has needs too.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
There's that "always" again, when we've shown there aren't _always_ consensual options.

No, "we" haven't... you persist in believing that it's true, and others persist in believing that it's not. I think that's the crux of the issue here, though...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
1. Thats a great exchange between 2 people. What do you do when there are 5 that want different things?

2. What if your desire for Ethiopian _was_ really strong. Do you just give it up so your child can have what they want?

1. Well, there are only two of us in my family, and although my understanding is that CL expects people to find mutually agreeable solutions with everyone in the world (and please, correct me if I'm wrong), the philosophy I follow doesn't. So, since it doesn't come up for me, I'm probably not the one you want to hear from.









2. Nope - then we look for other solutions. Maybe the reason she wanted go to Sweet Tomatoes was that she was craving a big salad, and I could remind her that the Ethiopian restaurant also had good salads.... or I could mention the awesome gelato place right across the street from the restaurant and see if her preference would change, because she does like gelato more than ST ice cream. Maybe, if we had lots of time or the restaurants were closer together, I could go to ST with her and accompany her while she ate, and then get Ethiopian food to go... or vice versa.... although we've never actually gotten to that point. We have driven through two different fast food places, but that's as close as we've come.

Dar


----------



## transformed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flowers* 
This is where your needs come into play. Sometimes I am just done and that is it. I need take a minute and stop being fully engaged and make myself a cup of tea and clean off the counter so my head can be straight. So if I've just been reading books, or dancing with them and this arises I take care of myself. Ds1 might whine in opposition and I will explain to him that I need "me" time, some space (which he now asks for) and ds2 (18 mos) might fuss and plant himself at my feet and cry. That's okay. Sometimes my need trumps. More often than not ds2 will get distracted by something else and move along keeping himself busy allowing my respite and other times his emotions might move to a level of distress that makes it apparent that his need to feel comforted by mama trumps my need to to have a free minute. In my experience it works out. Mama has needs too.

this is actually REALLY important IMO. Look at the way society tells us to parent. GO GO GO GO GO GO GO!!!!! Its no wonder "we" (society) resort to severe detachment. We are burnt out! We don tknow when to say when and we are totally fried at the end of the day.

I guess this is the perfect argument for CL. Everyones needs _are_ really important.


----------



## flowers

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 

I guess this is the perfect argument for CL. Everyones needs _are_ really important.

CL actually made way more of an impact for me than for my children. I was always putting their needs first thinking the old, "mama makes the sacrifices so everyone can be happy", but now I know that mama needs to be happy, well fed, rested so everyone else can be too.

Burnt out mama= no good.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Sometimes my need trumps.

Quote:

I guess this is the perfect argument for CL. Everyones needs are really important.
How is one person's need trumping another's consensual, and how is it any different to the time example? In fact, in the time example, at least there was a mutual agreement.

FTR, I agree with you Flowers. And I call myself CL also, even though at times, it probably isn't consensual, such as your example.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

1.Well, there are only two of us in my family, and although my understanding is that CL expects people to find mutually agreeable solutions with everyone in the world (and please, correct me if I'm wrong), the philosophy I follow doesn't. So, since it doesn't come up for me, I'm probably not the one you want to hear from.
Why do you not follow a philosophy that expects to find mutually agreeable solutions with everyone?

It seems that the philosophy all follow doesn't. I have read many many Clers on the yahoogroup and here and it seems all of us tweak it to suit which is why I wonder if consensual living all the time is achievable. Or even ideal.


----------



## Calm

I can, and will when I have time, post quotes of people who first identified themselves as CL and who at first were "against" me in some way... who then said things like "you can't always (find consensual solutions).... sometimes you have to ....".

The baby, everyone keeps forgetting the baby. How is it a mutually agreeable solution to impose one's will on a baby, for eg to move them when they don't want to be moved? Pat gave suggestions on how to move them, but as another mama said, sometimes that doesn't work, and you are moving an upset child, or it just doesn't feel consensual. Sometimes it isn't consensual. Are you saying it is?

Then it begs the question, are there always consensual options? Even CLers have said there aren't always.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

...still trying to find the answers to my own questions....
I keep asking it, but you won't find it here. Was it you that asked about the baby/toddler? Apparently, the assumption is that once we make it fun or do something distracting or offer an appealing alternative, the child suddenly complies. But that's because their child suddenly complies. So there's the solution. Apparently.

And if you feel unheard, and that it isn't a solution to _your_ problem, then you're right. If you ask your question again, you might get a better response than me. At this point, I feel heels are so dug in to me I'm getting nowhere. Ask again, and I'll just watch instead, it would make a nice change.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

"THE" CL experience that is different for every family and based on a philosophy not a strict set of rules.
I didn't say rules. But there are guidelines, there is an ideal.

I am of the opinion that we take what we want/need/like from a book or philosophy and leave the rest. We could say "all wants can be met" is part of CL philosophy, the ideal. We could also say (because it's written on the website) that "all people regardless of age have a right to self-determination" is the philosophy, the ideal. An ideal should be achievable. That's all.


----------



## flowers

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
How is one person's need trumping another's consensual, and how is it any different to the time example? In fact, in the time example, at least there was a mutual agreement.

FTR, I agree with you Flowers. And I call myself CL also, even though at times, it probably isn't consensual, such as your example.


Maybe trump wasn't the right word!







I think we are all responsible for getting our needs met. It's why a baby cries and my 4 y/o has learned the fine art of persuasion. It's also up to me to call the shots for me: when I need a break, when I need a shower, food etc.

I have yet to find a category I 100% belong to in any arena of life. I might have to drop the CL line based on others' definitions.







My main goal is to parent intuitively, consciously, respectfully and with an open-mind.

My main reason for feeling CL is b/c I am the exact opposite of my parents heirarchal parenting- "because we said so". That doesn't fly around here. Everyone is able to have a point and there are no black and white rules. We are all working it out together.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Why do you not follow a philosophy that expects to find mutually agreeable solutions with everyone?

Well, I identify as TCS more than CL, although I haven't been part of that group in any formal way for 10 years or so...

I feel that I have a responsibility to the members of my family that I don't have to other people... I mean, it's nice to find mutually agreeable solutions with everyone whenever possibly, but it can also take a lot of time and energy, especially with people who aren't also trying to find mutually agreeable solutions with me. So, it's not something I expect.

And IME, finding mutually agreeable solutions was far easier with a baby than with an older child - babies have fairly simply wants/needs. Food, sleep, warmth, physical contact, something interesting to watch or do, relief from pain or discomfort... it was very physically demanding to parent a baby, but generally they didn't want difficult things.

Dar


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Chris - There is nothing wrong with what you describe, that is what many parents prefer and consider to be common sense. It is not the same as consensual living though, and consensual living to some other people is what feels right.

What I posted is another way of describing the stages of childhood, not a way of parenting. And it's not culture specific. I no longer have my child development/stages of childhood books so I can't quote the correct names of the stages. My kids are all grown, with the exception of Dylan, who is in the republic stage, on the verge of Athenian democracy. Dylan has great say in what goes on in his life. My grandkids are going through the same stages. Parker (3 months) and Matilda (5 months) are in the little dictator stage. All their needs (and all their wants are needs) are met as soon as they are known, if not before. Lindsay (2 next month) has relinquished her title of little dictator and is going into the benevolent dictator stage. Her needs and wants have begun to diverge. She can wait a reasonable amount of time for her needs to be met. Alex (4 on Saturday) is well on his way to the republic stage. We can give reasons and listen to his reasons for his needs and wants.

How any family wants to live is up to them but they will still deal with these stages.


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I can, and will when I have time, post quotes of people who first identified themselves as CL and who at first were "against" me in some way... who then said things like "you can't always (find consensual solutions).... sometimes you have to ....".

The baby, everyone keeps forgetting the baby. How is it a mutually agreeable solution to impose one's will on a baby, for eg to move them when they don't want to be moved? Pat gave suggestions on how to move them, but as another mama said, sometimes that doesn't work, and you are moving an upset child, or it just doesn't feel consensual. Sometimes it isn't consensual. Are you saying it is?

Then it begs the question, are there always consensual options? Even CLers have said there aren't always.

This is the wildest conversation, and I don't know if I should throw my hat in, lol. I admit I have not read everything (but I have read a lot).

There are 2 big ideas (as opposed to details) that I think might apply here.

The first is that I don't think it needs to be "always" to be CL.
There are certain ideas that need an always.

For example-if I eat meat once a month - I cannot call myself a vegetarian. I could say "mostly vegetarian" but not vegetarian.

There are certain things that do _not_ need an always. You can go to church 3 times out of 4 and still call yourself a church-goer. You can practice AP, but once in a while let a baby cry (say - as you finnish using the washroom) and still be AP.

I would definately put a baby in a car seat even if they did not want to use it. Oh, sure, I would try and find ways they would be happy in their seat - but if it did not happen, and I had to go out, into their seat they would go. I don't think CL requires 100% adherance to be CL. I do think CL asks us to think about how to meet everyones needs every time- but it is unrealistic to expect that every.single.time consensus can be reached.

Another idea is the idea of spectrum.

Some people see things as quite black and white - here is the line and if you are on one side you are CL, and if you are on the other you are not CL. I see things more as a spectrum. As such I find it hard to say when someone is CL or not - there is no magic line.

I must admit I am wonderring why you care and are investing so much in this thread? I mean this gently but seriously: Why is the label important? And who cares whether something is deemed CL or not by others? I like to read about CL as I find it usefull for my family - but I do not adhere to it 100%. TBH I am a little leary of following any philosophy to an extreme.

Kthy


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I must admit I am wonderring why you care and are investing so much in this thread?
I invested in this thread because I didn't want to abandon the genuine questions asked of CL. I see them asked and bantered around a lot and never successfully answered. And to be honest, I was interested in knowing how long it would take to get the questions answered, or if they would be, or even _could_ be answered in a consensual way, ie, if there IS there a consensual option for some of these situations.

Almost 500 posts on this thread, and still questions have been left.







I'm fairly sure that speaks for itself. We went around the questions, we certainly circumnavigated them, but the actual questions that were asked seemed to be overlooked. Either that, or people genuinely don't know what people are asking CL.

I initially wanted to be able to answer these questions myself. When I suggest CL as an option for a parent and I describe it, inevitably I am asked the same questions. So I posed them here.

There are times when there are no consensual options for most people and there are times when not all wants can be met. I have my answer, because even as it is denied, the mere discussion itself shows the opposite.

I can compare CL discussions to a clinical trial: When there is a clinical trial for a new treatment or drug, there are two aspects tested to define it's viability:

1) if it works/results
2) level of compliance

The main thing we're looking for is if the drug or treatment works, of course. However, almost as significant as that is the _level of compliance_, which basically means what is the use of a treatment if no one can or will use it? For instance, a liquid medication that works reliably is of no use if it tastes so foul that no one will take it. It is relegated to, "_Theoretically_, this is a magnificent drug".

If CL were subjected to a clinical trial, it would rate high on appeal, medium/high on results and extraordinarily low on level of compliance. I have yet to see anyone outside of Pat and Anna to actually admit to 100% ability to comply to the philosophy and live out the ideal.

Of course, that is level of _complete_ compliance. There are various levels of compliance within that. I'm not isolating consensual living. Only on this thread it seems that way. I analyse a lot of things, it's one way of learning, of garnering information. Sometimes, you have to go out and get it yourself cos it isn't being brought to you. I analyse Continuum Concept, and other parenting philosophies also. So hopefully no one is freaking out at this, because although I know people are scratching their heads thinking "by jeez, what the heck", it really isn't that big a deal.









Quote:

And IME, finding mutually agreeable solutions was far easier with a baby than with an older child - babies have fairly simply wants/needs. Food, sleep, warmth, physical contact, something interesting to watch or do, relief from pain or discomfort... it was very physically demanding to parent a baby, but generally they didn't want difficult things
For the most part, I agree. The issues certainly get more complex with age, God help us all.







I get very busy when toddlerhood is on the boil but mentally it is less of a challenge. Whereas it flips once the age of about 4 hits, and you can almost hear the switch in the heads go "click" and they start to reason. Just a little, but it's starting to flower. AND, glory be, I am not fishing my CDs out of toilets and drain holes anymore. Woot.

It's the little things.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I'm not isolating consensual living. Only on this thread it seems that way. I analyse a lot of things, it's one way of learning, of garnering information. Sometimes, you have to go out and get it yourself cos it isn't being brought to you. I analyse Continuum Concept, and other parenting philosophies also. So hopefully no one is freaking out at this, because although I know people are scratching their heads thinking "by jeez, what the heck", it really isn't that big a deal.









Calm, I just wanted to let you know that I get what what you are doing here. I may not agree with everything you say, but I get your way of thinking because I tend to think much the same way...always analyzing and questioning and trying to break things down.

It's interesting that you mentioned doing the same with religion earlier because I was thinking awhile back that this discussion is going the way that many discussions about religion seem to go. Someone comes in questioning and seeking answers not to discredit anything but to deepen their understanding, and some people take that questioning as an attack on their faith. And others take a more esoteric approach and say it's a personal thing and you just have to work it out for yourself because they can't tell you the answers...like if you knew what I know you wouldn't need to ask but I'm not going to tell you what I know







.

Anyway, regardless of the fact that questions went unanswered (which is sort of an answer in and of itself to me







), I learned a lot from this discussion. It made me do some thinking about why I do certain things and made me a little more conscious of my parenting overall. Things have gotten a little off balance here since the birth of my son 6 months ago, and this was a good kick in the pants to get things back on track. So thanks for keeping at it. I don't know how you find the time or energy because some days I can barely manage to get my teeth brushed much less form a coherent thought to post here







.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

the questions didn't go unanswered as I saw it, but that only certain answers were deemed "acceptable" and only certain CLers insight considered valid.

It sounds like you are looking for a response from Pat only with your questions. This may not be true, only saying how it sounds to me.

My gentle suggestion is instead of asking a question and then answering it yourself and saying "it is safe to assume" write down your questions in a clear precise manner, and perhaps Pat can answer them for you.

Perhaps it would be:
Give examples of using CL with a baby.
How is it CL to prevent self determining actions in a dangerous situation?
etc.

(without answering it yourself and then saying "is it safe to assume that this cant be done?" because they the question being answered is no, thats not safe to assume - but then your original question in your eyes is unanswered.)

Pat and Anna aren't the only ones who can 100% live out the ideal. I could too. I just choose not to, realizing that I am able but I am working on myself to be able to accept and embrace my ability. As in - I know what I SHOULD do, I just don't always do that, because I am too reactive at times and have to heal a lot of my own upbringing that is the root of my being reactive at times when I really dont need to be.

As for "level of compliance" its not about compliance, so compliance is irrelevant to whether or not CL is "working".

Many CLer's, such as myself, feel that YES there ARE always consensual options.

For myself, sometimes when I am confused I have to accept that it's not because what is being presented to me is confusing, but that I am unable to see all of it - something is blocking my mental vision that is not blockng those who can see something clearly.

Is CL confusing? No, not for me, but for someone who is confused by it it is. And sometimes when you are confused there is nothing that can make it clear for you at that time. CL made NO SENSE to me 2 years ago. Or even a year ago. What has changed? Not the explanations I have received... something in *me* changed that helped me be able to see what CLers were saying more clearly.

CL was not confusing, but I was confused. Just my experience.


----------



## Polliwog

Quote:

It sounds like you are looking for a response from Pat only with your questions. This may not be true, only saying how it sounds to me.

My gentle suggestion is instead of asking a question and then answering it yourself and saying "it is safe to assume" write down your questions in a clear precise manner, and perhaps Pat can answer them for you.
That's part of what's been bugging me about this discussion. The fact that you (Calm) has really only wanted answers from Pat and if anyone else steps in to give their thoughts, they are instantly disregarded as not being "CL-enough."

I do have to wonder why you write "cos" instead of because. It can't be for time reasons because your posts are quite long and detailed. No other words are shortened in any way. No need for you to change, but it's really interesting to me as a teacher.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

It's interesting that you mentioned doing the same with religion earlier because I was thinking awhile back that this discussion is going the way that many discussions about religion seem to go. *Someone comes in questioning and seeking answers not to discredit anything but to deepen their understanding, and some people take that questioning as an attack on their faith.* And others take a more esoteric approach and say it's a personal thing and you just have to work it out for yourself because they can't tell you the answers...*like if you knew what I know you wouldn't need to ask but I'm not going to tell you what I know*
It does feel a bit like that. Esp the bold. I appreciate your validation throughout, you rock, and I wish to shower you with love hearts:







: There.

Quote:

CL was not confusing, but I was confused. Just my experience.
This is entirely possible. I don't mean to get all whiny here but life is rather full right now, people throwing themselves off cliffs (well, one person), people fighting cancer, my daughter having flashes, and my memory seems to be going. Yesterday for a brief moment I didn't know where my family had gone while we were at the shop, and they had told me clearly that they were taking the video back. Frightening moment.

Also, my time here has meant I've sacrificed time I need to plow into cases I have. I treat for free at the moment (I wish I could always) and I have three parents waiting for treatment plans. Sigh. I also have an exam to do (in final year of my health science degree).



















I think this thread was a bit of an escape to be honest.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I do have to wonder why you write "cos" instead of because. It can't be for time reasons because your posts are quite long and detailed.
Just saw your post. It's a shameful habit, the cos thing. I think it is an acceptable contraction but probably not when it's the only one I make. I'm a bit pedantic when it comes to English usually... I am not a "texting" type of person cos (there it is again!) "how r u" and things like that are just disturbing to me. But I do write how I speak, and I _say_ cos.


----------



## ~PurityLake~

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Just saw your post. It's a shameful habit, the cos thing. I think it is an acceptable contraction but probably not when it's the only one I make. I'm a bit pedantic when it comes to English usually... I am not a "texting" type of person cos (there it is again!) "how r u" and things like that are just disturbing to me. But I do write how I speak, and I _say_ cos.

I was thinking, after reading the question, that it was likely that you say 'cos'. I often type the way I speak, so I thought perhaps that was your thing, too.


----------



## WuWei

There is no CL authority. I am the authority for me. Dh is the authority for himself. Ds is the authority for himself.

One could inquire of the CL yahoogroup's 900 families about challenges of living consensually, perhaps. Or read some of the actual problem solving _process_ as discussed in the *150 threads posted* earlier here: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...=#post13519815

Pat and Anna are not the authority of how anyone lives with their family and in the world.









There are no "have tos". No CL "shoulds". No CL check list. Inside of you, is the parent and person you want to be, trust that. You don't need anyone's validation or permission, I trust that we all are exactly where we need to be. No "expert" can definitively direct you, the answers reside within you. Not Jean Liedloff, not Scott Noelle, not Naomi Aldort, not Alfie Kohn, not Pam Leo, not Jan Hunt. I have learned much from them; but in the end, I must decide for myself _Who I am_.

Pat


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Inside of you, is the parent and person you want to be, trust that.
I can trust that. Some can't, unfortunately. They confuse their desire to hit or ignore their child with an instinct. They don't know how to identify an instinct. And thus we circle back to my original discussion on instincts at the beginning of this thread. It's all linked.

Your posts are always lovely, Pat. Thank you for them. And for that link, you mind reader you, cos I couldn't find that page.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
the questions didn't go unanswered as I saw it, but that only certain answers were deemed "acceptable" and only certain CLers insight considered valid.

It sounds like you are looking for a response from Pat only with your questions. This may not be true, only saying how it sounds to me.

My gentle suggestion is instead of asking a question and then answering it yourself and saying "it is safe to assume" write down your questions in a clear precise manner, and perhaps Pat can answer them for you.

Perhaps it would be:
Give examples of using CL with a baby.
How is it CL to prevent self determining actions in a dangerous situation?
etc.

(without answering it yourself and then saying "is it safe to assume that this cant be done?" because they the question being answered is no, thats not safe to assume - but then your original question in your eyes is unanswered.)

Pat and Anna aren't the only ones who can 100% live out the ideal. I could too. I just choose not to, realizing that I am able but I am working on myself to be able to accept and embrace my ability. As in - I know what I SHOULD do, I just don't always do that, because I am too reactive at times and have to heal a lot of my own upbringing that is the root of my being reactive at times when I really dont need to be.

As for "level of compliance" its not about compliance, so compliance is irrelevant to whether or not CL is "working".

Many CLer's, such as myself, feel that YES there ARE always consensual options.

For myself, sometimes when I am confused I have to accept that it's not because what is being presented to me is confusing, but that I am unable to see all of it - something is blocking my mental vision that is not blockng those who can see something clearly.

Is CL confusing? No, not for me, but for someone who is confused by it it is. And sometimes when you are confused there is nothing that can make it clear for you at that time. CL made NO SENSE to me 2 years ago. Or even a year ago. What has changed? Not the explanations I have received... something in *me* changed that helped me be able to see what CLers were saying more clearly.

CL was not confusing, but I was confused. Just my experience.

Here are a few questions that I have:

How can one come to a CL solution in the following situations:

1. CP child needs painful physical theapy to avoid even more painful surgery later in life. Child is a toddler.

2. Preschool child has "lazy eye". Needs to wear an eyepatch to avoid eye surgery. Refuses to wear patch.

3. 4yo has already had heat exhaustion and to avoid future heat exhaustion and possible heat stroke, needs to wear a hat outdoors in 100 degree heat with 0 humidity and stay indoors during the middle of the day. Child is very strong willed.

4. 5 yo has been diagnosed with asthma and needs to be put on a nebulizer. Child hates it.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
There is no CL authority. I am the authority for me. Dh is the authority for himself. Ds is the authority for himself.

One could inquire of the CL yahoogroup's 900 families about challenges of living consensually, perhaps. Or read some of the actual problem solving _process_ as discussed in the *150 threads posted* earlier here: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...=#post13519815

Pat and Anna are not the authority of how anyone lives with their family and in the world.









There are no "have tos". No CL "shoulds". No CL check list. Inside of you, is the parent and person you want to be, trust that. You don't need anyone's validation or permission, I trust that we all are exactly where we need to be. No "expert" can definitively direct you, the answers reside within you. Not Jean Liedloff, not Scott Noelle, not Naomi Aldort, not Alfie Kohn, not Pam Leo, not Jan Hunt. I have learned much from them; but in the end, I must decide for myself _Who I am_.

Pat

But it seems that , just like AP, CL has development a list of "rules' so to speak and parents must adhere to in order to be called CL. What I'm getting from this thread from posters is that in order to be CL, the child must not be disappointed or upset in any way when a consensus is reached between parent and child. It is the parent who is to bend. Dr. Sears said to listen to your baby/child and take your parenting clues from them. All the rest of it--co-sleeping, breastfeeding, wear, etc.--are all suggestions that help the parent to get to know their child. Those suggestions have now been set into stone according to the various AP message boards on line.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

So you are seeking for hypothetical questions to be answered, just to clarify? There are MILLIONS of hypothetical questions... I thought Calm was looking for more understanding on the theory, so I was expecting more general questions then specific ones - so that it would kind of "cover" all the hypothetical questions. Every family is different, so even if we imagine being in that situation when we arent, we are only going to be able to think up solutions that would work in our family, for us, with our children. We may not have "the" answer you need, but that does not mean that answer does not exist.

I hope someone is willing to answer you hypothetical questions, at this time I am just being honest in saying I'm not that person because I'm exhausted from all the hypothetical questions, that keep getting answered, and then people saying "that doesn't answer all the questions 26 pages later" and its like, well of course it doesn't, it will take more then 26 pages to answer ALL of lifes dilemmas. I think, it would probably take a life time worth of pages to do that. If its philosophical questions, to understand the philosophy, I can see how that could help if they were clearly stated such as:

1) What if child has a health care need that goes against what they want to do (such as xyz - giving one example) You kind of asked that question 4 different ways - and it could be asked probably 4 million different ways - and the answers to those 4 questions would look different for every family, because the people in that family are different and different things will work for them.

So what you want to know is what SOMEONE ELSE would do in those situations. Is CL possible in thos situations. Yes, its possible, if you want it to be. If you are willing for a solution there is a solution. I'm sure someone who isnt exhausted by the hypothetical questions already will give you some ideas, perhaps even someone whose been through the same thing or similar and can really relate. Just the same, their solution that worked for THEM and THEIR child may not be solutions that will work for YOU and YOUR child. That doesn't mean there is no CL solution. But the reason it might take 25 pages to find a CL solution to specific problem is because there are that many possibilities, and if none of them worked for you, there are stll thousands more, but perhaps the one that you need is the one that you will discover, on your own.

My son has to take vitamins every day, and he hates them, but we did find a mutually agreeable way for him to take them. Nothing that any CLer suggested when I asked is what ended up working for us though. I respected it wasnt because there was no solution, but because THEY didnt know the solution for MY family. I did though, once I commited to finding it, I did.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Yes, parent is more willing to bend, I agree. Because we are more able to bend, we are able to trust our needs will still be met. as our children get older, they become more and more willing to bend. more and more trusting their needs will be met. It evolves this way naturally, you don't need to "teach" them to bend. They learn to bend by watching us bend. We aren't breaking. We are still happy - our needs are met and so it our childs. We maybe had to bend to get there, but we did not have to sacrafice our happiness. Our children learn to do the same as they get older, and as adults, sometimes they bend, sometimes we bend, but everyone gets their needs met and everyone is happy. Just like as babies we feed them, as children we prepare themselves and they feed themselves, and as adults they prepare their own meals and feed themselves. We do not have to force them to learn these things. It just happens, they learn from watching us.


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
Here are a few questions that I have:

How can one come to a CL solution in the following situations:

1. CP child needs painful physical theapy to avoid even more painful surgery later in life. Child is a toddler.

I would work with the Therapist to see if we can come up with a less painful option.

2. Preschool child has "lazy eye". Needs to wear an eyepatch to avoid eye surgery. Refuses to wear patch.

Well, this would be an issue whether you are CL or not. When children do not want to wear things, good luck making them, lol. I would look into effectiveness of eye patch, alternatives to eyes patch, funky cool designed eye-patches - whatever works.

3. 4yo has already had heat exhaustion and to avoid future heat exhaustion and possible heat stroke, needs to wear a hat outdoors in 100 degree heat with 0 humidity and stay indoors during the middle of the day. Child is very strong willed.

I would find stuff to do inside or in the shade (or in a body of water) if heat exhaustion was an issue. I am fairly certain I can distract a 4 year old out of wanting to go outside in 100 degree heat

4. 5 yo has been diagnosed with asthma and needs to be put on a nebulizer. Child hates it.

Is there an alternative? Is there a way to cut down on asthma attacks?

A lot of this thread has been on ways to find consensus among family members.

I think this is only a part of CL, however. CL is about acknowledging everyones needs - including those of the parent.

Yes, DC does not want to use nebuliser, but my need to keep a 4 year old alive outweighs his dislike of nebulisers. My need outweighs your want, yk?

I do think CL asks us to examine alternatives to see if there is a way to meet everyones desires - but if you can't ( and can't is a very strong word - I do beleive there are solutions in most cases) - priorities do exist and safety needs outweigh wants.

Kathy


----------



## writteninkursive

It kind of saddens me to see that people choose "make decisions for children" as opposed to letting them have a say. That's the style my parents chose to raise me in and it was hell. I never had any choice and I grew up, moved away on my 18th birthday, and didn't know the first thing about making decisions for myself! I made some whoppers in the first couple years on my own! I felt so powerful, being able to finally control myself, and went a little crazy with it. I've now leveled out and am raising my own children, but boy - you better believe they will be a part of their raising! They are my candles to be lit!! My responsibility as their mom is to make sure they are capable and confident to make their own decisions and can thrive in the world outside of the protection of me and their dad's wings.
Please... let your kids have a say.


----------



## WuWei

*Kaiti*, I had a similar upbringing. Although, our parents had an "independence agenda", and I moved out at 18 also. The "my roof, my rules" pinched, shall we say. However, I have found that it is more challenging emotionally to release "control" as our children are in their 3,4,5,6,7,8 year old range, than when they are in arms. Kids have a way of pushing our own "I want it my way" buttons, especially if we were brought up in a controlling environment ourselves, ime.

I believe that posters are on a continuum related to the amount of "control" exerted over their children. And many/most agree that they too are concerned with "My responsibility as their mom is to make sure they are capable and confident to make their own decisions and can thrive in the world outside of the protection of me and their dad's wings". Doesn't mean children don't "have a say". There is a huge space between "no say" and consensual.

*sewchris2642*, I agree that folks on message boards like to create/embrace labels and "rules" for others to follow, lol. Our culture certainly utilizes this dynamic.

I believe you'll find more families experienced at finding consensual solutions on the CL yahoogroup. There are 900 families who've btdt with consensual problem solving. According to the poll above, there have been about 40 families respond, on MDC who consider themselves "_Consensual family; decisions round table, children are self determining; few or no rules."_ I imagine they aren't reading all the posts in this thread. I certainly haven't.







We've discussed specific health related challenges on the CL yahoogroup and members are glad to help brainstorm and troubleshoot possibilities. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consensual-living/

*Calm*, I believe that our culture *distracts* people from their inner voice, *by* embracing "rules" and external judgment. I trust ds to follow his own compass. HE trusts himself to follow his own compass. IMO, it doesn't help a mama _to hear her own inner voice_, when told a check list of rules to "do xyz, follow steps 1, 2, 3...". I believe the same for children. I believe only the individual can prioritize their own wants/needs/desires. I can't do that "for" another.

Pat


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Calm, I believe that our culture *distracts* people from their inner voice, by embracing "rules" and external judgment.
I agree completely.

Quote:

I trust ds to follow his own compass.
What age was he when you first started doing this? I can't remember when you said that was, but I know it was something you came to embrace, it wasn't there for you when he was very little. Have you ever imposed this rationale with a younger age than when you started with your son? Do you remember your son running headlong into things that suggested he needs _your_ guidance?

Quote:

I believe only the individual can prioritize their own wants/needs/desires. I can't do that "for" another
How can this be true, Pat, when you yourself state that we look at underlying needs and wants in any apparent surface behaviour or desires? This is exactly attempting to _*prioritize for another*_.

If our children are prioritizing their own w/n/d effectively, then why do we even need the statement "look for underlying n/w/d"? If you can't do that "for" another, then why do you attempt to with your son? Why don't you trust his desire is perfect, why do you search deeper than that? What makes you think you know better than him what he needs or wants? Could it be that sometimes we just don't like their choice (to lick a toilet/run onto the road/not take essential medicine)?


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Here are a few questions that I have:

How can one come to a CL solution in the following situations:

1. CP child needs painful physical theapy to avoid even more painful surgery later in life. Child is a toddler.

2. Preschool child has "lazy eye". Needs to wear an eyepatch to avoid eye surgery. Refuses to wear patch.

3. 4yo has already had heat exhaustion and to avoid future heat exhaustion and possible heat stroke, needs to wear a hat outdoors in 100 degree heat with 0 humidity and stay indoors during the middle of the day. Child is very strong willed.

4. 5 yo has been diagnosed with asthma and needs to be put on a nebulizer. Child hates it.
Two adults often find consensual agreement without coercion because one or both just bend a little. With a child, however, (esp with younger ones) due to the immaturity of empathy and so on, when they want something, they usually do not bend without some form of persuasion. If your appeals of persuasion aren't working, you then have to move into more coercive persuasion. So before you can even start negotiations you have to first acknowledge that you are about to start coercing them into your way of thinking, and into what you want - even if that is just to meet you half way.

For instance, your examples all contain the element I used in my examples: futility. There is no doubt a better word for it but let's not get caught up in semantics again. The _futile_ example is always the sticky point in CL.

That is, the child MUST do something, and that alone is against the fabric of consensus or consensual living. "Must" is a dirty word, unless of course we _accept_ we must do it, even though we will be disappointed (_*still*_ unsure as to if disappointment is against the CL ideal or not; I'm not sure if it is considered something that can always be avoided, as the word "always" is a favourite in CL - ie can "always" find a consensual solution, can "always" get wants met, "always" be self-determining regardless of age).

So our best bet is to try to "bring" the child to a place of at least accepting what it is they must do. _Bring_ being one of those words where the action used to "bring" them can be anywhere from persuasion to force and all in between.

Why CL seems to get baffling is this area you bring up. It isn't easily addressed, or it would have been by now. Because CL (even though apparently it has no guidelines) says that there are always options, the very fact that we _must_ do something is evidence that there aren't always options. We do not have the option to not wear the patch/do the therapy/use the neb/avoid the heat, we must do those things.

As adults, this isn't the case. Suddenly as adults, we have a choice to not do those things. I know I wouldn't have to do any of those things you listed if I don't want to. But the mere fact that they are children renders them powerless and option-less and they MUST do it, by _authority_ if they are too young to do it by _understanding_.

So as the parent, we can avoid authority and attempt to _persuade_ them, esp as CL parents we do not want to employ authority. So we try to make things fun, we try to give options on _*how*_ to do what must be done, we try to tweak what must be done to make it less affronting... but when push comes to shove (and apparently, most CL parents don't ever get to this point, hence why they don't understand our questions) we MUST make them do what they MUST do. Unless we consider damaging or losing our children an option. I don't, but I can understand some would and that's ok.

Ultimately, if they just won't do what they must with persuasion and all the best explanations and fun at best we then employ coercion, which is the easiest to disguise as consensual. And then, failing coercion, we pull rank.

We then be the parent who has made a decision and is no longer dressing it up as though the child has the choice to pull out.

My advice would be much the same as anyone else would give you for how to get the child to do those things consensually. And all going well, it works out like that. But if you have a child anything like my daughter, it ain't gonna be that way. And there is no _underlying_ need or want to address, they just want to avoid discomfort or pain.

My daughter didn't want the oxygen mask in hospital. I tried everything, I even tried coercion but she knew what she wanted, and it wasn't that mask! I was then faced with the harsh reality that I hope other CLers never have to face - I'd run out of consensual options that kept that mask on. Except for one last consensual option. To let her take it off and find a way within myself to live with that decision. So I did.

But when a mama must give her child an insulin injection and the child is kicking and freaking out and there is no way this child is going to budge (because she never does, and she doesn't understand that her blood sugar is destroying her organs because it has few symptoms) I guess this is one of those times where we pull out child out of the way of an oncoming bus. We just force the injection on her.

Or do we? If the child will not meet us half way (and really, what is that... "I'll just put the needle in half way"?), no bribe/promise/distraction or any amount of persuasion or even outright coercion is going to get that needle in consensually... is there a consensual option here? Is the option to allow her to go _without_ the needle a valid option, as it is the only option left for some mamas until they pull rank and force.

And that a mama has this power means there is a hierarchy, no matter how much we deny we have one. They look to us, we don't look to them.


----------



## sewchris2642

You are right. Those situations are all related to the child's health. I hadn't thought of that aspect of my examples. But these were all real life examples. I had the CP child in my preschool/Kindergarten class at church. By the time I had her in class, she was old enough to understand (but still didn't like them) the reasons for the exercises. The eyepatch child was also in my church class. A mutual solution was used in her case. The strong willed child was my Erica. And no amount of seeking for a CL solution was ever going to work for her. Her world was all "my way or the highway". What she needed (not what she herself wanted however) was an almost rigid set of rules. And the ashmatic child was in my Dylan's dc. The dc provider followed his parent's decision and not his wishes.

Part of what I'm getting at is that no one child raising philosophy is going to work for all families, all children, all the time. And that is what I'm reading--that if parents would only follow CL, everything will turn out fine.


----------



## sunnmama

We dealt with the eyepatch issue. Not sure how you come to a consensus with a 10 mo (the age she began patching) about wearing an uncomfortable eye patch. Sure, we worked really hard at distracting her, but we also had to communicate, as she grew, that she *must* wear the patch. That was the starting point of negotiations, and from there we brainstormed (with dd, as she was able) ways to make it more tolerable.

I think the *must* conversation is an interesting one. I've often wondered if cl parents are ok with communicating "must" and "must not".


----------



## sewchris2642

To some extent I agree that parents bend more often than their children. But when the solutions to not wanting to be in a carseat/wear a seat belt amount to the parents providing a song and dance for the child, I draw the line. The carseat/seat belt, in my view, is just another way of protecting my child's health. When evacuation on a second's notice is very real, I must be able to rely on my child's climbing into the car without any negociating or playing around first.

The same goes for the playing in the street example. The young child is not capable of understanding that a car might come and not see him playing in the street. The end result is very often a dead child. Teaching the child to not play in the street keeps him safe until he becomes capable of knowing when it's safe and when it's not safe to play in the street, what streets are safe to play in, and is capable of stopping his fun to get out of the street.

I also don't agree that children will naturally or automaticly bend because of the example of the parent's bending. Perphaps that's because I raised a child that took it for granted that of course everyone bent to her will. That was the natural order of the universe. I saw my job as one of preparing Erica to live in the real world, not the one that she would have liked to live in.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writteninkursive* 
It kind of saddens me to see that people choose "make decisions for children" as opposed to letting them have a say. That's the style my parents chose to raise me in and it was hell. I never had any choice and I grew up, moved away on my 18th birthday, and didn't know the first thing about making decisions for myself! I made some whoppers in the first couple years on my own! I felt so powerful, being able to finally control myself, and went a little crazy with it. I've now leveled out and am raising my own children, but boy - you better believe they will be a part of their raising! They are my candles to be lit!! My responsibility as their mom is to make sure they are capable and confident to make their own decisions and can thrive in the world outside of the protection of me and their dad's wings.
Please... let your kids have a say.

That could very well be why I'm questioning the way that CL works in real life with real people in real situations. My childhood was one in which I gradually and increasing had say over myself. So that when I became an adult, I already had practice in being an adult. And I raised my girls (and now my son) the same way. A large part of Erica's childhood was spent in teaching her how to control herself and in giving her the tools that allowed her to do so.

Also in the poll, the word "child" was not defined. What age of child is meant? Childhood, here in the USA goes from newborn all the way up to age 18. There is a very big difference between parenting a newborn and parenting a teen. A newborn is not a toddler, who is not a school age child, who is not a teen. And they all require different parenting from the parents. Something that all parents learn as soon as they have a second child. Ant what work with the first child very often doesn't work with the second.


----------



## WuWei

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I agree completely.

What age was he when you first started doing this? I can't remember when you said that was, but I know it was something you came to embrace, it wasn't there for you when he was very little. Have you ever imposed this rationale with a younger age than when you started with your son? Do you remember your son running headlong into things that suggested he needs _your_ guidance?

I first read the Continuum Concept when ds was about 6 months old, before that we just nursed and slept on demand. I'd read Dr. Sear's "The Baby Book" which suggested listening to baby's cues, a foreign idea based upon my upbringing. TCC opened my eyes to *observe* ds learning (to grasp, to laugh, to crawl, to sit, to reach, to use sign language to communicate desires, etc.) without direction. I trusted what my own eyes observed, rather than what I was taught about children. I also remember my own self-awareness as a child, which was not validated, generally.

Also guidance and imposing one's decision for another are different. Did you miss the post about the engaged Trusted Adviser dynamic that ds and I enjoy?

Quote:


How can this be true, Pat, when you yourself state that we look at underlying needs and wants in any apparent surface behaviour or desires? This is exactly attempting to _*prioritize for another*_.

If our children are prioritizing their own w/n/d effectively, then why do we even need the statement "look for underlying n/w/d"? If you can't do that "for" another, then why do you attempt to with your son? Why don't you trust his desire is perfect, why do you search deeper than that? What makes you think you know better than him what he needs or wants? Could it be that sometimes we just don't like their choice (to lick a toilet/run onto the road/not take essential medicine)?
*Seeking* an underlying need/understanding of *their* priorities can be done with adults, it isn't specific to children. Inquiry isn't the same as "prioritizing for another". The process of self-reflection is not "done to" him; I am learning, _not choosing_ what is important for him. Do you not see a difference?

*Offering* an alternative is different than imposing one, of course. I LISTEN and stop if ds dissents, perhaps that isn't obvious?

Pat


----------



## WuWei

I've learned and believe that there are no "must" and "must not", especially as directed by mainstream medical professionals.

Pat


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I've learned and believe that there are no "must" and "must not", especially as directed by mainstream medical professionals.

Pat


I can accept this in theory. But realistically speaking, how much can a parent be expected to understand about the implications of refusing a medical treatment recommended by a provider they have decided to trust? I seek professionals because I do not have their knowledge and experience, yk? That applies to both mainstream and alternative providers.

Alternatively, the "must" may just be leadership of the parents. There may not be a theoretical, medical "must", but the parents may have decided that this is the best treatment for their young dc. Isn't our responsibility as parents to make those decisions, esp for our very young dc? And, ime, giving dd a "must" or a "must not" is very helpful for her. Those are the boundaries that she desperately needs spelled out clearly, or else she gets very anxious and oppositional. The boundaries are specific, though, and there is a lot of room for her to make decisions within and around them.

And continuing with the reality idea.....in theory there are infinite possibilities, but who has the time to uncover them in all situations?


----------



## sunnmama

Is "must" "must not" another thread? I have a lot of thoughts about that, actually, but I don't know if it is too OT.


----------



## gsd1amommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I've learned and believe that there are no "must" and "must not", especially as directed by mainstream medical professionals.

Pat

Because your child does not deal with a life-threatening medical issue that can't be cured by the woo woo of homeopathics that he is free to take or not.


----------



## ernalala

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Yes, parent is more willing to bend, I agree. Because we are more able to bend, we are able to trust our needs will still be met. as our children get older, they become more and more willing to bend. more and more trusting their needs will be met. It evolves this way naturally, you don't need to "teach" them to bend. They learn to bend by watching us bend. We aren't breaking. We are still happy - our needs are met and so it our childs. We maybe had to bend to get there, but we did not have to sacrafice our happiness. Our children learn to do the same as they get older, and as adults, sometimes they bend, sometimes we bend, but everyone gets their needs met and everyone is happy. Just like as babies we feed them, as children we prepare themselves and they feed themselves, and as adults they prepare their own meals and feed themselves. We do not have to force them to learn these things. It just happens, they learn from watching us.

Ok, I agree that they learn A LOT from example, from their parents or others bending for them and learning to do so more by themselves in the future







. I experienced this to some degree in my 5 AND 3y old already. But I do not see any harm in standing up for my own rights and needs as an individual (not parent) too, in the co-living relationship with my children, when I feel I have been bending too much or am expected to bend all/most of the time and am close to a temporary (or longer lasting) burn-out. Then I feel I can say: 'Stop! Right here. Right now!' in the sense of: I do my ever very best to listen to you, now please listen to me/my needs too'. I basically step in and expect my child to 'learn' from what say in this moment. This doesn't resonate much yet with my ('quite a character') 3y old, but my 5y old starts to get this more and more. I may model by bending or finding mutual agreeable solutions. But I can't expect my child to just SENSE when I'm personally exhausted, sad, fed up or any of these things that may strongly affect and direct my own desires and needs. And surely they won't ask ME yet (lacking the full capability to empathy or not caring much anyway because too evolved around their own experiences . Yesterday, for example, this happened and my ds wanted me to listen to him but hardly gave me a chance to have my say. I have been repeating my need for him to really listen to me until he was there and would, really, listen (not just hearing). I needed to tell him then and there that me too I needed certain things and that I would appreciate if he would try to understand my viewpoint. I was relieved it turned into some kind of a conversation between the two of us, as individuals, rather than a mere monologue from 'mom' not being listened too.

I think, apart from modelling as much as you can do, imo and ime there is no harm (to the contrary) in explaing your personal needs and limits to bend. Therefore I may feel the need now and then to say 'no!' to sth, what doesn't exclude working together on finding a mutual agreeable solution.

--------------

As for the eye-patch example, I had this condition but have not been wearing eyepatches, but I did wear glasses from 6-17y old. My eyes are fine. Tbh, I was pretty excited about choosing the glasses. I have hated wearing glasses most of tghe time but was explained (and at that age understood, to some extent) the NEED for me to wear those. I have had occasions, or even months of going to school wearing glasses, taking them of on the way, or for several hours/day (especially during my teens). At 17 I just dreaded to have to go to the oncologist because I thought she'd say I needed to wear stronger glasses! To my surprise she said that my eye was fine (better) and I could skip glasses all together. Yahoo.
Is there a way of having a child wear the patch part of the time, or is it really nescesary to wear it all day long? Maybe if a child has the chance of looking forward to a patch-free part of the day (eg 1-2 hours after school?), it would be more willing to wear the patch for the rest of the day, of course first in discussion with the treating oncologist, but it could be a way to deal with the issue?

-----
The oxygen mask. Ds1 had to have it only once when 8 months. I was breastfeeding him (the actual one thing that stopped him hyperventilating from the moment he started doing so) when the ER doctor came in. She thought it impossible to put him on the aerosol because he was now nursing (she seemed upset because she thaught she couldn't treat RİGHT NOW! lol but my baby was just fine in that moment). I easily latched him of (and he would hyperventilate as soon as bf resumed!) and we put him on the aerosol. He was not at all comfortable. I could imagine. First hyperventilating to the extent we got to the ER (NOT using car seat, emergency!!!) and the ER dr said that it would be easy if he would have a pacifier, I said we had not used any pacifiers at all so my baby didn't even know what to do with it, she actually had this accusing look that it was our fault for not using pacifiers and that therefore my baby would not comply to aerosol. What worked eventually, was putting him on and of the aerosol mask for short periods with short intervals. And having one more bf session inbetween.

Ds didn't want to take oral meds. We actually resorted to strong coercion to have him take it. ll to nu use but having him extremely upset and dreading all oral meds and this parental coercion. I refused to coerce more. Dh too. Last resoprt would be shots how we dreaded this all). Us parents were scared for DS not taking abs. He was fine in the end, without. Either it wasn't a true bacterial infection as the dr. was convinced or made us believe, or the tiny bit of abs he got in the first attempts had worked, or he just had had the ability to heal by himself. I am not defending letting a child not taking life saving meds!! That would have been really freaking us parents out more and yes, in some cases we might have no other option than strong coercion







. Just our experience with sth we thought at that time was life saving and not taking would make it an ER-hospitalisation situation and possible life threath.
Happy to say that, by modelling, he has learned to take oral meds (to some extent, he still wouldnt take all), well one day he may and the other day can still refuse. We try to avoid meds, especially the oral ones for his sake, we inquire at the dr.'s office if meds are abslutely needed or only a 'must' in the sense of better to take but no serious harm when not taken) explaining our sons experience with (oral) meds, and seeking for alternatives. Also if rewarding would work for this particular, we would definitely do it, even if it generally doesn't fit in our overall parenting philosophy.

----

Car seat has been an issue here, sometimes on having to go, sometimes mid-drive. We have been finding creative or time-consuming ways to 'keep' my son strapped without him wanting to get out again/getting out while freaking out. We usually park next to the road asap when it happens, until then I keep him strapped for the safety of ALL OF US in the car. Last weekend we just couldn't find one to get him strapped in the car ( he did not want to leave). It was a very short drive (2 min). And this time we had him in his seat against his will, too. It was abolutely horrible. He was upset long after. And so not worth it. I saw at least one better solution afterwards even if I would've been late to do what I had to do (and where 7 other ppl were depending on me)! So never again. That's what we're striving for. By making mistakes (preferably not though), or wanting to do differently/better learning, finding ways to do it MUCH better in the future, and for the next occasion when a similar issue may come up.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I agree erna


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I also don't agree that children will naturally or automaticly bend because of the example of the parent's bending.
I think that modeling does work, but it can take years. For instance, manners. We model please and thank you but it can take years before the child understands the complexity of such social things and does it himself. So with modeling, it isn't a technique for the here and now and never was intended to be. So I agree. And here we are, with years ahead of us of modeling drinking water/taking medication or whatever it might be and the issue we are faced with remains. Modeling is A tool, it isn't THE tool. Although, personally I think it is the best tool, it's just not very useful for here and now.

Quote:

*Seeking* an underlying need/understanding of *their* priorities can be done with adults, it isn't specific to children. Inquiry isn't the same as "prioritizing for another". The process of self-reflection is not "done to" him; I am learning, not choosing what is important for him. Do you not see a difference?
I see a difference. However, a parent seeks for a reason. For example, the playing on the road example, and the toilet example. Most CLers responded by suggesting it was a surface expression of a deeper need - so I could supply that underlying need. So it isn't just sought for information purposes, it is sought so we can move them from an undesired behaviour into one we can accept.

It was suggested that perhaps DS wanted something cold and hard to mouth, so I could redirect him away from the toilet and offer him something cold and hard. It was suggested that a child wanted a thrill, so we could direct her away from the highway and into something safer that "meets the underlying need". Hence, we aren't trusting that what the child has chosen is perfect, we are assuming, arrogantly at times I suggest, that they actually have an underlying need that could be addressed.

And therefore I do see this as choosing what is important for him. If you simply inquired about the underlying need of a child insisting on playing on the highway and assumed he was seeking a thrill but _*still let him play on the highway*_ - then yes, you are not choosing what is important for him. And I get the sensation that you are going to respond that your son would never consider playing on the highway but if he ever did, you would trust his judgment and allow it. I think CLers would benefit from hearing you say things like that, so they know the ultimate ideal, and can adapt accordingly. You have said there is no must and must not, which is something people need to consider also.

It is indeed a lot of trust you place in life and your son. I can only envy that. The pinnacle of trust, because if it ever involved life and death, theoretically you would let your son choose. You said you'd push him out of the way of the bus, but that was a convenient hypothetical. I have more inconvenient ones, such as would you let him play on the highway and I actually believe that theoretically, you would say yes; that if the only consensual option that remained was to allow it, then you would not impose your will. To be honest, I cannot fault this, as you do fit consensual living, there is no room for argument in your way of living it. As long as you want for him what he wants for him, then all wants are met and you both have a mutual agreement, even if it is the highway. Your CL is tight. You allow self determination regardless of age and personal harm. There are various degrees of consensual living and most people, I would suspect, would opt out at the point where health or life was at stake. If they hadn't much earlier than that.


----------



## Calm

How do you deal with a situation where one person has dug their heels in? It is an hourly occurrence in life with a toddler and certainly crops up occasionally with other ages. If your son refuses an insulin injection no matter what you suggest, how do you get _your_ desire met (which is for him to be healthy)? If all wants can be met, in situations such as this one how can more than one person meet their want? Do you just change what you want, or keep trying to persuade him to?

There are various degrees, and leaving off an oxygen mask is one thing, but not giving an insulin injection is another. How much self determination can a mother allow before her protective instincts kick up so fierce that she cannot help herself but to force... which begs the question, could we view that force _*not*_ as force, but instead as _*power used wisely*_? Power vs Force is a great book I recommend which goes into the subject in great detail.

Quote:

Is "must" "must not" another thread? I have a lot of thoughts about that, actually, but I don't know if it is too OT.
No, it's totally on topic. Go for it!


----------



## Calm

I often used to find myself asking "would I do this for/to my husband/friend?". If I wouldn't do it to them, then why do I think it's ok to do to a child?

I think this kind of questioning helps when it comes to things like time out, or tantrums or most of life really. If it is disrespectful or downright not ok to do to an adult, then my kid doesn't suffer through it. However, I also have to keep in mind that she isn't an adult, plus she is entrusted to me by the universe. She picked me, or I was picked for her in some way to look out for her, to care for her, guide her. I do not own her, but I _am_ her matrix.

So there are situations in life where that line of questioning is not valid nor helpful. "Would I stop my friend playing on the highway?" is a useless question because mostly the answer would be "no, I'd let them because they're old enough and ugly enough to know what they're doing." But they are not in my care, and they are not children. I would also prevent a stranger's child from playing on a highway, truth be told. It's my duty of care, and I guess I do not see some things as an imposition of my will so much as _neglect_ if I DIDN'T do it.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ernalala* 

----

Car seat has been an issue here, sometimes on having to go, sometimes mid-drive. We have been finding creative or time-consuming ways to 'keep' my son strapped without him wanting to get out again/getting out while freaking out. We usually park next to the road asap when it happens, until then I keep him strapped for the safety of ALL OF US in the car. Last weekend we just couldn't find one to get him strapped in the car ( he did not want to leave). It was a very short drive (2 min). And this time we had him in his seat against his will, too. It was abolutely horrible. He was upset long after. And so not worth it. I saw at least one better solution afterwards even if I would've been late to do what I had to do (and where 7 other ppl were depending on me)! So never again. That's what we're striving for. By making mistakes (preferably not though), or wanting to do differently/better learning, finding ways to do it MUCH better in the future, and for the next occasion when a similar issue may come up.

But see that is exactly what I'm talking about. By trying to come to a CL solution every time the child needs to be in the car seat/seat belt (or whatever), you have set the child up with the expectation that the song and dance will happen each and every time. Society, in general, has already "solved" the car seat/seat belt problem. We collectively have decided that young children will sit in car seats and everyone else will use seat belts. That is non negotiable, unless, of course, one likes to pay the fine and/or play Russian roulette with people's lives.

Erica screamed each and every time she was in the car seat from the time she came home from the hospital the day after she was born. Since this was in 1980, there were no car seat laws for infants so no legal reason why she had to be in a car seat. However, as her parents, we made the decision for her to not to play Russian roulette with her life. The infant death from car accidents statistics were way to high for us to decide otherwise. We did keep her car trips to a minimum but since we live in San Diego, some car trips were unavoidable. Especially since we also place a high priority on extended family. Things got better when we were able to turn her around in her car seat. It was much later that she was able to articulate that she suffered (still does at age 28) from motion sickness and that was why she was so upset in the car.

Say the child has been raised exclusively CL. Now at age 5, he has the experience of negotiating everything. What is going to happen when he enters school? Where the expectations are the opposite of what he has come to expect? The school will not negotiate or come to any mutually satisfactory solution. They will enforce the school rules in the class room and on the playground without taking the child's wishes into consideration. Neither will the coach or club leader that the child will encounter if he plays sports or joins any extracurricular activity such as scouts or band.


----------



## WuWei

Ummm...we live in the real world and ds hasn't been running into a busy highway. Ever since he was 18 months, maybe younger, we'd talk about cars being bigger than us. As another poster mentioned, the child can *observe* the speed of cars. Our son loves to run, we find places where he can run and when there are cars coming he jumps onto the grass.









We've run in the street for years. He wants to do a triathalon. We are always willing to be with him so that we can see and talk about cars coming. There hasn't been an issue.

Ds had surgery at age almost 5. General anesthesia. He understood the options. We'd have postponed or found an alternative, if he we not agreeable. We worked to understand the aspects which might be an issue. For insulin, I imagine that being stuck would be the potential obstacle. There are mutliple different numbing creams or alternatives to make the injection painless. There are practicing opportunities. Normal saline could be used for child to inject parent, for play practice. Many alternatives, depending upon the concern.

Trying to think if we've ever "played on a highway"... I suspect we'd agree and find a time when it were safe to do so.









Also, we have classes, clubs, sports, etc. We stand in line and go out in public.







We ride public transportation, have flown across the country, stood in the enormous lines at Disney, spent 12 hours at NASA waiting for a Shuttle launch, been to libraries, stores, offices, hospitals, museums, airports, and banks with "rules". In those situations, where there are rules, we either choose to participate or not.

Rules at school are compulsory. School is optional, however.

Ds always is secure in the carseat when driving. We've stopped to address any concerns when he wanted out. He has not been made to ride in the car when he doesn't want to go. He loves to buckle the seatbelt.

Justifying my choice over another's for *their* body, is a slippery slope, regardless of the "rationale". Our culture certainly embraces "might makes right". I trust that we each have the autonomy to choose for our Self.

Oh, and regarding competency of informed consent. As a nurse, I've observed plenty of patients who have minimal to limited capacity to comprehend the severity of the decision making involved. I've observed "informed consent" from folks with less understanding than most children could manage. And similarly, people are able to refuse, against medical advice. We haven't had an issue and we have engaged medical procedures on occasion. On the CL yahoogroup, there have been discussions related to specific health care concerns.

I've learned and believe that there are no "must" and "must not", especially as directed by mainstream medical professionals.

Pat


----------



## journeymom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I didn't change much other than things like, to continue with the car example, tell her that I am the adult, and I get the front seat, no discussion, no argument, get in freakin' line lassie. *I earned these damned stripes, I sat in the backseat my whole childhood while my mother, and rightly bleedin' so, sat in queen's position up front with dad.* I never questioned it, I never resented it, nothing. It was a respect thing, or something I can't quite find the word for.

*I can have sex, I can drive, I can drink, I can do many things she cannot simply because I have earned both society's seal of approval to, and my own personal stripes.* Some things, I have realised, are earned and granted only at maturity. That is what makes maturity so special, our milestones. Like the ceremony when a girl first gets her period and everyone comes over wearing red and welcomes her into womanhood.

So I'm starting to lose favour with consensual living, not in totality, I have just put it in a new place in our life. I always discuss with my daughter and she has more choices and freedom than any other child I've ever met. But sitting in the back seat of the car I had an enlightenment moment, not of resentment for a better seat, but for my earned place in the hierarchy - *it was symbolic, and life is nothing if it isn't rife with symbolism.* It spoke volumes about why we were having so many struggles she and I. It seems, in my family at least, that there are now things in which there is little choice. I will listen and I will help her understand a particular decision, but I probably won't budge. And I'm now ok with that, and oddly, she didn't seem as put out as I thought she would be. It was almost like she felt... _relief_.

Thoughts?

Thank goodness you came to this conclusion, for the sake of your daughter's safety, not for any hierarchical, anthropological or symbolic reasons. The reason parents are sometimes in a place of authority 'over' their kids is because they are adults and have more sense than children. That human society, in all its wonderful complexity, has created a whole hierarchical, sometimes patriarchal system that affects all aspects of society, not just the parent/child relationship, is absolutely fascinating and worthy of a lifetime of study.

Thinking of it in terms of having earned stripes or earned a place in the throne of driver's seat is a nice, symbolic way of thinking about it. But the practicality at the center of this situation is that adults _must_ tell children what to do sometimes, are _morally obligated_ to keep their small children from getting themselves killed by 'choosing' to sit in the front seat of the car.

I'm thankful for the community of MDC that supports my efforts to treat my children with respect and let them make as many decisions for themselves as they are developmentally capable of. I don't get a lot of support for that elsewhere. But really, I dispensed with the parenting books a few years ago. Keeping my kids from doing stupid things is a very loving thing to do, even if it means I'm relating from a position of authority. I'm not cruel about it, I'm respectful. And believe me, there isn't an ounce of patriarchy in this house.

============

Edited to say, good heavens, there are 27 pages!

If you can safely have sex, drink alcohol, drive a car, it's because you are developmentally able to. It's because your brain developed enough for you to make good decisions. NOT because you turned 17/18 y.o. and Society said it's OK now. Earning society's seal of approval is based upon developmental milestones, not hierarchy.


----------



## kalimay

"We've run in the street for years. He wants to do a triathalon. We are always willing to be with him so that we can see and talk about cars coming. There hasn't been an issue."

I am glad this works for your family. I think what some of us are saying is that we are not able to be with our child, maybe we have another child who wants to do something else or we have to go to work, so running in the street is not always an option even if that is what our child wants to do in the moment.

"Ds had surgery at age almost 5. General anesthesia. He understood the options. We'd have postponed or found an alternative, if he we not agreeable. We worked to understand the aspects which might be an issue. For insulin, I imagine that being stuck would be the potential obstacle. There are mutliple different numbing creams or alternatives to make the injection painless. There are practicing opportunities. Normal saline could be used for child to inject parent, for play practice. Many alternatives, depending upon the concern."

From what I have read about CL and children being self-determining I have to wonder about this example. In your role as his "trusted adviser" how much influence do you feel you had over his decision to go ahead with the surgery? I know I could talk my 6 year old into having a surgery that I felt was necessary and I could make her believe it was her decision but in reality I would be the one who manipulated her because I don't feel that at 5 or 6 she would be competent in researching a medical decision on her own and my views and research would really be the deciding factor because that is the information I would present her with.
So she would "consent" to the surgery but to me she is consenting because of my influence and it would not be a "self determining" decision. Did that make any sense?


----------



## mamazee

I agree that there isn't always a consensual option, and that IMO wishful thinking is what bugs me about the CL thing. But I do think in 95% or more situations there is a consensual option. We have a medical situation here where we were able to find a consensual situation - dd is able to wash down some foul tasting medicine with soda - something we don't usually keep in the house and she doesn't generally like that much but does find to be helpful in this circumstance.

I don't focus on those few circumstances where we aren't able to find an agreement. And we do always look - and even in those few circumstances where we can't find consensus, we find the least objectionable solution. But I don't see why the fact that the whole world isn't within our control is such a bad thing. We can't control the weather. We can't always control our health, or time issues. I think learning the concept of "futility" is an important part of childhood. We can wish something were different, but I think of the saying about changing what we can, accepting what we can't, and having the wisdom to know the difference.


----------



## WuWei

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kalimay* 
I am glad this works for your family. I think what some of us are saying is that we are not able to be with our child, maybe we have another child who wants to do something else or we have to go to work, so running in the street is not always an option even if that is what our child wants to do in the moment.

From what I have read about CL and children being self-determining I have to wonder about this example. In your role as his "trusted adviser" how much influence do you feel you had over his decision to go ahead with the surgery? I know I could talk my 6 year old into having a surgery that I felt was necessary and I could make her believe it was her decision but in reality I would be the one who manipulated her because I don't feel that at 5 or 6 she would be competent in researching a medical decision on her own and my views and research would really be the deciding factor because that is the information I would present her with.
So she would "consent" to the surgery but to me she is consenting because of my influence and it would not be a "self determining" decision. Did that make any sense?


Dh, my sister, my mom, some of my friends similarly rely on me for medical information. However they would be the one to consent, or dissent. Same with patients who rely on others to help them to understand medical alternatives. The information does influence them, based on their perceived concerns, priorities and values. We are providing this with my mom currently, who is less able to make decisions than she normally is, for various reasons. However, despite her limited or incomplete understanding, her autonomy has priority for her body. I would venture that we are unable to have "complete" information when making any choice.

What I hear is concern that the parent has influence.

Regarding running in the street, we just agree, "Ok, lets do that. How about when daddy gets home we set up an obstacle course, while he is standing in the middle of the street watching for cars and we can race?" No problem. Or, "No, I want to do it NOW!" is a possibility. But, that is rarely an issue, as there is no history of refusing or ignoring the desire, perhaps?

What I hear is concern that the parent doesn't have influence.

What I want to express, is that our son has final say over his body.

HTH,
Pat


----------



## gsd1amommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kalimay* 
From what I have read about CL and children being self-determining I have to wonder about this example. In your role as his "trusted adviser" how much influence do you feel you had over his decision to go ahead with the surgery? I know I could talk my 6 year old into having a surgery that I felt was necessary and I could make her believe it was her decision but in reality I would be the one who manipulated her because I don't feel that at 5 or 6 she would be competent in researching a medical decision on her own and my views and research would really be the deciding factor because that is the information I would present her with.
So she would "consent" to the surgery but to me she is consenting because of my influence and it would not be a "self determining" decision. Did that make any sense?

It makes absolute sense and is quite likely the way it goes in many "CL" situations.


----------



## ernalala

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
But see that is exactly what I'm talking about. By trying to come to a CL solution every time the child needs to be in the car seat/seat belt (or whatever), you have set the child up with the expectation that the song and dance will happen each and every time.

That's not at all what I've experienced here. He doesn't expect a 'sing and dance' or whatever each and every single time it's not the slightest about this (and anyway we do not sing and dance when he's upset, that may mean a scratch/kick in our face actualy - lol). He LOVES to go out by car, he loves to be in the car when his dad is driving, most of the time. The times that he HAS a problem with being (fixed) in the car, it is not actually about the car, the seat nor the belt but about something else he wants/needs or doesn't want, or need. He expresses this frustration by not wanting to get into the car, the seat, or being belted. If you would analyse his need, you would get that he doesn't care about the belt at all! The solutions we have applied were most often giving him TIME to un-upset, by either waiting until he was ready (not complying, but ready) to get in the car, or stopping at the side of the road to be able to unbuckle him and giving him the opportunity and space for his rant (believe me it's hard on us, but not sth you can ignore either . Such a major upset may have been caused by a specific thing (wanting a cake another child had in her hand, whatever we often havn't got a clue at first) but with my son his tantruming evolves so enormously fast and heavily that the raging within seconds isn't about the cake or anything else specific (because everything additional may make him more upset, and even mentioning a single word as cake may make him upset even more because it's 'obvious you do not undrstand me at all'!) but about letting his frustration out. Once it is all out, he and us can go on. It requires patience. And us parents had to work much more on our patience with ds2, he is very high needs ioe. An underlying REASON for this frustration buildup may be a need for calm, rest, sleep (but hey do not forget not to mention these words - another need of our ds2: 'don't dare to TELL me what you think I need! And it's not true anyway! (even if it probably is...)). The tantruming makes him more tired if he already was so, thus he may actually fall asleep for a 15 min nap for the rest of the ride when we got on the road again. However, the scenario is not always the same .
The last car/car-seat CL failure was due to our refusal to give him more time, and not acknowledging his need for predictability enough, and not being present enough in finding a fitting solution :-(. And I can tell you that the solution here wouldn't have been one of persuasion either, but of a totaly different kind (I would get where I needed to go in another way, and if I thought I wouldn't 'make it' I might call to say I'd be a little late - but still 'in time' to do what I had to do wihout anyone missing out on it and -most of all saving our ds and ourselves a long lasting and fierce meltdown).


----------



## kalimay

"Dh, my sister, my mom, some of my friends similarly rely on me for medical information. However they would be the one to consent, or dissent. Same with patients who rely on others to help them to understand medical alternatives. The information does influence them, based on their perceived concerns, priorities and values. We are providing this with my mom currently, who is less able to make decisions than she normally is, for various reasons. However, despite her limited or incomplete understanding, has priority for her body. I would venture that we are unable to have "complete" information when making any choice."

"What I hear is concern that the parent has influence."

My concern is not that the parent has influence. My point is that the parent has huge influence but the child is to believe they are making the decision. Would your child then feel responsible if something went wrong in the surgery? Would they blame themselves for making the wrong choice?
I am not sure manipulate is the word I am looking for but I think it is. I guess I don't see how you can say the child is self determining and at the same time recognize how huge our influence as parents is and use that influence to guide your child.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kalimay* 
"My concern is not that the parent has influence. My point is that the parent has huge influence but the child is to believe they are making the decision. Would your child then feel responsible if something went wrong in the surgery? Would they blame themselves for making the wrong choice? .

My dd (8) is having a surgery next month, and these were big concerns of mine. The surgery is not an emergency, and we could either do it now or opt to continue addressing the problem (her strabismus) in non-surgical ways.

We did seek dd's thoughts on the idea of surgery now, or waiting, as it is her body. But, because of what you've mentioned above, we told her that the ultimate decision is _ours_. Fortunately, she is on board with having the surgery (consensus!







), but we did not want her to feel it was her responsibility to decide.


----------



## WuWei

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kalimay* 

My concern is not that the parent has influence. My point is that the parent has huge influence but the child is to believe they are making the decision. Would your child then feel responsible if something went wrong in the surgery? Would they blame themselves for making the wrong choice?
I am not sure manipulate is the word I am looking for but I think it is. I guess I don't see how you can say the child is self determining and at the same time recognize how huge our influence as parents is and use that influence to guide your child.

If you've read many of my 8000 posts on MDC or elsewhere, you'll find that I don't believe or embrace the blame/fault matrix.







I'm not clear on how the parent deciding _for the child_ is more honoring of the child's autonomy? My personal philosophy is to honor the child's autonomy; I understand if one can't see/imagine/believe how the child could be self-determining, as you are not living in our home. But, he is. That is the experience of our dynamic.

My husband's influence on me is huge, also. The final say for my body is mine. It is that simple. I certainly wouldn't withhold information which I believed to be important for ds's health, nor selectively provide information which could impair his ability to make an informed consent/dissent for himself. I trust that he trusts that. I honor his trust as sacred.

Pat


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
If you've read many of my 8000 posts on MDC or elsewhere, you'll find that I don't believe or embrace the blame/fault matrix.







I'm not clear on how the parent deciding _for the child_ is more honoring of the child's autonomy? My personal philosophy is to honor the child's autonomy; I understand if one can't see/imagine/believe how the child could be self-determining, as you are not living in our home. But, he is. That is the experience of our dynamic.

My husband's influence on me is huge, also. The final say for my body is mine. It is that simple. I certainly wouldn't withhold information which I believed to be important for ds's health, nor selectively provide information which could impair his ability to make an informed consent/dissent for himself. I trust that he trusts that. I honor his trust as sacred.

Pat

There is so much here that I can not relate to, but I am curious about the information provided for consent. Is that information similar in content to that provided to the parent (who is legally responsible for granting consent)? If not, how do you decide what your young child needs to know before granting his consent?

Also, of course it would not _be_ the child's fault if surgery had a bad outcome. Similarly, it would not be my fault, or even necessarily the medical team's fault. But that doesn't mean the child, his or herself, wouldn't _feel_ fault or blame for the decision. The parent may be evolved beyond fault and blame, but is the child? (not trying to make this specifically about you and your son....talking about children in general here.)


----------



## WuWei

Here is a summary, as I've seen it unfold.

'Pat will not make her son do anything he doesn't want to do.'
'Pat will help her son to do anything he wants to do, including playing on a highway safely.'

'Pat could "manipulate" her child to have a surgery which she believes he needs, even if he doesn't want to have it. '

I acknowledge folks have those beliefs, although I don't agree with the third perspective. And I've never met a child who wanted to play on a busy highway.









What I find is, _Where I put my energy is what grows_. The intensity of energy spent on this thread could help anyone find solutions with their child, ime. We live together without the struggles others describe. That doesn't mean we don't have struggles, but we find solutions. And I don't feel the angst about honoring ds's autonomy that others post about. We are adept at problem solving, all of us are experienced and effective. And we use those skills in our community with everyone. CL works for us.

Pat


----------



## WuWei

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
There is so much here that I can not relate to, but I am curious about the information provided for consent. Is that information similar in content to that provided to the parent (who is legally responsible for granting consent)? If not, how do you decide what your young child needs to know before granting his consent?


The same simplistic explanation I provided for patients, pros, cons, risks, benefits, impact of procedure, impact post-procedure, impact of non-procedure, alternatives.

Pat


----------



## Just My Opinion

Well, I am no stranger to consensual living, I practiced it, to an often frustrating, unrealistic, stressful, and often resentful degree as I jumped through hoop after hoop of sacrificing my wants, needs, opinions, better judgment based on years of experience and life lessons and trips around the block, just to find a solution I was convincing myself was "mutually agreeable".

It wasn't, in fact, "mutually agreeable". It was a situation where I was eternally martyring myself in the purest sense of the word, to honor some ideology and dogma that, if practiced "correctly" would earn me the title of most caring, crunchy mother of the year.

So, what I do now, is act like a reasonable, sensible, rational human being who is committed to being gentle, but is not committed to reaching a consensus in every.cotton-swabbing.situation.that.crosses.my.parenting.path.

This means, in probably 95% of situations, an observer would probably label us a consensual family. We talk, reason, make collective decisions, honor impulses, meet needs, try to the best of our ability and comfort level to meet wants, don't shame, don't hit, blah blah blah and every other parenting principle that would make Peggy O'Mara proud.

However, there are certain situations where, when a three year old child is being incredibly short-sighted, unreasonable, rigid, and selfish (quite age and developmentally appropriate, and something in theory, I realize is a natural growing stage) -- where I just have to matter-of-factly pull the "mom" card for the sake of family harmony, my sanity, people in the grocery store's right to be in a scream-free environment -- you know, whatever the case.

I am not willing to make lunch a four hour long hostage negotiation, for example...until we come up with something my kid is happy with. Here are X,Y,Z thing we have that I know you like. THAT YOU ATE YESTERDAY (though I don't scream this, I am screaming it inside lol) -- if you don't want it, that's cool, but I am not going to go to the store and buy more food, cook four different things, endlessly discuss why it doesn't "feel" right to you vibrationally or whater.... here is what we have and there is yogurt in the fridge... ya know?

I am a great mama, I am so proud of my parenting journey. Consensual living is a good touchstone -- sort of a lighthouse in the dark of the direction I want to go if I am lost in a fog -- but I certainly don't think it is at all the perfect parenting principle.

I think in some ways, the principle can backfire. I felt before I abandoned the dogma for more of an instinctual, case by case form of discipline with a few absolutes (such as no hitting or shaming etc) that I was sending dd the message that absolutely NOTHING could be right or okay unless the situation ended with her being COMPLETELY happy with EVERYTHING she requested. That is where the pendulum can swing the other way with CL imo.

Parenting is not a dogma, it is a journey. It is not an ideology, it is a wonderful, sometimes messy, always interesting reality -- where not everything fits into a neat little package of mutually blissful agreements.

I am not a perfect mother but I am the absolute best mother _for my daughter_ and I am absolutely okay with the occasional "no, we can't put the cat in the dryer and that's it" without endless discussion or trying to "meet her need" to experiment with feline quantum physics in a heat-filled and deadly environment









Our lives run so much more smoothly and peacefully now that I have this perspective.


----------



## kalimay

"If you've read many of my 8000 posts on MDC or elsewhere, you'll find that I don't believe or embrace the blame/fault matrix. I'm not clear on how the parent deciding for the child is more honoring of the child's autonomy? My personal philosophy is to honor the child's autonomy; I understand if one can't see/imagine/believe how the child could be self-determining, as you are not living in our home. But, he is. That is the experience of our dynamic."

I have not read many of your 8000 posts and am not sure why they would be relevant as I was asking about your son's reaction to a decision that did not go the way he thought it would not your reaction.
I also did not say that the parent deciding for the child is more honoring of the child's autonomy.
What I am questioning is if say a 4 or 5 year old could be self-determining regarding a surgery when the parent wants the child to have the surgery and they are the one person the child trusts more than anyone else on earth and the one giving the child the information about the surgery.


----------



## WuWei

Hmmm...well, I really didn't have an agenda for him to have the surgery. There were many options. Surgery was one of them. And it wasn't my body which would undergo the surgery. So, I don't believe it was my decision to make for his body, if he wanted to choose another alternative. We'd continue to discuss both of our concerns, not do the surgery against his will.

ETA: we just don't have a dynamic or relational experience with blame in our family. We don't "blame" ourselves or others, nor find "fault". We are concerned with the impact of our actions on others, but with awareness, not with a judgment paradigm of mistake/blame/fault.

HTH,
Pat


----------



## WuWei

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just My Opinion* 

Our lives run so much more smoothly and peacefully now that I have this perspective.

I'm glad for you.









Pat


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
The same simplistic explanation I provided for patients, pros, cons, risks, benefits, impact of procedure, impact post-procedure, impact of non-procedure, alternatives.

Pat

Interesting. Dd knows a lot of that stuff, but nothing of the highly unlikely _serious_ risks of her surgery. I wish I didn't know them, lol, but I need to know them to give informed consent. I just don't think she needs to know that stuff at 8.


----------



## sunnmama

Ok, my must/must not issues....

Sometimes, ime, a definite must or must not is the kindest thing I can say to dd. I helps her to have those boundaries defined. She functions better in that world. So that def colors my perspective.

But an example that has to do with something I "must" do, but dd does not want me to do. I work 3 evenings a week (I teach a class, and love my job). Dd sometimes is very upset about me going to work. She would def prefer I not work, and makes those preferences clear. When I am at work, she is with dh and her brother, and she has a great time. But she still has difficulty anticipating and actually separating from me when I leave for work.

Still, I "must" leave for work at a certain time.

Do I have other options? Yes, I theoretically could go late or not at all. I could change jobs. I could not work altogether. But I love this job, and keeping it means I "must" leave at a certain time.

Could I address her underlying need so that this doesn't happen? Theoretically, yes, I am sure. But, despite my efforts, I haven't found a way in 8 years, and I "must" leave for work at a certain time.

So there we are. Maybe "must" is philosophically untrue, but it communicates my situation to dd in the only way that feels honest and true to me. And it feels kinder, too. I am not leaving because I am disregarding your feelings. I care about your feelings. And I still must leave now. I know you will be fine once I leave.

(I work in the evening because I SAH with ds during the day. I work when dh is home. We've had this system for years, including when dd was home as a young child, and later a homeschooler. Still, when she was home, she often objected to me going to work. Ds (2), otoh, says "You goin' to work? Bye!" lol)


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ernalala* 
That's not at all what I've experienced here. He doesn't expect a 'sing and dance' or whatever each and every single time it's not the slightest about this (and anyway we do not sing and dance when he's upset, that may mean a scratch/kick in our face actualy - lol). He LOVES to go out by car, he loves to be in the car when his dad is driving, most of the time. The times that he HAS a problem with being (fixed) in the car, it is not actually about the car, the seat nor the belt but about something else he wants/needs or doesn't want, or need. He expresses this frustration by not wanting to get into the car, the seat, or being belted. If you would analyse his need, you would get that he doesn't care about the belt at all! The solutions we have applied were most often giving him TIME to un-upset, by either waiting until he was ready (not complying, but ready) to get in the car, or stopping at the side of the road to be able to unbuckle him and giving him the opportunity and space for his rant (believe me it's hard on us, but not sth you can ignore either . Such a major upset may have been caused by a specific thing (wanting a cake another child had in her hand, whatever we often havn't got a clue at first) but with my son his tantruming evolves so enormously fast and heavily that the raging within seconds isn't about the cake or anything else specific (because everything additional may make him more upset, and even mentioning a single word as cake may make him upset even more because it's 'obvious you do not undrstand me at all'!) but about letting his frustration out. Once it is all out, he and us can go on. It requires patience. And us parents had to work much more on our patience with ds2, he is very high needs ioe. An underlying REASON for this frustration buildup may be a need for calm, rest, sleep (but hey do not forget not to mention these words - another need of our ds2: 'don't dare to TELL me what you think I need! And it's not true anyway! (even if it probably is...)). The tantruming makes him more tired if he already was so, thus he may actually fall asleep for a 15 min nap for the rest of the ride when we got on the road again. However, the scenario is not always the same .
The last car/car-seat CL failure was due to our refusal to give him more time, and not acknowledging his need for predictability enough, and not being present enough in finding a fitting solution :-(. And I can tell you that the solution here wouldn't have been one of persuasion either, but of a totaly different kind (I would get where I needed to go in another way, and if I thought I wouldn't 'make it' I might call to say I'd be a little late - but still 'in time' to do what I had to do wihout anyone missing out on it and -most of all saving our ds and ourselves a long lasting and fierce meltdown).

By "song and dance", I don't mean literally singing and dancing but suggesting one idea after another until the parent comes up with something that the child will agree with in order to get the child into the car seat. The time it takes to find a fitting solution. But then I raised a child who would not agree with any solution suggested to her even if it was one she would have accepted if she had been the one to suggest it. She would have said no just because I was the one who proposed it. And that's where my objections are coming from. Erica and Dylan are also children that will expect what happened last time to happen every time even when there is no time for negotiating an acceptable solution. We live in San Diego where we get fire storms. They move very fast. When we are told to evacuate, we sometimes have no time for anything but to get in the car and leave. I need for my children to accept that when told to get into their car seats they will do so without any discussions, no stiffening of the body. I require a cooperative child whether or not they want to.

Erica especially had conflicting needs as an infant. All infants require skin to skin touch in order to thrive. Erica also had a very real conflicting need to not to be touched. Despite this, I managed to breastfeed her for 9 months before conceding to her need for space. She was the only baby I knew of who nursed at arms length. When she was about 2 years old, we realized that we were only touching her when we were changing her, getting her dressed, etc. There were no hugs or cuddles. So we started the rule/ritual that she had to hug us, her parents, good morning and good night. On the surface, that sounds like a good CL solution. However, it was imposed on her, not mutually arrived at. There was no way in the world that she would have agreed to that on her own.

I agree that CL has its place in raising children. I have allowed my children to have appropriate autonomy over their lives. There have been areas that I and their dad have reserved for us to decide. Areas that we have slowly over the years given over to them as they got older. So that by the time they were 18, they were making most decisions on their own with as much or as little input from us that they wanted. We did reserve the right of parental veto up to their 18th birthday simply because up to then, by law, we were responsible for their actions.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just My Opinion* 
Well, I am no stranger to consensual living, I practiced it, to an often frustrating, unrealistic, stressful, and often resentful degree as I jumped through hoop after hoop of sacrificing my wants, needs, opinions, better judgment based on years of experience and life lessons and trips around the block, just to find a solution I was convincing myself was "mutually agreeable".

It wasn't, in fact, "mutually agreeable". It was a situation where I was eternally martyring myself in the purest sense of the word, to honor some ideology and dogma that, if practiced "correctly" would earn me the title of most caring, crunchy mother of the year.

So, what I do now, is act like a reasonable, sensible, rational human being who is committed to being gentle, but is not committed to reaching a consensus in every.cotton-swabbing.situation.that.crosses.my.parenting.path.

This means, in probably 95% of situations, an observer would probably label us a consensual family. We talk, reason, make collective decisions, honor impulses, meet needs, try to the best of our ability and comfort level to meet wants, don't shame, don't hit, blah blah blah and every other parenting principle that would make Peggy O'Mara proud.

However, there are certain situations where, when a three year old child is being incredibly short-sighted, unreasonable, rigid, and selfish (quite age and developmentally appropriate, and something in theory, I realize is a natural growing stage) -- where I just have to matter-of-factly pull the "mom" card for the sake of family harmony, my sanity, people in the grocery store's right to be in a scream-free environment -- you know, whatever the case.

I am not willing to make lunch a four hour long hostage negotiation, for example...until we come up with something my kid is happy with. Here are X,Y,Z thing we have that I know you like. THAT YOU ATE YESTERDAY (though I don't scream this, I am screaming it inside lol) -- if you don't want it, that's cool, but I am not going to go to the store and buy more food, cook four different things, endlessly discuss why it doesn't "feel" right to you vibrationally or whater.... here is what we have and there is yogurt in the fridge... ya know?

I am a great mama, I am so proud of my parenting journey. Consensual living is a good touchstone -- sort of a lighthouse in the dark of the direction I want to go if I am lost in a fog -- but I certainly don't think it is at all the perfect parenting principle.

I think in some ways, the principle can backfire. I felt before I abandoned the dogma for more of an instinctual, case by case form of discipline with a few absolutes (such as no hitting or shaming etc) that I was sending dd the message that absolutely NOTHING could be right or okay unless the situation ended with her being COMPLETELY happy with EVERYTHING she requested. That is where the pendulum can swing the other way with CL imo.

Parenting is not a dogma, it is a journey. It is not an ideology, it is a wonderful, sometimes messy, always interesting reality -- where not everything fits into a neat little package of mutually blissful agreements.

I am not a perfect mother but I am the absolute best mother _for my daughter_ and I am absolutely okay with the occasional "no, we can't put the cat in the dryer and that's it" without endless discussion or trying to "meet her need" to experiment with feline quantum physics in a heat-filled and deadly environment









Our lives run so much more smoothly and peacefully now that I have this perspective.

Exactly.


----------



## haleyelianasmom

Interesting question and I'm not sure where we stand in this. We try to allow our daughter (3.5yrs) to make decisions and I don't want to force her in to anything she doesn't want, BUT it's too hard to let her make decisions all the time. She's only 3 and she doesn't realize that she HAS to brush her teeth because she's had cavities. She didn't realize that we needed to have her teeth drilled as much as she hated it. She doesn't always like leaving when I really need to leave to get something done. She doesn't like cleaning up after herself. She insists on always sleeping in between my husband and I and sometimes I have to insist that she sleeps on the end... She also isn't mature enough at 3.5 to realize that when she stays up as late as dh and I, she totally falls apart emotionally. Or that when she watches lots of tv or eats lots of sweets, she becomes an irritable grumpy little girl. so I don't know where that puts us.


----------



## WuWei

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
Interesting. Dd knows a lot of that stuff, but nothing of the highly unlikely _serious_ risks of her surgery. I wish I didn't know them, lol, but I need to know them to give informed consent. I just don't think she needs to know that stuff at 8.

We don't talk about the statistical risk of being killed in a MVA every time we get in a car; nor the unlikely risk of dying, losing a limb, having a concussion, etc, each time we cross the street safely; or the chance of a tornado killing us when they come through our area. We don't focus on fear, but on benefits and safe practices. It is an energy thing, not a statistical explanation.

If there were significant life-threatening risks, we'd absolutely discuss the pros and cons of the alternatives, in simplistic terms. Just as in the hospital, we explained to patients, 'the risk of not having the procedure/surgery is much greater than the risk of having the procedure'. And if there are questions or concerns, we'd clarify specifics. Not delineate each potential which is an _unlikely occurrence_. Surgery is generally deemed "safe" in a controlled setting. Emergency surgery for unstable patients is very different than what we dealt with, with our son.

We talk about safety and provide an environment which doesn't create fear of "highly unlikely _serious_ risks" of living. The risks associated with general anesthesia for a non-life threatening issue are "highly unlikely _serious_ risks". Basically, fewer than 1:100,000 in hospital sedation leads to significant co-morbid outcomes. (yes, I really know that statistic, lol) Ds and most parents are not given that level of detail.
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/cJnoSZt...0Analgesia.pdf

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/cJnoSff...0/sedation.pdf

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/cJnoSS5...0treatment.pdf

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/cJnoSWk...Medication.pdf

HTH, Pat


----------



## AngelBee

Combo here


----------



## LuxPerpetua

I voted Mostly Consensual. DD is nearly 3.5 years old and we try and keep everyone's needs met but sometimes that means that we can't all be happy. Sometimes the medicine must go down, but I will try 20 or more different ways to get it down as easily and happily as possible. DD has almost always been accomodating. I can count on just a few fingers the number of times I've had to force her to do anything. My hope is the older she grows the more autonomy and self-direction to give her but for now I provide the structure and give her as much self-determination and choices within that framework as possible.


----------



## WuWei

Wow, just want to say forced hugging pushes my hot button as my father went "too far", shall we say. He felt his "need" to touch our (sister and my) body overrode our "need" for body integrity and autonomy of body space. I really could never force "affection" on another. The cognitive dissidence of that could create dissociation from one's inner knowing. It did for me. Self-control of one's own body is a huge value to me. I model that.

Pat


----------



## MsChatsAlot

I feel fortunate, that my son around the age of 19 months was able to show me without a doubt that he knew what was and was not best for his body. It was a life threatening situation and he chose what he knew was right for him...which was probably not what I would have chosen and likely my choice may have ended up with a horrible outcome.

Of course, he had shown me before by indicating his hunger, need for physical closeness, etc. but that particular experience really gave me a way to really understand the idea that each of us knows ourselves better than anyone else ever could.

I guide my children and I provide information for them...but at the end of the day, I allow them to make the decisions that feel right for them...even when it's hard for me.

Time and time again, they have shown me they do know best, they don't go to extremes and they really do know better sometimes than me.

I realize my parenting choices are a bit extreme for some. I hear it from my extended family regularly. I do feel blessed though that my child was willing and able to show me through that experience many years ago and helped me choose the path that feels best for me.

Whatever method of parenting feels right for each of us is what we need to do.


----------



## AngelBee

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
too many choices overwhelm. that is an example. we usualy do two choices. we get things done very quickly. Come visit me if you think CL is time consuming. SOMETIMES it is, but in the long run that time invested pays off tenfold. then again, we aren't really CL, we are somewhere in between just more consensualish.

My son can get ready for school and out the door within 15 minutes including eating breakfast. He gets choices during this time. It doesnt slow us down at all.

That has not been the case for us with a 9, 7, 4, 2, and baby due Easter who has yet to arrive. It has been EXTREMELY time consuming for to be consentual in our home.


----------



## Kappa

I prefer a hierarchy with rules. However, the arbitrariness in rules for children is actually a pet peeve of mine. Such as I would never tell my child "You have to finish your green beans before you go outside." That is not a rule, it is a command/demand and it is arbitrary. A rule would be "You always have to finish your vegetables" which while consistent would be a burden on the child and would be unenforceable for the most part. I think children are entitled to consistency in rules. Such as "Indoor voice for inside, outdoor voice for outside." It can be enforced consistently, and the child can pretty much rely on the fact that if they are inside they cannot holler, and if they are outside it will pretty much be ok. The number of rules is important too, and the parent has to prioritize those that are most imporant and be very consistent on those. More than 10 "rules" is probably too much for a young child. More than 5 "rules" for a toddler is too much. I fully expect to move on to a consensual household at high school age with my kids unless they show me that they have a preference for structure.


----------



## Just My Opinion

Well, I agree 100% with that. Forcing hugs or anything similar is not even remotely part of our parenting. We do have some absolutes in our parenting, as said above -- that is one of them.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Wow, just want to say forced hugging pushes my hot button as my father went "too far", shall we say. He felt his "need" to touch our (sister and my) body overrode our "need" for body integrity and autonomy of body space. I really could never force "affection" on another. The cognitive dissidence of that could create dissociation from one's inner knowing. It did for me. Self-control of one's own body is a huge value to me. I model that.

Pat


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
We talk about safety and provide an environment which doesn't create fear of "highly unlikely _serious_ risks" of living. The risks associated with general anesthesia for a non-life threatening issue are "highly unlikely _serious_ risks". Basically, fewer than 1:100,000 in hospital sedation leads to significant co-morbid outcomes. (yes, I really know that statistic, lol) Ds and most parents are not given that level of detail.

The risk that I am keeping from my dd, specific to her surgery, is a 1:5000 risk of loss of vision (an infection risk). My mom was an anesthetist, so I am pretty solid on the anesthesia risks. And, yes, the 1:5000 detail was disclosed to me in the office, by the surgeon, when we were electing surgery. She felt it is important for me to know before I consent to the surgery--and I agree! But I'm not going to tell dd.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I really could never force "affection" on another.

I do agree with this, for me and my family. Dd refused to hug/kiss many family members for years, and we insisted they respect that. I remember refusing my father's kisses, because I didn't like his scratchy face. I know now how sad that made him







(he didn't have a beard or anything--I was just sensitive to the slightest stubble), but he never forced it.


----------



## WuWei

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
The risk that I am keeping from my dd, specific to her surgery, is a *1:5000 risk of loss of vision* (an infection risk). My mom was an anesthetist, so I am pretty solid on the anesthesia risks. And, yes, the 1:5000 detail was disclosed to me in the office, by the surgeon, when we were electing surgery. She felt it is important for me to know before I consent to the surgery--and I agree! But I'm not going to tell dd.

I'm no expert on strabismus, I believe that was the specific diagnosis, not amblyopia? And I believe that there is much controversy about the eye patch "treatments". So, I'd have to look much deeper into the alternatives of non-surgical interventions. And I recall concerns about later correction. However, the surgery is cosmetic, not corrective of vision? If you'd like, I could do some hunting about this. I recall we had a long discussion on _Always Unschooled_ a few years back. There was a mom with this issue which was "uncorrected" during childhood, but addressed with vision therapy as an adult. As I recall, the issue was related to depth perception and coordination of her eyes together, hand-eye coordination for sports. She is an amazingly successful and independent computer guru. So, she hadn't experienced negativity related to the visual discrepancy. She drives, etc.

I assume there has been investigation for physiologic underlying causes, such as tumors or genetic predispositions. Not meaning to second guess, I just am a non-interventionist and seek information for a fully informed decision making process.

When I investigated the "Lasik" corrective eye surgery for myself, and examined the actual research studies related to the different surgical techniques, I found that the most recent (ie, least long-term post-op outcome results) types of corrective surgery (using different techniques, skills, tools) procedures had VERY different outcomes from those which had been utilized for years. There were definite pros and cons to considering "new" progressive surgical techniques, dependent upon the surgeon's training and experience than "old" techniques with more long-term outcomes known.

So, I'd want to understand the duration of the specific surgical technique utilized (both historically and by that specific surgeon), and the number of children _my child's age_ which had been tested/studied, their side-effects (halos, death, loss of vision etc.), and need for repeated surgery, results _over what period of follow-up_. The surgery is always an alternative in the future, from what I recall. I was shocked at the number of Lasik patients which required *repeated* surgeries to improve vision and decrease side-effects, some without benefit, for instance. (as you can probably tell, I opted out of having surgery on my eyes. I imagine loss of vision to be a huge detriment to quality of life.) From a quick Google, the risk of death appeared to be 1:20,000. http://www.eyecareforchildren.com/strabismus.html

I would want my child to be aware that there was a risk of loss of vision based upon those statistics, personally. Is the procedure done as an outpatient in an eye clinic, or in a major hospital? Location impacts anesthesia risks significantly, due to inadequate emergency personnel in the clinic setting, assuming general anesthesia or "conscious sedation".

Have you posted in H&H, I imagine others have had this issue.

HTH,
Pat


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
I do agree with this, for me and my family. Dd refused to hug/kiss many family members for years, and we insisted they respect that. I remember refusing my father's kisses, because I didn't like his scratchy face. I know now how sad that made him







(he didn't have a beard or anything--I was just sensitive to the slightest stubble), but he never forced it.

Forcing a hug was one of the things Rain's dad did that made me the most furious at him. She was 4, and he had only been out of prison 6 months or so, so she wasn't used to spending much time with him (he lived at a halfway house). He always wanted hugs and kisses, and she often said no, and I insisted that he respect that... he wasn't happy about it, because he thought being her father entitled him to those things, but he had no choice. One day, though, we were getting ready to drive home after visiting with him, and I had strapped Rain into her carseat in the back seat and was getting into the driver's seat, and he had the opposite back door open and was saying good-bye to her... and then he leaned in and gave her a big hug and kiss, and of course because she was strapped in she couldn't get away, and he did it so quickly that I couldn't stop him.

And then he gave this laugh, like, "Oh, see how clever I was!" - and she was yelling "No!" and I was yelling UA violations... and 12 years later, I still remember it so clearly. It just seemed like the such an incredible violation of her personal boundaries. I had tried to talk to him about it rationally, saying that I wanted her to be clear that she had the right to say who got to touch her body and in what ways, and bringing up her being 16 and dating... and of course he didn't see that as the same thing at all, because he was her father, and he believed this gave him "rights" to hug and kiss her.

Sort of a tangent, I know... and I was sure she would be reluctant to be strapped into her carseat after that, but she wasn't... we did agree to lock the doors before strapping her in next time.

Dar


----------



## sunnmama

The surgery will be at Duke. Yes, strabismus, genetic (my dad has it, and has been pushing for the surgery for years).

We haven't tried vision therapy, but after years of unsuccessful chiro (cranio-sacral), I am very skeptical.

No, the surgery is not completely cosmetic. Her vision is perfect in both eyes, but she has trouble using them together. She gets double vision, headaches, eye strain, and it negatively affects her enjoyment of reading, etc.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Ummm...we live in the real world and ds hasn't been running into a busy highway.
We live in the real world too and my nephew died running on the road when he was 5 years old. Perhaps we live in different worlds. Perhaps that is the crux of the problem here. Perhaps his mother just wasn't consensual enough and had she been, he would never have had such a fatal need to run onto the road, it must be her fault... heaven knows I'm a master at this whole parenting thing and my child is so damned whole and complete she'd never do something so outrageous. Which is obvious testament to my parenting skeeeeels. Mad skeeeels.

or something something.... dark side.... mmmmmm cooookies. boing boing boing.

My examples have been scoffed at and to that I say, count your blessings. It's a good idea to trust that some parents do reach the point where there are no more consensual solutions to some problems. They keep being told "yes there is", that basically they're wrong, yet their experiences say the opposite. There is absolutely nothing this premise is based on. Well, personal experience is perhaps what it is based on, but I'm assuming it is more like the game Telephone and someone said "there are always consensual options" and it is sent down the line from person to person and each one takes it on faith that the person before them knew what they were saying.

I'm hearing there are always consensual options because "I've always found one." I'm hearing consensual solutions always exist because you cannot prove they don't (ie, you just didn't manage to find one).

Why do I care? Because of the mothers who are stressed out trying to be the best mother they can be... they sling, cosleep, nurse for years, always attend to crying, pay for expensive schools or sacrifice a career to homeschool... they give and they bloody well give and they hear that you can "always find a consensual solution" and they knock themselves out trying to reach one in all situations as it is considered the best thing for their child. Then everyone has a good ol' giggle at a poor mama who writes a post asking if they should stop their child eating crayons because they can't find a consensual way to stop it... and they hear, "Of course you stop them, what the hell is wrong with you? You can't blame CL, you're obviously not looking hard enough, I'M willing to look for solutions, there is ALWAYS a consensual solution... too fatigued to work it out? Then get some sleep, look after your own needs too, and thrust your child at whoever will take them whenever you need to and your AP dreams be buggered... what dogma? What guidelines? I'm just telling you what I'D do! ..."


----------



## Calm

Regarding surgery and getting permission from the child, at what age do we deem the child capable of consenting? Before they can talk, but can give non-verbal cues? Or do we make that decision for them up to a certain age, say 3, or up to a certain milestone, say talking? What if a child can't understand yet but can talk, does that count, or does only consent count? Do we ASSume we know when the child understands?

I suggest reading the book Magical Child for a very complex look at how we possibly damage our children by forcing them into logic too early but more relevant to this post, the damage done by introducing the concept of death too early. When that concept reaches a child, it is a huge shift in their consciousness... meeting our own mortality takes with it enormous chunks of innocence.

Such information isn't necessary, spare them that kind of complex abstract reasoning.

My parents protected me from so many things like that and I certainly would not go back and have them expose me to all their personal problems, reasons why I had to do certain things, decision making beyond my years (or interest)... my brain was free, my mind was free, my childhood was a fairytale. I lived in a different world and had very very little stress as my parents protected me from all that. And whodathunkit, I still grew up to function in the real world.

I can't see what the possible benefit is in all this sharing that is supposedly going on with the innocent youth. Why do it? I mentioned I didn't tell my daughter why I couldn't go at 7.30 and one of the responses was "I tell my child everything"... Jeebus! This is a good thing? Sorry, I don't buy it. In no way can I see that as a good thing. I share more with my 7 year old than I did when she was 3, and I suspect our relationship will follow my mother's and mine in that it grew into a friendship, into where I learned her more intimate thoughts and motives as I matured. I swear people keep forgetting that age is significant, and what you share with a two year old is nothing like what you share with a ten year old.

How does one protect the child against too much information too early and at the same time, give all that information required to make a decision on something like surgery? As adults, we can't call it informed consent if they do not fully hear or understand all the aspects of the situation. Children cannot give that kind of consent, depending on age. I always seek my daughter's consent where possible (such as if she is conscious and receptive), but I do not see that as anything other than her expressing her understanding that _something_ is about to happen. It isn't at all based on assuming she has and understands all the facts, the post operative this and that and morbid other details. She is a HSC anyway, it would reduce her to a puddle on the floor.


----------



## WuWei

Sending love, Calm. I hear you are stressed.









Trust.

Pat


----------



## Calm

Correct me if I'm wrong...It has seemed to me through this thread that an option is included even if it is against a mama's very fabric of morals, or her religion, or her gut instinct, let alone her preferences. It seemed that a mama has (selfishly?) chosen to disregard a perfectly good consensual option if she doesn't include such unacceptables as options. For instance, a baby doesn't want to go in the car seat and someone suggests the baby stay with a friend so both _initial_ desires are met (mama gets out and baby doesn't have to go). There is a friend available, but you have a reason you don't consider that an option, (perhaps you don't trust them, or perhaps you are trying to raise them AP and the friend wouldn't hold them the whole time... whatever, basically a fair reason) but according to this discussion, it still IS a consensual option, the parent just isn't taking it. So therefore, it is included even though the mama would never consider it an option. Is this true?

I wanted to mention that my use of the word matrix in an earlier post is the origin of the word, which means "womb", and is the root of the word "matter" - and it is the source of words like mater (meaning mother). When I say I am my children's matrix, it means that I was their literal matrix (womb), but I am still their matrix on the outside, my body still protects them, my awareness and intuition is used to keep them safe. I still do not see evidence that the removal of this power structure is beneficial. (note I said power, not force) Is there any evidence?

*Power*: ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something. 1
*Power*:  ability, power (possession of the qualities (especially mental qualities) required to do something or get something done) "danger heightened his powers of discrimination" 2


----------



## Calm

Thanks Pat.







It's been quite a week. Although you could say the same, I'm sure.

Disturbingly apropos how this discussion turned with what's going on for me at the moment. DD has an MRI tomorrow that may require a bung. The last time DD had a bung/needle, she convulsed from shock, eyes rolled back in her head, the whole nine... absolutely NOTHING consensual about it, as it took four docs and nurses to hold her down. Needless to say, although it is years since then, I am not looking forward to the many possibilities awaiting us tomorrow.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Just started reading the continuum concept and it's given me insight to when Calm is coming from. Because I already know so much about CL I'm able to see where it matches up and where continuum concept is just missing having witnessed enough CL families in action. (one who reads that could easily confuse CL with what CC describes at permissiveness)

The book though, is really based on one person's feelings. I know many Americans who don't see work as work - and of course the tribe laughs while working because they are doing so together. I rather enjoy housework when I have a friend around to chat and joke with while I work. I didn't realize that was exclusive to one way of life... it seems like the revelations of this tribe were revelations to Jean, and i do like some of her insight, but some of what she says I find to be true for myself in day to day living, even despite my own pbringing being very different, I wouldn't say what she has described learing from this tribe so far to be something that would have been new to me if I had been in that experience. Some of it has been though - some of it is very insightful - some of it just lacks other knowledge, and having experience things Jean hasn't, and being able to read what she has experienced, I can see the gaps and fill them in my mind, as well as see where some of what she suggests is not the only thing that would work... but how in comparison to the alternatives SHE knows of it would seem that way... so I really see where Calm is coming from now and why some of what we are saying she can't understand if coming from a CC point of view, but also how a lot of aspects of CC are very much consensual.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
and having experience things Jean hasn't, and being able to read what she has experienced, I can see the gaps and fill them in my mind, as well as see where some of what she suggests is not the only thing that would work... but how in comparison to the alternatives SHE knows of it would seem that way... .

That is interesting, because I often have this conversation in my mind when reading arguments for CL. I had a moderate upbringing (not extreme in any way, except in childhood bliss), with a great outcome, so I tend to question all of the extreme parenting philosophies.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

re: options: IMO, though I know I'm not Pat lol, if there is a real reason why the option wouldn't work for all parties involved then no, its not a consensual option. However, I do think that often there are things that really aren't a big deal that the parent is seeing as a big deal that if they could "let go" it would be a consensual option to them. Instead, many times we see that the parent is looking at the child's problem as no big deal that the child should let go of. We can't control the children, we can control ourselves, and instead of looking to what everyone else needs to change we can look at what we can change. Additionally, if you come up with 10 options and none of them are consensual to you, there are 3 things to consider: 1st of all, and most important, that there are more options. I agree with Pat, there are infinite options, and just because we have not suggested one that sounds consensual to another person, does not mean that option is not there, its just not unveiled yet. For me I can find consensual options that appease 3 children and 2 adults in every situation, sometimes its hard, even if no one else would have had a solution to suggest to me, let alone a consensual one. Many other families have been able to do the same thing, which is why we trust those options are always there. Second and Third - sometimes the options we discredit will work, but there are other things to work out first - such as our own feelings about why it's not a useable option - and our children are capable to do the same somtimes as well.

I guess CL comes with trust and commitment to yourself and your children and life/nature. Now of course, you can still have those qualities, but I think in CL those qualities just act differently in our lifes perhaps. We trust our selves to find solutions. We trust our children to know what is best for themselves. We are committed to honoring that trust. We are committed to finding solutions and we trust we will find them. And so, we do.

In the end, it's what works for us. If its not working for you its not because its not workable, nor is it because you are somehow failing. You are still succeeding - you are succeeding in doing what you trust is right. In that sense, we are all the same.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
My parents protected me from so many things like that and I certainly would not go back and have them expose me to all their personal problems, reasons why I had to do certain things, decision making beyond my years (or interest)... my brain was free, my mind was free, my childhood was a fairytale. I lived in a different world and had very very little stress as my parents protected me from all that.

This was my childhood, and the childhood I want to provide for my dc. I have the best childhood memories







:


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
That is interesting, because I often have this conversation in my mind when reading arguments for CL. I had a moderate upbringing (not extreme in any way, except in childhood bliss), with a great outcome, so I tend to question all of the extreme parenting philosophies.

I will clarify as your response leads me to feel that I was not clear initially. I am saying CC is a way, just not the only way. I also think CL is a way, just not the only way (which I think is already obviously I think that when I just said CC is a way hehehe). I really don't see CL as extreme. I don't see CC as extreme. I don't see AP as extreme. I also don't see CL as a parenting philosophy I see it as a life philosophy. You may have life experiences that fill the gaps of CL in your eyes, and other things as well, that lead you to parent the way you do. That is your truth. I see CL filling gaps in some things, drawing from others, and contradicting other things. Things can be opposite and still be right.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

It's funny, I really only have my own childhood to compare too, people always comment to me how carefree and HAPPY my children are. I am sure they arent the happiest children in the world, but I often hear comments on how they are the happest children other people have ever met lol. They exude happiness. I am confident they will see their lives as fairy tales too.

Our babysitter came from a CL family, as I mentioned earlier, and she has nothing but pure joy about her childhood, and claims her siblings feel the same. Her family is very close, happy, loving, connected. She is very responsible, kind, she take initiative, she isnt afraid to ask for what she needs and she is more then willing to provide others with what they need. It was definitely reassuring to have met her, I of course would love for my children to grow up to be just as happy and fond of their childhood.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

also with CL I find things really just flow - the only time they are in a place of making decisions is when it IS in their interest. It's not like I say to my 3yo "son, we are buying a new car, which one do you think we should get and why" but if I say "Want to go with your dad to the movies" he may say "yes, in 2 minutes"...

If my child speaks up against some thing, then to me it is obviously (speaking of my children only, and in knowing my children's personality) that they are speaking up because it IS something that interests them. That they feel capable, and that it is not beyond their years in any way. This is just me and my kids. I just hear what you are saying and think it sounds much like what we do here in that regard, when you put it that way.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Wow, just want to say forced hugging pushes my hot button as my father went "too far", shall we say. He felt his "need" to touch our (sister and my) body overrode our "need" for body integrity and autonomy of body space. I really could never force "affection" on another. The cognitive dissidence of that could create dissociation from one's inner knowing. It did for me. Self-control of one's own body is a huge value to me. I model that.

Pat

I understand that. However, I wasn't going to risk Erica growing up into a Romanian orphan. A very real possibility with her. She didn't have to hug her sisters or anyone else. Just her dad and me. Usually just me, as her dad left every early in the morning for work. At night, we both gave her hugs at bedtime. Joy and Angela got hugs and cuddles all day long.

Our experiences growing up do color how we parent our own children. Because of dh's work with teens and cults, we made a conscious effort to teach our children how to think for themselves, how to discern the slant on what they heard whether it was ads in the media, political speeches, or someone trying to get them to try drugs or join a cult. That meant that our girls were allowed to argue, debate, and/or question with us over when to get their ears pierced, who does what chores, how late they can stay out, etc. that their friends weren't allowed to question. And it meant that we listened to them and considered their side of the question. It meant that Joy got to get her ears pierced 2 years earlier than what we thought was an appropriate age. It meant that sometimes Joy got out of doing the dishes because she did them the last 3 days and it was Erica's turn. It meant that Angela was able to go to a Metalica concert in LA with some of Joy's friends and Erica for her 13th birthday. A matter of driving 100+ each way. The oldest person going was 19.


----------



## kalimay

"And I can't imagine that with our dynamic that our son experiences information as coercive, cause he doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do. I just asked him, "Ds, do you have to do anything you don't want to do?" He said, "Um, no." I asked him, "Have you ever had to do anything you don't want to do?" And he replied, "No.". Ds trusts that I am not coercing him to do anything he doesn't want to do. As per his dissent, we halt and seek other alternatives which are agreeable to both of us. He has autonomy over his body."
"I understand if one can't see/imagine/believe how the child could be self-determining, as you are not living in our home. But, he is. That is the experience of our dynamic."
"ETA: we just don't have a dynamic or relational experience with blame in our family. We don't "blame" ourselves or others, nor find "fault". We are concerned with the impact of our actions on others, but with awareness, not with a judgment paradigm of mistake/blame/fault."

I am glad that this works for you family. For my oldest DD I think that knowing that anything that she has ever done has been her choice would be burdensome for her. My younger DD would be good with it though.
It is hard for me to see a young child as self determining and autonomous when the child's belief system is exactly the same as the parents.

"Oh, and regarding competency of informed consent. As a nurse, I've observed plenty of patients who have minimal to limited capacity to comprehend the severity of the decision making involved. I've observed "informed consent" from folks with less understanding than most children could manage."

I am unsure why you used this example. Is this why it is acceptable for young children to make their own medical decisions?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Why do I care? Because of the mothers who are stressed out trying to be the best mother they can be... they sling, cosleep, nurse for years, always attend to crying, pay for expensive schools or sacrifice a career to homeschool... they give and they bloody well give and they hear that you can "always find a consensual solution" and they knock themselves out trying to reach one in all situations as it is considered the best thing for their child. Then everyone has a good ol' giggle at a poor mama who writes a post asking if they should stop their child eating crayons because they can't find a consensual way to stop it... and they hear, "Of course you stop them, what the hell is wrong with you? You can't blame CL, you're obviously not looking hard enough, I'M willing to look for solutions, there is ALWAYS a consensual solution... too fatigued to work it out? Then get some sleep, look after your own needs too, and thrust your child at whoever will take them whenever you need to and your AP dreams be buggered... what dogma? What guidelines? I'm just telling you what I'D do! ..."

I hear you. And there are some moms who end up using CIO because they tried everything too ya know? and I wouldn't look down on them even though I myself would never use CIO. It's not to say those mothers have failed in some way - but it also not to say another mother in the same situation would have no other options other then to CIO also. I think that what I see when a mother asks for consensual solution (in a non-hypohetical way) solutions are offered, if they dont work they might ask for more ideas, etc... those are not the cases where I see a CLer saying "well *I* would find a solution if it were me" but when it is implied that ultimately a CLer would let their child drink a bottle of poisen I think that is where CLers WILL say that they trust they can find a consensual solution - just because someone else couldnt find a consensual solution doesn't mean another person cant and that the other person will be ultimately doomed to frequent emergency room visits and a dead 5 year old, ya know? I've never met a CLer who thinks that they are "better then" just CLers who think they are the best for their own child, and CLers who are confident they can make CL work... it doesnt make other mothers bad if they can't accomplish the same - but to say that if they cant do it then it is impossible insults CLers on the other side of the coin. Can we let CLers be confident in their ability and determination to find consensual solutions. Can we respect that they are able to do it and it does work for them? can we accept this does not mean their children are somehow more doomed or that their childhood is in some way hampered? And can we do all that knowing that they do not think another mother is "less than" and that if someone is looking for a consensual solution it should be because they want one, not because they want to be "CL - enough" We are all right where we need to be. None of us need to beat ourselves up, and we dont need ot beat eachother up either.


----------



## Polliwog

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
I understand that. However, I wasn't going to risk Erica growing up into a Romanian orphan. A very real possibility with her. She didn't have to hug her sisters or anyone else. Just her dad and me. Usually just me, as her dad left every early in the morning for work. At night, we both gave her hugs at bedtime. Joy and Angela got hugs and cuddles all day long.

As someone who is very sensitive to touch, that makes me sad that your child was required to hug when that wasn't something pleasant to her. She was NOT going to turn into a Romanian orphan.


----------



## Dar

For me, working with my kid and finding mutually agreeable solutions was, on the whole, much easier than parenting any other way. The handful of times I tried tocoercively get her to do something she didn't want to do (or coercively stop her from doing something she didn't) were a nightmare - she's just a kid who cannot be easily pushed. So, rather than go through that any more I stuck with the way that was easier for us. Maybe for people with a more easygoing kid it would be easier to parent differently... I can't speak to that. I can't say this is better for everyone, but I can say it was better for my kid, and for me.

Dar


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Needless to say, although it is years since then, I am not looking forward to the many possibilities awaiting us tomorrow.

Hope it all goes as smoothly as possible.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BethNC* 
As someone who is very sensitive to touch, that makes me sad that your child was required to hug when that wasn't something pleasant to her. She was NOT going to turn into a Romanian orphan.

Erica isn't sensitive to touch. She just wouldn't think of touching anyone for any reason. And it could stretch out for days, weeks, months and she still wouldn't be aware of it. From the day she was born, she was that way. She literally would have been very content if the only touch she got was from her diaper being changed. And that would have been impersonal. She would have been content with having a propped bottle in a car seat or left alone in a play pen all day long shut up away from the rest of the family. With not being held for any reason. Not a good situation for any child. So we started the quick hug; 30 seconds and it was over with. She didn't object to it and it fit right in with her routine.

Just think of all the times you are participating in personal touch with those you love. And now think of going through life with out that.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
So we started the quick hug; 30 seconds and it was over with. She didn't object to it and it fit right in with her routine. .

That is a bit different from forced hugs, as she didn't object. It just wasn't her idea, but she went along with it? I don't see anything wrong with that. I initiate lots of hugs around here!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I agree - offering a hug that is accepted is different from forcing a hug.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

For me, working with my kid and finding mutually agreeable solutions was, on the whole, much easier than parenting any other way. The handful of times I tried tocoercively get her to do something she didn't want to do (or coercively stop her from doing something she didn't) were a nightmare - she's just a kid who cannot be easily pushed. So, rather than go through that any more I stuck with the way that was easier for us. Maybe for people with a more easygoing kid it would be easier to parent differently... I can't speak to that. I can't say this is better for everyone, but I can say it was better for my kid, and for me.
I can very much relate to this. My daughter has always reminded me if I am starting to lean outside of a consensual margin, she has this crusade of fairness like her dad.

I also find CL comes natural to me simply because I was parented that way. As they say, you do to others that which was done to you. Yes, we did have a "hierarchy", but that "rank" was rarely pulled on us, even though mum had five of us. And the consensuality was something that grew in a natural fashion (ie, at two, I wasn't expected to debate or understand the reasons for things, but at 9 I certainly was). Essentially, she gave us all so much rope it's amazing we survived childhood really. None of us were ever spanked or even yelled at. My (late) father had one of those cool voices that sound like God might sound, low, booming, frighteningly calm







and there were very limited times he used that to "round us up". Such as one time I nearly got hit by a car, he used his voice and energy to impart the gravity of what I'd just done. No amount of spanking or yelling was ever going to impact me like he could with one well executed phrase.

He had "power", my father, he never asked for it, never used it against anyone but just one of those people. He could say something like, "If I ever ask you to jump out of a moving car, I do not want you to ask me why, I need you to jump." and you know what? I would have jumped even if he hadn't asked me previously. (which shows power goes one way because he would probably not have jumped had I, at 7, told _him_ to) He said it because he had had an incident where he had to abandon a moving vehicle or he would have died. All of us would have jumped first and asked questions later in most circumstances with my father and not because of fear, fear is the wrong word but something more like respect, or awe. Which I didn't have for my brothers, not in a way that compared.

We were/are all equal in my family, and the debates were awesome (still are) we certainly aren't a bunch of similar thinking clones; but my parents seemed so amazing, so clever and smart and although I don't think that imbibes the situation with inequality, it does give a sense of difference. I don't know if it wouldn't have been disconcerting to feel the same for my parents as I felt for my brothers. There _*is*_ a difference, and I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.

My brothers and I all look back lovingly on my parents, they parented radically, esp for their era (my oldest bro was born in the 50's). They "adopted" all our friends, because our home was just a place of laughter and madness, where nothing went on behind closed doors because it didn't have to. My brothers, over 10 years older than me, taught me how to "mull up" pot at 4, for example (didn't smoke it then or even now, never been interested, it just made everyone howl with laughter that they were teaching a four year old how to chop weed








).

Not everything came out smoothly, meaning, not all of us got degrees and stayed with our first loves (although 3 out of 5 did) and lived happily ever after. But I'm not sure life is really about that anyway. There have been some serious addiction issues for a couple, personal responsibility problems for a couple and many other things. Some of those things we can lay blame at the foot of our freedom loving upbringing and some we lay at the foot of society and "Wrong place wrong time". There is only so much a parent can take both blame _or_ credit for.

One thing is for sure, a free upbringing with what I now call "appropriate consensus" seems to produce radical thinkers, people who will challenge the status quo, tend to not fit into their own culture, and not settle until a stable sense of fairness has been established. And I am poster child of that, as this thread alone can testify.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Curious why you call that appropriate consensual living and curious if you feel you can say that the way others practive consensual living is appropriate? I think all consensual living is appropriate, so that bit confused me a bit - but sounds like you have a great upbringing and have a great relationship with your family and that is wonderful for sure. I think in an emergency situation, as our relationships are built on trust, our children sense the urgency and choose to "jump out of the car" so to speak, without explanation. This is my experience anyway. Though, at the same time, they wouldn't do it solely because I said so, but more so because they can sense its urgent and trust me, I would really hope they wouldn't do anything just because I said so... which sounds to me like the same thing you are describing with your family (I dont think you would jump out of the car if you dad said "hey i think it would fun to watch you jump out the car so jump!" and then you would do it - nor does it sound like your father is the kind of person who would say that... sounds like your father would only ask something like that from you if it was an urgent situation, and in that case I feel my children would exercise the same amount of trust.

I dont think its bad to see family members differently, however, I also dont think its bad to see them equally.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
That is a bit different from forced hugs, as she didn't object. It just wasn't her idea, but she went along with it? I don't see anything wrong with that. I initiate lots of hugs around here!























Erica is a little hard to explain unless you witness her in action. She was not your average kid. The only book I found that remotely touched on who she was was Dr. Dobson's book The Strong-willed Child. And even that book only had 1-2 ideas that I could use with her.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I dont think its bad to see family members differently, however, I also dont think its bad to see them equally.
We _are_ equal in my family. We are _also_ different. Just like men and women are _equal_, they are also _different_. I am not like a man, but I am _equal to_ a man. I am equal to my children and equal to my husband and they are equal to each other but we are all different, we have different dynamics between us. My children look to their own experience to guide them (eg, touch something hot = learn about hot) but they also look to me for guidance (eg, run onto road = may get hit by bus). Some things I just can't let them experience to "learn" it, and that's why I'm here. I don't think I deserve my needs to be met more or less than my children but at times I must guage when my needs can wait, and when their needs can wait. I am powerful, I'm a powerful person







. But my children are learning their own power too. While they do, I have enough power for all of us, and I use it, imo, wisely, even if sometimes that means one of my kids is disappointed for a little while. I hate it when they are, I do what I can to avoid that but sometimes life plonks it on us and we deal.

Quote:

Curious why you call that appropriate consensual living and curious if you feel you can say that the way others practive consensual living is appropriate?
Yes, I _can_ say that. It is my opinion, subject to being wrong, and subject to being different to your opinion, but I can still say it. I do not think it is appropriate to tell a toddler all about her upcoming surgery. I also do not think it is appropriate to expect consent based on some kind of understanding. There are myriad inappropriate uses of consensuality I have witnessed. So yes, I think there are, IMO, inappropriate uses of "consensuality", as paradoxical as that may appear on the surface. Things aren't black and white, children aren't born with adult capabilities of abstract reasoning and understanding, so it is inappropriate to expect consensual consent or mutual agreement based on something that does not exist.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I know that we can be equal and different. I must not have expressed myself well. I am sorry for that.

I am not saying you can't say that, I was just curious... it seems like you are saying some people are parenting inappropriately, and you are right that is your opinion. My opinion is that there is more then one right (and appropriate) way to parent. I see a a very wide array of appropriateness. The only things I don't deem appropriate are physical, sexual, emotional, and mental abuse. Then again, some people may have differing opinions with me on that as well.

I think you are the exact parent your child needs you to be. I also think that Pat is the same for her child. I haven't read anything here that hasn't sounded appropriate to me, just different. As you said, equal, but different.

What you said about power is very much how I feel about stregnth. I am strong for my children. My children are learning to be strong for themselves, but where ever they are lacking I support them. Everyone in my family experiences being disappointed from time to time. This is life as I have known it. I wouldn't say that I go out of my way to prevent it, but more so that I would never unnecessarily cause it, and with infinite options at my fingertips, we are blessed in that when we do experience disappointment, once we have dealt with those emotions and are ready to problem solve, we can find a way to enjoy where we are at. I can't stop the rain, but we can find ways to enjoy it.

I understand it is your right to an opinion. Obviously, we all think our way is the best way for us, if we thought otherwise we would do otherwise. I guess for me, I once felt I was doing what was right, instead of looking at it as I was doing what we right for *my* family. I am not really sure at what point my thinking changed... but once I stopped putting down other people that is when I truly started feeling more confident in myself. Or perhaps I began to feel confident in myself and no longer needed to put down other people?

Either way, just sending some hugs your way. I sense frustration, and I myself being empathic am becoming very uneasy from it









The first act of war is defense, and so I realize that defending my way of life in threads like this will get me no where.

Calm, I accept you, as you are, and I want you to know it totally okay if you think I am way off base in the way I raise my children. My children are healthy, happy, and thriving and I wouldn't trade that for the world. I would rather the world think I was the worst mother then to sacrafice the relationship I have with my children in order to gain "acceptance" or be considered "appropriate" I am not appropriate in your eyes, but I am in theirs, and trying to convince you I am appropriate will not change my reality at this point, so I hope you have got what you were looking for out of this thread.







:

ETA: The more I read Continuum Concept the more I am understanding Calm's point of view and choice of words. As I said, it's definitely not my truth as I have experienced it, but it is someone's truth and I respect that Calm relates to Jean's truth.


----------



## Calm

SGM, meant to say, I agree btw, that the sense of urgency would be apparent in the voice. I also don't know if my parents did "appropriate" consensual living. I didn't mean to imply they did, but they did at least use it back when it was the antithesis of practical parenting.

Even now, my mother who is 72 years old swears like a trooper, and so does my daughter. I banished hypocrisy from my home long ago so I can't say children can't swear if adults do. And there isn't much modelling going on in the not-swearing dept.

But to my daughter's credit, it's never for lack of a better word (I explained that swearing just sucks if it is because your vocab is too crap to find a better word) and she never swears outside of the house. In fact, she's like some kind of model citizen and I call her my little rule follower. I keep trying to get her to challenge rules and maybe because she's always had the opposite to rules in her life she doesn't have a desire to bend them? Dunno. Maybe she'll grow out of it. I find she has always known what is acceptable at home is not always acceptable "out there" in the world. Friends initially said she would be in trouble all the time because she hasn't been shown what is acceptable and I kept trying to tell them to (here's that trust, Pat...) have faith







that the world will show her itself. It did.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
We live in the real world too and my nephew died running on the road when he was 5 years old. Perhaps we live in different worlds. Perhaps that is the crux of the problem here. Perhaps his mother just wasn't consensual enough and had she been, he would never have had such a fatal need to run onto the road, it must be her fault... heaven knows I'm a master at this whole parenting thing and my child is so damned whole and complete she'd never do something so outrageous. Which is obvious testament to my parenting skeeeeels. Mad skeeeels.

Your post brought back something that happened to a neighbor of our back when I was in high school. He was prosecuted for hitting a small child (age 3-4) when the child ran into the street after his ball. I babysat the neighbor's child who was the same age as the child who he hit. I want to say that the child was killed by the car but I really can't remember that part clearly. I do remember that he was tried and found not guilty. It happens. Kids forget in the spur of the moment and run after balls, pets, etc. They don't think about looking for cars. They are thinking about getting the ball to continue playing the game.


----------



## sewchris2642

I can see where in some cases, CL works and would be the preferred way of solving the problem. Case in point: When Erica started solid foods, she absolutely hated wearing a bib. Now, in my world at that point in time, all kids wore bibs when eating. Joy certainly did. Not Erica. From the very first time I put the bib on her, mealtime became a battle over the bib. Since the point was for her to have a pleasant experience with food, I "let" her "win" the battle of the bib. Of course, she also didn't wear clothes either. She was very happy thinking that she won. She didn't care that she ate in only a diaper.

On the other hand, not wearing a hat out in hot weather was not an option open to discussion. She either wore the hat or she stayed indoors. Clear, cut and dried, black and white, not open for interpretation. She wore the hat when going outside right after breakfast; came in around 10 am. Put the hat back on after nap and went back outside around 4 pm. She could take the hat off when the sun was setting.

One must pick one's battles and only engage in those battles that the adult will "win" when dealing with a strong-willed child.


----------



## sunnmama

Just yesterday I heard the story of a 6 yo hit and killed a couple years back in the neighborhood I was visiting (it came up when I commented on the signs saying "We love our children--please drive slowly!"







)

No parenting strategy can 100% insulate our dc from horrible accidents (like being hit by a car). It makes us feel better to attribute the accident to things that we can control (parenting, for example). But the brutal truth is, sometimes bad things just happen


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

We live in south florida and none of us ever where hats outside. Sunscreen would be an option, but to be honest I frequently forget to put any on and though we are all fair skinned we never burn our heads lol.

I don't think anyone wins a power struggle, but I think thats why even though I have a strong willed child, and a child with autism, both of whom are VERY sensitive, and a high needs baby to boot - I know where they get it from lol - OUR family just works better with consensuality. It's appropriate for our family, in my opinion, and when it comes to my family the only opinions that matter are of those who are in my family so perhaps everyone else thinks I'm living life inappropriately but no one I have met in real life seems to object


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

and yes sunnmama you are so right about that. We do everything we can, I don't think CL mama's do any less (at least I know I dont!) but no matter what you do, accident will happen. Of course we all parent in the way we feel leave the least amount of room for such accidents.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Your post brought back something that happened to a neighbor of our back when I was in high school. He was prosecuted for hitting a small child (age 3-4) when the child ran into the street after his ball. I babysat the neighbor's child who was the same age as the child who he hit. I want to say that the child was killed by the car but I really can't remember that part clearly. I do remember that he was tried and found not guilty. It happens. Kids forget in the spur of the moment and run after balls, pets, etc. They don't think about looking for cars. They are thinking about getting the ball to continue playing the game.
Eek gads. Who prosecuted him? Was he speeding or something? Tried for _what_, driving? Just ridiculous. My brother never even considered suing the driver. The poor girl handed in her license voluntarily. She came to the funeral and sat at the back of the church. I was a wreck emotionally at the time so all this only sank in much later. Apparently she got her license again many years later. We all felt badly for her. It messed her up.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

We live in the real world too and my nephew died running on the road when he was 5 years old. Perhaps we live in different worlds. Perhaps that is the crux of the problem here. *Perhaps his mother just wasn't consensual enough and had she been, he would never have had such a fatal need to run onto the road, it must be her fault... heaven knows I'm a master at this whole parenting thing and my child is so damned whole and complete she'd never do something so outrageous. Which is obvious testament to my parenting skeeeeels. Mad skeeeels.*
The bold bit was sarcasm. This was obvious I hope.


----------



## Calm

So I have a clear and present issue here. Interested in the various degrees of consensual options I might have because at this point, I'm not seeing many. This is not to debate anything, I just thought this is the perfect place to ask my question instead of a thread.

My son, 12 months, has been a screecher for many months. It is not to be underestimated, it is seriously going to drive me insane. All kids screech, and some kids have annoying high pitched screeches... and then there's my son, who fits neither. This screeching is like nothing you've ever heard, and it long ago got to the point where I am barely hanging on before I pull my own hair out. No one can be around it, he clears the room but sometimes people have no where to go and we have to leave, and then I'm stuck with it.

There seems no reason for it, or should I say, there are too many reasons for it. He screeches to say no, when angry, when happy, when excited, when telling you off. He doesn't always screech for those things, but when he does screech, there is no standard reason.

We have tried so many things. Consistently telling him he is screeching, and covering our ears when he does, so he can make a synapse. Leaving the room, which is a natural consequence because we can't take it. Putting him in another room, but that seemed like punishment (when really it was cause and effect, ie, we refuse to be forced to be exposed to that, it hurts and we do not accept it - I really can't take it anymore). Earplugs won't work, because it isn't predictable, it comes out of nowhere and earplugs would only be useful for when he gets stuck in a loop of screeching which is continuous over and over high pitched wails that go for up to 15 minutes.

I don't think he understands that we are angry about it. I really think he thinks it is a game. We do not punish here, nor yell (although, at one point I hypocritically yelled at him to stop screaming







, yeah, good work idiot) so I feel totally lost for options on how to role model it (we never screeched, so it isn't something he learned from us, it's just him, and role modelling not screeching is a joke, it will take years!), or how to tell him I'm almost in tears of frustration with it, how to help him channel his emotions or the things he wants to tell us into more acceptable methods.

He is stubborn and headstrong and persistant. I will say (to go back to a familiar example) "let's not play in the toilet, let's find a bucket of water" and he will look me dead in the eyes and bark, much like a dog. The message is clear, "I'm in control, lady, and do not accept your silly little alternatives. F^$% off. Thank you." If I push it, by starting to pick him up, he barks louder, and then, no matter what I say, he will start kicking or getting upset and eventually just rests his head on my shoulder sucking his thumb in defeat. And then I feel bad, and he feels bad. Yeah, the toilet thing isn't "silly", it's a real problem. And it is just an example of the way things can be with him.

It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the new puppy, but now I have to keep the dog's toys away from Ci and Ci's toys away from dawggy and Ci doesn't understand when I have to take his toy away because it has been gooped up by the dog. I'm going to show him washing the toys today, in hopes he will accept my motives.

Anyway, so Master Doth Protesteth Much is going to be death of mama. Methinks.

Very easy being consensual with one highly intelligent, very malleable little rule follower. Nuther thing entirely with this one. Yipes.

Anyway, so the screeching. Help. Looking for, preferably, consensual solutions I may be overlooking, where I don't have to just cop it, nor the rest of my family, who are on the edge of considering ditching CL altogether if it means ridding our home of this.


----------



## Dar

We had a Screaming Tree when Rain was about that age. It was just a tree, near the back of our yard, but I designated it as such and went out and screamed at it a few times, and the idea sort of caught on... actually, for a few days there was a whole lot of screaming at the tree, but after a bit the screaming went back to the usual levels and I would just that we go out to the tree when she was screaming, and usually she'd come. Our house was tiny and our yard was big and fenced, so outside worked better for us...

For Rain it was more just screaming because she liked to scream... if it's more about toys, then maybe you could get your son some dog toys of his own, and keep the dog away from his? I'm not sure how new your puppy is, but I generally did the leashing the dog to me thing for a week or two with new dogs, and also crating when I couldn't supervise closely.


----------



## Calm

Screaming tree!! I love it. Thank you. I'll let you know how it goes.









I think Ci just likes to scream, too. No specific reason or emotion. The toys thing was a side issue where I'm having trouble taking things from him consensually and it seems I'm doing it much more often now because of the dog. We had boxes on the floor with Cian's toys because he can't reach any higher, and most of his toys have now been "compromised", and I'm having a big toss out. Which turned out to be a good thing. But we still have this toy sharing thing going on b/w them, so I've laid a law down (heh, in this house that's a joke, but I do try) that when Ci is outside, dog toys must be pulled in and put up high, so he can't grab them and stick them in his mouth. There's that "must" thing, but I had to, I can't risk it. Sigh. Inside (pup is a toy poodle, inside dog) is more difficult because the neither dog nor Ci knows which toys are his, and basically keeping them apart inside is crazy town. They've even taken to stealing from each other, straight out of each other's mouths.

*shudder*

So I feel Iike I'm walking around all day barking orders, being barked at and making a huge toy discard pile of compromised toys... it's just not a "flowy" as it usually is here.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
They've even taken to stealing from each other, straight out of each other's mouths.

*shudder*
.

Ok...I'm a dog person....and even I can see how this is gross....but is it really dangerous? I mean, my ds ate to kibble and played in the dog water (and surely got some in his mouth, even if just off his hands)....the dogs kiss baby right on the mouth....and the dogs have been known to steal a lick off an ice cream cone (which still gets eaten).

What if you keep a rag for wiping the toys when they go from dog-to-baby, instead of taking them? You might have 2 rags, so that he could participate in wiping, too. He might actually like that, and soon learn to bring toys to be wiped.

About the screeching (although I love the screaming tree idea), what happens if you "answer" back something curious, but less irritating? Would he mimic? Maybe a low grunt


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Is it a myth that (even though one wouldn't think so) dogs mouths are actually much cleaner then human mouths? LOL at the thought that we need protect the dog from the child's saliva and not the other way around!

Lots of great suggestions on the subject! We are very relaxed about germs - maybe too much so? so I'm not the person to give advice on this!

Okay so I looked up the dog thing, and it turns our their mouths aren't cleaner - but aren't harmful either:

"Becker says many of the bacteria in the mouth of a dog are species specific, so it won't harm its owner. "

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/story?id=1213870

I can see why someone wouldnt want their dog and kids to share toys though! I certainly prefer my children don't eat the cat food either!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

as for the screeching, have you explored why it angers you so much? why it's annoying, etc?

My kids are very loud too, it doesn't bother me, but there are OTHER things they do that bother me (like I can go instantly from calm to angry if something they do, even unintentionally, physically hurts me) but it helps me to work on why I am this way









Just the same, I think its great you are looking for a solution. Love the screaming tree idea! I know some people who have certain rooms in the house for screaming. MY kids are loud because I am... I has wondered if they would be more soft spoken if I started talking more quietly myself... kids love to explore their voice and pitch though so it sounds like that is more the case with your child.

Oh, for what its worth, my oldest is a "screecher" just for fun. Drives my husband batty


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
Just yesterday I heard the story of a 6 yo hit and killed a couple years back in the neighborhood I was visiting (it came up when I commented on the signs saying "We love our children--please drive slowly!"







)

No parenting strategy can 100% insulate our dc from horrible accidents (like being hit by a car). It makes us feel better to attribute the accident to things that we can control (parenting, for example). But the brutal truth is, sometimes bad things just happen









You are right but a child who has been taught not to do something usually will hesitate long enough for a vigilant parent to head her off. A child who has learned that every situation, regardless of what was decided last time, has less of a chance of hesitating. Ime and imo in raising kids. Joy, when told not to go into the street, would say ok and play where directed. Erica just wouldn't regardless of what solution was decided on last time. She didn't recognize precedent. Every single time it came up, the discussion and negotiating would start all over again. With Angela, every i had to be dotted and every t must be crossed in any negotiation. The end result read like a legal contract but she would abide by it. And then there is Dylan who will agree with the solution and then just do what he wanted to in the first place. 4 kids and 4 different results from the same situation.

I never meant to imply that CL doesn't work. I agree that discussion and negotiation are 2 tools in the parent's arsenal of techniques and ideas. I don't agree that it will work for all children, in all situations, all the time. No child rearing theory will. There will be times when the parent has to step in and be the parent. The authority ultimately rests with the parents.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
We live in south florida and none of us ever where hats outside. Sunscreen would be an option, but to be honest I frequently forget to put any on and though we are all fair skinned we never burn our heads lol.

Not to nitpick but has any of your children ever had heat exhaustion? Erica and Angela have low body temperatures. Their average resting temp is around 95 degrees; not 98.6. What wouldn't have the school call home for is necessary for them. A 100 degree fever for them is the same as 103 fever for a child who's normal temp is 98.6. They also don't sweat much to cool off and are both very fair, with ash blond hair and light blue eyes. They don't tan at all, only turn red and blister. Sunscreen and hats were necessary and not options. Also I looked to the long view. Skin cancer and sun damage isn't pretty as women age. And can't be reversed.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Eek gads. Who prosecuted him? Was he speeding or something? Tried for _what_, driving? Just ridiculous. My brother never even considered suing the driver. The poor girl handed in her license voluntarily. She came to the funeral and sat at the back of the church. I was a wreck emotionally at the time so all this only sank in much later. Apparently she got her license again many years later. We all felt badly for her. It messed her up.

I was 16 at the time. The place where my neighbor hit the child was a down hill blind curve. I don't know all the details. I'd have to ask my mom if she remembers. I do remember that it went to trial. But he wasn't sitting in jail while waiting trial. And he was acquitted.


----------



## InstinctiveMom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
This would be a case where I would meet the underlying need. start with empathizing - which sometimes resolve the issue and then they are fine not being on the counter. sometimes they still have a need for adventure, we find a way to meet that need.









I snipped it to shorten the length of this post, but I wanted to thank you, SGM for your explaination of Cl in action.
I think I am one of those who has confused CL with TCS, only hadn't really realized it until I saw the list of books (most of which I have, lol).

This thread has definitely given me some things to think about, so thanks for that!


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Not to nitpick but has any of your children ever had heat exhaustion? Erica and Angela have low body temperatures. Their average resting temp is around 95 degrees; not 98.6.
I can't walk past this and not comment. I'd love to get my hands on this! Has your child got any blood results for thyroid? This kind of thing may turn out to bite them on the butt in adulthood if they don't have it addressed. Don't mean to be a downer, and if you are interested in looking into it further, drop me a line and I'll help you. Chronic low temps are very indicative of thyroid.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Ok...I'm a dog person....and even I can see how this is gross....but is it really dangerous?
very dangerous. They carry parasites and parasite eggs in their mouth. It isn't just because they lick their butt either, it's just part and parcel of their lot. Snails are the main host for most parasites, but dogs pick them up too due to their interaction with the environment. This is a HUGE bad thing if you know the extent of damage parasites can wreak; they enter other organs, causing systemic problems and damage, it isn't just an intestinal thing as most know it to be.

I didn't really ever want a dog or any animal in my life, because pet owners are exposed to this chronically but I weighed it up against how much children love growing up with a pet and the latter won. I'm an animal lover from way back, but I still would prefer not to have a pet, of any sort. I don't believe in interfering with an animal's natural life either, taking babies from their mothers, forcing them to adapt to our way of life... it's all a bit upsetting but being a mother brings with it some irritating decisions. Ack.

The rumour or whatever it is that they have clean mouths is confused I think with the fact that their saliva can be antiseptic. They lick themselves when cut, and it helps it heal. They will often attempt to lick your wounds, too, and as far as I've heard, it has the same effect.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

as for the screeching, have you explored why it angers you so much? why it's annoying, etc?
Yes, in many different ways. But it really is just too loud. And I'm irritated at it now because I feel powerless against it, it is being forced on me. My daughter also has sensitive ears, so it has many negative consequences in our house.

My best friend tried telling me that her son used to screech. I just rolled my eyes (on the inside







) and listened to her but I knew she had to hear it to understand. She got that chance, and she quickly back peddled, "Uhh, wow.... like, yeah, that's pretty bad... uh, you've gotta do something about that, far out, sheesh... I had no idea."

He may become a singer, cos he can hold a high pitched wail of a note for a solid 30 seconds. It's phenomenal. I believe he is exploring, experimenting with his voice. He means no harm, he's too young to be just an arrogant a$$ about it but still... eek gads, it's gotta go cos I've never experienced anything like it. I might video it and upload it, just to freak ya'll out.


----------



## Calm

Chris, yet another nosy poke into your affairs unsolicited... there is an interesting statistic that I'll let you think about. Africans, who live in Africa, have next to no skin cancer. African Americans, however, have some of the highest rates of skin cancer in America. Same skin, same sun. Different _*lifestyle*_. The implications of that statistic are rather alarming as to the truth about the skin cancer and sun theory. I'll leave it with you.









On another note, there are some other stats about sunscreen that show that it may not prevent skin cancer, and due to the chems it was made of, may indeed promote it. However, macadamia oil is a sunscreen, and zinc oxide is still a useful sunscreen, and you can find natural ones now that weren't available in the ol' days. If you must use sunscreen, try to find those ones, and avoid DEET and a bunch of the other chemicals they use in sunscreen... they don't help, they make it worse. My daughter is white as snow (she looks alarmingly like snow white with her blue eyes and black hair), and we refuse sunscreen. Here in Australia, it is mandatory to wear hats outside and sunscreen (at schools), but we just tell the teacher my daughter is not to have that crap put on her skin, and they follow our wishes. Hats, I agree are needed, but sunscreen... I challenge idea that with all my might!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
Not to nitpick but has any of your children ever had heat exhaustion? Erica and Angela have low body temperatures. Their average resting temp is around 95 degrees; not 98.6. What wouldn't have the school call home for is necessary for them. A 100 degree fever for them is the same as 103 fever for a child who's normal temp is 98.6. They also don't sweat much to cool off and are both very fair, with ash blond hair and light blue eyes. They don't tan at all, only turn red and blister. Sunscreen and hats were necessary and not options. Also I looked to the long view. Skin cancer and sun damage isn't pretty as women age. And can't be reversed.

Nope, they never had heat exhaustion! not fun! I find hats make me hotter, personally. We do usually get wet when we are outside in the heat, or stay in the shade, drink water, etc.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *InstinctiveMom* 
I snipped it to shorten the length of this post, but I wanted to thank you, SGM for your explaination of Cl in action.
I think I am one of those who has confused CL with TCS, only hadn't really realized it until I saw the list of books (most of which I have, lol).

This thread has definitely given me some things to think about, so thanks for that!









glad I helped you, and thank you for being open minded and receptive!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 

The rumour or whatever it is that they have clean mouths is confused I think with the fact that their saliva can be antiseptic. They lick themselves when cut, and it helps it heal. They will often attempt to lick your wounds, too, and as far as I've heard, it has the same effect.

yep, I had no idea that was the case until i looked it up last night - I posted a link with that, that said the same think about their mouths helping to heal their wounds.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
My best friend tried telling me that her son used to screech. I just rolled my eyes (on the inside







) and listened to her but I knew she had to hear it to understand. She got that chance, and she quickly back peddled, "Uhh, wow.... like, yeah, that's pretty bad... uh, you've gotta do something about that, far out, sheesh... I had no idea."

Yep when my son does it around other people they are like "wow..." about it too. I don't think I could talk over him if I tried its.so.loud... For my son I think its sensory related. I think he doesn't sound as loud to himself as he sounds to everyone else. He can do it anywhere from an "ahhh" type yell to an indistinguishable screeching sound. Sometimes he adds to this running back and forth through the house or throwing things. Throwing things is what get me, because inevitably they hit me, and pain makes me immediately angry. That's something I'm working on - not that I would let him hurt me, but that I need to not "shut down" so quickly when it happens... I hear ya on the screeching thing, that may be the one thing that I totally understand about your life's struggles. It's intolerable for my husband...


----------



## Calm

I was thinking about the screaming, and when it is just DS and I, it doesn't actually bother me much at all, if at all. I long ago learned to tune him out, as bad as that sounds, because he is so high needs he whines or cries a lot. I think my brain automatically did it simply to survive it. I have to hold him pretty much all the time. He is very tactile; touch seems to be his preferred method of interaction and communication, hence why we have such intense mouthing/touching issues at times (like toilets







).

He took to sign language well though; I can tell he isn't going to be a fast talker like DD was, who was speaking in clear whole sentences at 12 months. He hasn't spoken his first word yet, and doesn't seem interested but he has taken to signing to get his immediate needs met. Preference for signing is another indication, to me, of his tactile nature. So I can keep him soothed to the point of invisible if I hold him most of the time (except while shopping, where he's constantly kicking to get down so he can pull things off shelves), but sometimes he has to be down for one reason or another and the motor starts, he moans and whines and throws himself dramatically at things and at my feet. Slightly less than consensual moments, those.

So I think auditory isn't his strong suit. He easily startles when called while he is lost in his own world, feeling stuff. My daughter is strongly auditory however. So she can react poorly to his screeching, but even that doesn't bother me as much as it does when he does it downstairs, where my mother lives. It bothers my brother and my mother, and therefore, I stress.

It has been good to think more deeply about this. Because although it can get bothersome, esp when it is right in my ear, or in an awkward place, I might actually be mostly bothered on behalf of others. Which is something I can work on within myself.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

thats great! and of course you need to find a solution that is going to respect the needs of others in your house but definitely helps to realize the source of your aggrevation with the screeching. Sounds a lot like my son at that age. Sometimes he is so into things he CANNOT hear me, and other times if you so much as get in his peripheral vision he has a complete meltdown because of being distracted... well I should say this was true 2 years ago, and over time has slowly moved away from this though its still part of who he is he has just learned how to manage his feelings (both physical and emotional) over the years. With my son, its sensory, and while some things bother me, I can understand him because he gets it from me.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I can't walk past this and not comment. I'd love to get my hands on this! Has your child got any blood results for thyroid? This kind of thing may turn out to bite them on the butt in adulthood if they don't have it addressed. Don't mean to be a downer, and if you are interested in looking into it further, drop me a line and I'll help you. Chronic low temps are very indicative of thyroid.

Not when they were kids. But I don't know about now. Both Erica and Angela have been tested for just about everything under the sun, including Lupus, as adults. I'll have to ask them if they have had their thyroid tested. All 3 girls are hypoglycemic. I know that.


----------



## WuWei

Chris, check out the *Adrenal Fatigue* thread. It is a precursor to hypothyroid issues developing. The hypoglycemia and low basal temp are symptoms, others are low BP, low cholesterol, napping in the afternoon, "night owls", salt craving, headaches, stress reactions, sleep issues, mood swings, anxiety, fatigue, depression, inattention, forgetfulness, "brain fog", sore joints, etc. http://www.mothering.com/discussions...drenal+fatigue

Pat


----------



## Just My Opinion

I have been thinking about this thread and the "running in the road" issue. You know, my daughter _has_ run in the road and yes, I forcibly held her back. I thought about why I felt okay doing this - and beyond the whole, "because it could save her life", it is deeper than that for me.

I think people have the ability to choose their reality so long as they are aware of the reality they are choosing. My child has, to my understanding and observation, absolutely zero understanding of actual pain -- beyond a tiny scrape that heals in a day or two. To her, the world is a place where everyone is okay, no one would intentionally hurt you -- so for her to run in the road seems like a good choice to _her_ based on what she knows of the world and of her own mortality.

I am convinced of this. I am convinced she is not trying to choose a painful end of her life or lifelong pain/paralysis. When she was entrusted to me, source said (that which I call God) that I was being trusted with this gift and with it comes a lot of responsibility.

Now, that is not to say that I don't trust my daughter's innate instincts. I do, I just don't trust all of them at this point and time -- based on evidence I have observed. I trust her to know that a hug doesn't feel right, because that is an instant reaction to her. I trust her to know when to sleep, when to eat, what to eat and how much (though there is some external control of what is coming into the home), who to trust, who to hug or not, etc...

However, with things like the running in the road example, no I don't trust an impulsive decision made by someone with what is in the moment, a very specific goal (to get across the street) without the developmental capability to know what could happen if she isn't watching for cars. No amount of discussion from her "trusted adviser" (that would be me







) will get her to that developmental level until she is ready.

So, one could say that I am imposing my coercion on her when I expect her to be more developmentally able than she is. So, it is all how you look at it.

In the meantime, I will err on keeping her alive.

As far as other things, I have no qualms admitting that we occasionally make judgments that benefit the group long term rather than ones that benefit my daughter (or myself, or my husband) in the short term.

There is always a solution, that I agree on. I adamantly disagree that there is not always a mutually agreeable solution _in the moment.
_

The cat in the dryer example I gave earlier. There was no mutually agreeable solution to that in the moment. She wanted to see what would happen if we put the cat in the dryer. Again, developmentally immature in that area. I don't believe she wanted to hurt the cat or believed she could hurt the cat because again, her reality is one which she has not felt any longterm (or as far as I can observe) deep, permanent hurt.

Sure, later we put a stuffed animal in there, discussed other ways to play with the cat, blah blah blah and did find a mutually agreeable solution -- but in the moment, no amount of, "but sweetie peety pie darrrrling.... the cat has a need not to twirl in the dryer and meet an untimely death!!! Can we construct a dryer out of cardboard and she can climb in and we can use our infinate imaginations to put her there instead?" was going to sway her. And, I wasn't trying to sway her. I think it is more insulting to a child to pussyfoot and dance around and say everything *but* what you are really trying to get at, which is, no... cat ain't going in the dryer, sister.

No, in the moment it was a simple, "no... you are not putting the cat in the dryer. End of story."

I think it is unfair to expect more of a child developmentally than they are able or willing to display. My daughter looks to me to validate that someone around here knows what they are doing -- and while I admit that I have a lot to learn, of the two of us, I at least know that cats die in dryers and kids can die in streets so while she gets a vote, I have veto power.

Don't worry, I use it rarely and wisely.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I havent seen anyone here refer to stopping a child from running into the street as opposing coercion - everyone seems to be on the same page that you stop the child from running into the street and help them find a safe way to cross the street (of thats what the underlying goal for the child is)... not because they are a child, but because as you said they are unaware of the danger - which I would do the same for an adult who was about to walk into oncoming traffic without realizing it.

What you describe with the cat in dryer thing sounds like she had to accept life's dissapointment and when she was ready was able to move onto a mutually agreeable solution. I don't think any CL mamas here are letting their children put cats int he dryer. Why? because that would not be a mutually agreeable solution - the cat does not consent, and even if the cat did it would be because, as you pointed out, the cat would not understand the reprecussions







We trust that above all our children, and our pets, would choose life, and so if they don't realize their choice could result in death then we do help them first, and find the mutually agreeable situation after. I wouldn't qualify this as veto power, for the very reasons you expressed.


----------



## sewchris2642

Except for the bipolar, all of Erica's symptoms have been resolved by growing up out of childhood. And that is being successfully treated with Prozac. As for the cholesterol, despite being a vegetarian (and not overweight by any stretch of the imagination) for the past 14 years, her's is high. It's genetic. She gets it from both sides of the family. Her thyroid was tested a couple of years ago for both hypo and hyper. Thyroid issues also run in the family.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I havent seen anyone here refer to stopping a child from running into the street as opposing coercion - everyone seems to be on the same page that you stop the child from running into the street and help them find a safe way to cross the street (of thats what the underlying goal for the child is)... not because they are a child, but because as you said they are unaware of the danger - which I would do the same for an adult who was about to walk into oncoming traffic without realizing it.
Preventing an accident is only considered interfering in a person's life path by some obscure tiny minority. But accidents are one thing.

Some would actually allow the full autonomy of their child, and I fear saying this but: regardless of age. This was one of the things I was trying to clear up with my questions, and why I needed other voices weighing in. It needed to be said that some would let their child negotiate on road play.

The fact that so many keep repeating that no one would makes me wonder how much they're subconsciously filtering to stay within their comfort zone. Time to look at it, because ultimate CL is actually about ultimate self determination.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pat*
Trying to think if we've ever "played on a highway"... I suspect we'd agree and find a time when it were safe to do so.

And if there was no such time, such as the Great Western Highway in Sydney where many kids play and are killed on the road? There is always a sticky exception. I've yet to meet a rule without an exception, including laws of science. They can _*all*_ be broken given the right conditions. Oh, except for the law of CL that states unequivocally "There is always a consensual solution".

It seems that if they have a 10 month old who can judge the street as safe by explanations and seeing big scary cars go by then apparently all of us have said 10 month olds. My son was walking at 9 months. I kept him away from the road because the first time we attempted a stroll around the block he kept going straight to the road.

I daresay no one is going to disagree that a 9 month old is not developmentally ready to make any kind of decision about the road, big scary cars or not. It is a mere concept to them, big shiny things going fast does not = potentially could get hit and die. What is "hit" to a baby? What is "die"? What is "hurt" for that matter? So I impose my will, if we find ourselves near a road. There is apparently a consensual solution instead of this according to the relentless mantra of CL with the "always have consensual solutions". Think about it, please. HOW can there be a consensual solution when we are dealing with a baby, who can walk, who wants to walk onto the road? Other than to avoid the road entirely.

Using this logic, which as adults we can now enjoy, if we agree that a baby cannot be expected to make such a decision, for starters that negates the "trust" factor, because trusting the baby didn't keep him from the road. I honestly really believed his innate instincts would keep him from going towards the road. I made a mistake, but I didn't make it in a vacuum. I made it because of advice given from parenting philosophies and some are dangerous for our culture.

So if we agree a 9 month old cannot make sound judgment, then at what point does this sound judgment kick in? At what age do we start to allow more self determination based on said sound judgment? In the cities some people live, the biological imprints we have may not be the life saving ones they are in the bush. And if there IS this difference between a 9 month old and a 7 year old, then shouldn't that be stated when we say things like "we all have a right to self determination"?

At 9 months old, it is pure and simple exploration of his environment to walk toward the road, it is the underlying need AND the surface need.

So it might help to keep in mind that some would have to allow their child to play on the highway if the child _insisted_ because if there was no negotiating out of it and the parent was intent on mutual agreements, then they _have_ to let them and "find a way to live with it" (which is apparently the "mutual" part of the agreement), and perhaps they could examine their deep inner reasons as to why it bothers them that their child is playing on the highway.







<--- those winks are SO irritating, aren't they?

Quote:

And I've never met a child who wanted to play on a busy highway.

Quote:

We live together without the struggles others describe.
I think these kinds of statements show why Pat and others find it so hard to understand where we're coming from. They just haven't had the experiences. They can't imagine being without consensual options because it hasn't happened to them.

Quote:

I think it is more insulting to a child to pussyfoot and dance around and say everything *but* what you are really trying to get at, which is, no... cat ain't going in the dryer, sister.

Quote:

My daughter looks to me to validate that someone around here knows what they are doing -- and while I admit that I have a lot to learn, of the two of us, I at least know that cats die in dryers and kids can die in streets so while she gets a vote, I have veto power.
I've been trying to say things like this for about 300 posts.


----------



## ernalala

Ds got a plastic (made in China) 'toy' revolver, including loader AND 'bullets'. It's the worst nightmare for us parents to see our sons handle such 'toy'







. As much as I want to be CL with my sons. Yes, they know how to play toy guns. They didn't learn from our home. We have a philosophy and morality we'd like to follow as a family, and we are in the process of modelling and our children in the process of learning. So I made it clear that for the sake of his birthday party happiness, he could 'play' with it then and there but that I couldn't allow it to be around ('no handsize toy weapons in our house' is a rule) afterward. We let him handle the 'gun' but immediately removed the bullets (tiny plastic balls) because they could cause harm. I asked to pls not direct at others, definitely not faces, and why. At some point neigbour's kid held the 'weapon' to my sons head and said 'I'll shoot your head' (or sth similar), they think it's so funny, also he managed to find the bullets and shoot some and I got one shot at me and it was very unpleasant. A reminder of how not done and horrible I find such things. It's been on the top of the cupboard since then and I just removed it to another hiding place in the hope ds will never remember and ask for it again. What do I do when he DOES remember and want it? I so do not want him to have it. WHY do other people want my son(s) or their own children to have this crap??
I also saw (how hypocrite!) a warning in small print on the 'toy' never to aim and shoot at people or animals. Well. Yeah.
My chidren play fighting, shooting, war game at times in our home as active 'imaginary play'. Some they got from cartoons







, most gestures and accompanying sounds and behaviours from peers







. I do not like this but can't prevent it. What I can do is prevent the rubbish equipment (looking like real and sometimes even possibly hazardous) to enter our home. In other homes we can't prevent our children not playing with those, if they want to play it there, they will be able to fulfill that need, how much I personally despise it. At home water guns is as far as they can get, or tiny playmobil swords. And I tell them about my not liking weapons, weapon/violent/war play, why, what harm they can cause, that I'd rather look at positive models.
And the 'solution' to just let my kid play with that particular toy, or similar, cannot be consensual to me. I can't let go of the stress it causes in me, it goes against what I feel as natural. That may be 'conflict play' but the way it often turns out is disturbning to me.
As a note: ds2 was upset a the bd that the gun wasn't his present. He was at the verge of tatruming. Dh's solution was (for the sake of ds's mood and the party) to get another such toy gun from the market , it was the 'best' idea he 'could come up with'. I was double horrşfied by then. I saşd ds2 would be perfectly happy yto just handle the (empty) flashy spacy squirt 'gun' instead. And see, he was.I feel the need for us parents to guide on some matters, based on moral/idealistic/lifestyle choices (relating peace, environment, food, health, safety, ...).

Yes, I see CL as an ideal. One I know I'll never intend to follow or pursue for a full 100 percent. Additionally, I do have other ideals which I find more important to try and pass on to my children than every single thing being a full CL situation or being solved as such, and I do not have any 'scrupules' to act upon this personal moral rather than on the theory of CL.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I think these kinds of statements show why Pat and others find it so hard to understand where we're coming from. They just haven't had the experiences. They can't imagine being without consensual options because it hasn't happened to them.

What I "hear" is they don't have those experiences because of the way they practice CL. Am I wrong?

One thing I think I get, though, is that avoiding saying "no cats in the dryer" may work (for some kids) like I avoid saying to ds "Don't spill your water". That always results in spilled water, lol, when saying "keep the water in your glass" usually keeps the water in the glass. Any relationship there?


----------



## WuWei

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
One thing I think I get, though, is that avoiding saying "no cats in the dryer" may work (for some kids) like I avoid saying to ds "Don't spill your water". That always results in spilled water, lol, when saying "keep the water in your glass" usually keeps the water in the glass. Any relationship there?









: Yes, the LoA piece.









Pat


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
What I "hear" is they don't have those experiences because of the way they practice CL. Am I wrong?

I think this is true for some, children are seeking how they CAN control themselves. When they feel like they can "make the call" about things that are important to them they aren't seeking to do so about things that arent important to them. In other words, the child doesn't want to run in the street just because, but they feel at peace knowing that if they really did want some kind of on the road experience that a solution would be found. If I really thought ym child wanted to do something dangerous just because thats what they wanted to do and for no "real reason" I would think the real reason must be they are feeling out of control of their lives for some reason, and looking for a way to "take back" that control. I don't know how well I'm explaining this....


----------



## Just My Opinion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 







: Yes, the LoA piece.









Pat

I thought LOA was all about where your vibration was at? About how you are "feeling" not about what you were saying? I thought that the dogma was drilled into its followers that you could say "keep the water in the glass" all day long but if your ~~~vibration~~~ was more in line with saying "try not to spill the water" or whatever, that would be more effective.

My vibration feels better saying a simple, "No, cat's don't belong in dryers", rather than pussyfooting (pun intended) forever about how the cat isn't aligned with that reality and whatnot. DD is more aligned when I use simple honesty and reason rather than the "right" and valued terminology from the ideology I have adopted.

Well, LOA like everything, has its place. Still, a total dogma imo. How does a strict set of 'rules' (such as in LOA and CL) add up to more freedom? It is the same as any other dogma. A set of rules one must adopt in order to do it "correctly".

When you assume Pat, that I am not using LOA when interacting with my daughter and in my life -- to imply a "piece" is missing, don't you then project your own reality onto mine and make a set of assumptions based on the own agreements you've made in your life?

You know, I love the bumper sticker that says "Jesus, save me from your followers!" I think that is awesome, even as a Christian.

It also quite succinctly sums up how I feel about both LOA and CL at times.


----------



## WuWei

I find/choose/perceive that my vibration is "Yes!"







:










Pat


----------



## mommy2abigail

Wow, this thread has been quite insightful! Thanks to all who have responded, and who continue to explain and try to get answers to questions. I really resonated with a few of the posters here...namely JustMyOpinion. You make so much SENSE! Sending you a lot of love and light!







:





















:


----------



## spottiew

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I think this is true for some, children are seeking how they CAN control themselves. When they feel like they can "make the call" about things that are important to them they aren't seeking to do so about things that arent important to them. In other words, the child doesn't want to run in the street just because, but they feel at peace knowing that if they really did want some kind of on the road experience that a solution would be found. If I really thought ym child wanted to do something dangerous just because thats what they wanted to do and for no "real reason" I would think the real reason must be they are feeling out of control of their lives for some reason, and looking for a way to "take back" that control. I don't know how well I'm explaining this....

hm, that kind of sounds like mine...
and yet, when he has freedom, he often doesn't know what to do- because other time he feels like he doesn't have it?
of course, he's also just plain contrary and would refuse to be consensual just to do so...


----------



## Calm

Quote:

What I "hear" is they don't have those experiences because of the way they practice CL. Am I wrong?
This is, no doubt, often what they are trying to say. At times though, it has been simple lack of experience and understanding of mine and other's situations.

The problem with using one's own child as the poster child for any philosophy is that you can't account for the other influences and factors. For instance, my daughter is an amazing human being (have I made that clear yet?







). I used to use her as my poster child for freedom parenting, NLP, CC, AP, Crystal Children and all the rest. Giving examples of how easy things are in my home (cos they are with her), how she has no baggage, at least, no evidence of baggage, how polite (even though I never forced manners), how this, how that... I suffered chronic smugnitis, with occasional bouts of acute smuggerhea.

However, even at the tender age of 12 months, I can tell my son is going to be a different kettle of fish. He isn't easily redirected, he needs to do things (like fall off the furniture, touch a hot oven) more than once to get the message, he is covered in bruises and cuts while DD got her first boom, a scraped knee, at the age of 5! It isn't a difference in parenting, in fact, he has enjoyed a much more "tight" or "strict" AP babyhood than my daughter could ever have dreamed of. But he is high needs, regardless. He has seemed miserable as often as he has seemed joyful (less so now, but for the first 11 months, he was a blubbering misery guts).

How much can we use children as evidence of "success", whatever that might be? I know a very sweet, seemingly well-adjusted girl who is simply bursting with joy and is capable of making superior choices and negotiating fairly - but she is spanked, has little say in her home, sleeps alone, raised on a bottle... by the logic of poster children, it looks like mainstreamism produces the best "results". In fact, I know tons of kids like this. Most of Westerners fall into that category and unless they start picking fly wings off and plotting their first crime, there is little overt evidence that an upbringing was less than ideal.

When we say we are without the struggles of others, or our child wouldn't "do _*that*_" as far as I'm concerned, that's irrelevant.

Quote:

you could say "keep the water in the glass" all day long but if your ~~~vibration~~~ was more in line with saying "try not to spill the water" or whatever, that would be more effective.
Yes, this isn't the law of attraction. This is NLP (neuro linguistic parenting, a funny twist on the official neuro linguistic programming). I've had MANY debates with Keith also (the NLP guy). In the end I've nothing but respect for him, for his demeanor throughout our public debates, and for his total clarity. He knew exactly what I was asking when I asked things, and answered them sufficiently and directly. I recommend a look at his stuff. It is very much in line with CL, as you do not interfere with the child's expression of herself, and even when a child hits, for example, you don't say things like, "don't hit", because it is incongruent with reality. There are times when one must hit, etc. Hard to explain. But I've BTDT with the questions with him, and he "passed". In the end, he sent me his book for free, for "being open enough to seek further and look within myself".

Regarding the quote, it's in the vein of "don't think of a pink elephant". The first thing you do is think of a pink elephant. We try to put the image into the child's mind of what we _want_ to produce ("hold on tight") rather than what we want to _avoid_ ("don't _*drop the glass*_"). It's also an attempt at inputting the "vibration" into the child. So if we want to include the LoA then that's where it would come in, but it is ultimately the child's psyche at play, which cannot be controlled, but can be influenced.


----------



## WuWei

Perhaps, ask at the CL yahoogroup where there are another 900 families, with parents who choose to live consensually, with "other" children.









Pat


----------



## Just My Opinion

I dunno, I guess I should mosey over to the gifted forum because my four year old completely understands don't put the cat in the dryer. I have never said anything to her like "don't spill the glass" because that would imply that I have the assumption she is going to spill something, when I don't have that assumption.

However, when a child has asked you what would happen if they put the cat in the dryer, they think that would be a kind of neat experiment since towels that come out of the dryer after baths are sooo cozy and warm and feel so nice (great logic though, I will give her that!) and they think the idea is in fact, so great, that they are actively in the pursuit of said cat, to put said cat in the dryer -- I think "no cats in the dryer." is an appropriate response.

My kid doesn't do too well with endless explanations and painful (not to mention obvious) re-wording of statements that come pretty naturally -- for example,' no cats in the dryer' comes way more easily to me than 'only innatimate belong in a dryer sweetie pie' or whatever -- or, we pet the cat, we love the cat, we blah blah blah with the cat. No, *we* don't, *I* do -- _she_, however, wanted a warm, maybe a tad dizzy, but otherwise unharmed cat -- and felt the way to accomplish that was by taking her on a nice trip.

I mean, cats and dryers aside, all 'mutually agreeable' means to me is that someone is giving up something they want, after a lot of (imo) unneccessary filler. Trying to convince a child for an hour that they want the same thing I want, or that they want to do something different than they first wanted after much negotiation and (imo) soft coercion (that we can never say is coercion) -- so I can leave feeling like we all made a "mutually agreeable" solution, is not my aim. I think that is a bit more disrespectful than a simple, honest, no.

The fact of the matter is, in discussions such as these -- of which I am all too familiar as I used to adamantly be on the 'other side' of them is that whenever you say something is the "right" or "respectful" or whatever way, you are saying you are right and the other person is wrong. I can admit that.

I can say loud and proud that I don't think it is necessarily the best approach to make a small child accountable for every single decision that they make. I can see where in some ways this can be empowering (as I said, we live in a mostly consensual way) but in some ways I can see where it may be the most confusing, pressure-filled, hand-wringing environment -- I for one, know my husband for exampe, would never ever have thrived in this type of environment.

Balance is our aim, and we have a great one imo.

I didn't fit in the poll because we are mostly consensual, however, we aren't "highly-structured".

Had you made an option, mostly consensual, with parents using veto power rarely and wisely, that would have been my vote.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

whenever you say something is the "right" or "respectful" or whatever way, you are saying you are right and the other person is wrong. I can admit that.
I think this is what bothers me sometimes. There is the inverse implication in some statements, where "my child doesn't have a need to do xyz" implies another child has something that needs addressing. Something "wrong" with them, some damage done because they weren't allowed to make the choice once to play on the road or put a cat in a dryer.

Although I will say that there is much deeper psych going on with the "don't spill your drink" as opposed to "hold on tight". Yes, we all manage to understand each other, and even little kids know what we mean when we say "don't", but there is inherent linguistic/neurological problems in the negation of an affirming phrase. I am not expert in this field. But I have been in your shoes and debated this, exactly as you are starting to now.







For me, it all started with, "I understand the negation of a phrase with don't, how is that so detrimental? My kid isn't a moron, what are you talking about?" And I would only do the topic a disservice if I tried to mess with it. If you see the site, he has a facebook page and they do dialogues and stuff, they help us understand a better way to be linguistically congruent with our kids. Ultimately producing a better product (child) than perhaps our parents produced. Again, it is a theory, no evidence that I can recall. But it's damned sound.

They also teach about the difference bw "don't hit" and "ouch, that hurts", which is again, congruent to life. Teaching "don't hit" is not a sound life lesson, when indeed, they may need or want to hit as an adult ... crap, see, I'm already botching the explanation!







I argued this hitting aspect long and hard. I am a pacifist, so I was desperately trying to prove that teaching absolutes like "no violence" is the best way. I believe I was wrong. Gasp. Shock. Horror. It's all about linguistic congruence. Not about the immediate results.


----------



## Calm

Actually, it is ultimately about choice, also linguistic congruence. The child freely chooses every action, and I don't recall any negotiating involved but I could be forgetting. I feel like reading the book again, that will refresh it all.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
IThey also teach about the difference bw "don't hit" and "ouch, that hurts", which is again, congruent to life. .

I am totally behind the positive phrasing, and find that it works wonders with todders (98% of the time). Things get a bit trickier as they grow, ime.

I've found "ouch, that hurts" to be all that useless, though, because unless the child is very, very young (say, under 12 mo), ime the child is hitting me _because_ it hurts


----------



## poiyt

I have been reading this thread with earnest since the start. Thank you for all the insight and learning I have experienced thus far!

Someone mentioned something that really resonated with me - in regards to a man name Keith and the laws of attraction. Id really like to read some of his stuff - Ive read a lot on CC, and on CL and think i would thoroughly enjoy this as well. Can someone point me in the right direction?


----------



## mammaof5andcountin

I voted number 2. My hubby and I are the parents, my kids are raised by our rules, not theirs, as they are not born with the ability to make the choices we need to make for them on most things. There are many things we will "come to agreements" on, but for the most part we are the parents,

On another note, my oldest who is almost 16 is bipolar, and we had a hard time with him when he was younger, trying to stab me at 8 yo and many many other things. We found that what worked with him was structure and routine. Even now that he is doing SOO much better, if he gets thrown off his routine too widely he has a hard time. I think parents need to find a balance as too what works in "their" family and not worry so much how the latest parenting book tells them too, all kids are different. If I put my 9 yo on a strict structured schedule he would go insane ( he has an impulse disorder, very very much, kwim?) different strokes for different folks









excuse typos toddler wiggling on my nu nu's


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I guess for me we are looking more for inward results then outward results. I am not looking to have some kind of "poster child" I am not trying to say I parent this way because my child will be 'xyz' but I parent this way because my child is who they are, and will be who they want to be.

I agree with the suggestion to check out the CL group for anyone who is truly interested, at the 900 families (and well over 900 children) - all different kinds of families with all different kinds of children - who all live consensually. I have 3 children, all very very very different personality wise, and so far, none of them are your average mainstream child. They have painted colors into my world I never could have dreamed of. High Needs, Special Need, Sensitive, you name it.

What I see isn't that we are saying some thing is wrong with what other people do. I think others do what is right for them. I just trust in my ability and my children (and future children) that we will always be capable of finding consensual solutions as long as it remains important to us for us to do so. I could have 20 kids (but I rather not lol), I could live consensually with all of them, they could be all kinds of different, but still I will be told "oh, but you just don't have a child *like mine*, thats why you don't understand"... No I don't have a child like yours. And you don't have a child like either of my 3, and if I had 20 children you probably wouldn't have a child like any of them either. I just trust that I can live consensually with *my family*, no matter WHO ends up being born into my family. It doesn't mean that what you are doing with your family is wrong. It's right for you. Saying something is right for yourself does not mean you are saying something different isnt right for someone else.

Example.

You.....Light......Me

You are to the left of the light. That is true for you. I am to the right of the light. That is true for me. We are both next to light. That is true for both of us. Neither of us are wrong, we are just living different truths.

I am sorry I just can't understand the need to tear down another form of parenting, which seems to be the ongoing intent here against CL. Might as well have named the thread "the case against CL"

This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends, some people started dissing CL not knowing what it was, and then continuing dissing it forvever just because.....


----------



## contactmaya

A lot of this discussion comes from the fact that people define coercion differently. Some of us asking the questions, are equally inspired by the ideals of consensual living, equally motivated to practise it, and willing to work towards it. For myself though, I cant say to people -we practise CL (which I would like to do) if I have moved my 1 yo baby from x,y z, when it is clearly against his will. That is co ercion. Others might not call that co ercion, but I simply have to, because it is against his will&#8230; This situation comes up a lot with a baby, and that's that.

With my 3 yo, it has become much easier to use the term consensual living.

People asking questions, and/or thinking out aloud, are not out to undermine consensual living!! Nor to criticise others' parenting.
If you truly believe in living consensually (with people online,a s well as your children), then surely it is ok to ask questions. Some people have more theoretical minds. I for one, like to grapple with a philosophical dilemma. Doesn't mean I disagree with the fundamental premise. (I agree with it, otherwise I woudlnt bother) (the premise of honoring the autonomy of others, and finding a way to meet everyone's needs and wants)

I don't visit the yahoo group often, because a couple of times, it seemed, I asked the 'wrong question', and didn't get the support I needed. The discussion I was looking for. I would really like to. For eg, I posted a question on 'why is parenting so hard" when I had a new baby and toddler. Wow, that can be a difficult stage. The general energy of most, not all, but most replies was a kind of- 'its your fault for thinking its hard' That didn't ask answer my question, or help me. I wanted to ask that list, because that is the kind of parenting I identify with. I wish I had been made to feel more comfortable when I needed support. (some of the replies were supportive-like, yeah, i remember that, it was hard for me too&#8230;.)


----------



## flowers

I can't stop thinking about this thread. It's been really thought provoking and an indepth experiencing of questioning what my conscious parenting/family belief decisions really are.

What I've realized is that I am a big picture kind of person. I tend to not get hung up on specific incidents unless there is a string of similar incidences that cause me to stop, reflect and maybe readjust home life or personal beliefs to help readjust our family's flow.

For example:

My child wants me to read a book but I have an important phone call scheduled. They are upset but I feel the need to complete my phone call. I acknowledge his feelings and I bear witness for him to have his feelings. Later that afternoon I put all my work away, shut the computer off and make sure we have some time to connect, read or talk. I acknowledge he has a need to connect closely and we find a time to meet those needs.

I personally don't find a need to "fix" my child's every emotion. Feelings are important for everyone to explore and healthy. Someone can be upset and as long as they are respected and given a safe place to explore those feelings it is a good thing in the whole life picture. Consensual living to me doesn't mean my kid is always happy. It means we navigate through life open and listening to everyone's needs and creating overall balance as a family unit.

I realize that ppl can tell me that I'm not consensual 100% of the time if they watched me firmly hold by son's hand in nudge him forward when he wants to stop crossing a busy street with oncoming cars.

I cannot relate to hierarchy because I believe my children have just as much to teach me and very often they guide the family in wonderfully, intuitive ways. I will never tell my children that's the final word just based on the fact that I am the parent. I will insist on safely navigating a dangerous situation just as my child will insist that I nurse on demand throughout the night for x amount of years.

Sometimes when I break those situations down it feels like, "well johnny is being coerced to finishing crossing the street"; or "mama isn't getting her needs met when she has to wake up every few hours to nurse and then parent all day." But if you look at the big picture you see how needs change and adjust and there is always a give and a take.

This can be overwhelming and complicated, but what it requires is that I do my best to stay as conscious as a being as possible. I think there is where most of us agree and it is really that we have different definitions and _associations_ with the words CL, hierarchy, coercian.

Things can look a lot of ways from an outside perspective. We all know how misinterpreted a single sentence, conversation, situation can be if taken out of context of the whole picture.

For example, you might have seen me at the park with my family. You may of seen me get snappy with the kids and then insist that we leave the park. You may think in your head, "Oh, she claims to be CL, but look she's coercing." But what you don't know is I just got a call from my sister saying she's diagnosed with cancer, or that dh just told me he lost his job and we may have to move, or, or, or.... What you don't know is that in the car on the way home I swallowed my pride and apologized to my kids and had a discussion about how I was feeling and how they were feeling and we talked about how we could all work together better next time we were leaving the park. What you don't know is later that night I talked to my dh about it and we brainstormed ways for me to feel more supported and well rested so I can parent my best or that I called my good friend and boosted my morale so I could wake up tomorrow and try again.

What you do know is that no one is perfect and we're all trying to do our best. It's great to share ideas, but there is never one way of doing anything. It seems from this thread that there are many who don't consider themselves CL, but who live pretty consensually and other who consider themselves CL, but fall into default coercion modes sometimes.

Sometimes I feel it's similar to stating that I am eco-conscious. Ppl will sit there and pick out everything un-eco about my life or judge that we drive a truck instead of a Prius (they don't know we live in a 600 sq ft house using renewable electricity) and if I say I aim to live consensually with my family ppl love to point out the situations that aren't consensual.

I do it too and it doesn't feel good to be on either end.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I definitely agree with letting a child have their feelings and not trying to "fix" their feelings. I am unsure why one assumes that being consensual means you try to change what your child is feeling. My children are allowed to experience all emotions, and they do, but yes, in general they spend most of the time being happy... thats just their personalities I think, or i anything just them feeling secure (as I am sure children from all kinds of families here do) and therefore spend a lot of time being happy.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I have no problem with one person saying "that is not right for me" or "imo coercion is this" but when a person puts down a style of parenting that is what I don't understand the need to do. We all have our own truth.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flowers* 
IMy child wants me to read a book but I have an important phone call scheduled. They are upset but I feel the need to complete my phone call. I acknowledge his feelings and I bear witness for him to have his feelings. Later that afternoon I put all my work away, shut the computer off and make sure we have some time to connect, read or talk. I acknowledge he has a need to connect closely and we find a time to meet those needs.


I am curious about the CL approach to situations like this, or where the child is simply upset about something the _parent_ chooses (or needs) to do.

My examples:

Dd (at 3-4) used to want to choose what *I* order when we went out for ice cream. There were sometimes big tantrums if I chose the same flavor as her









Dd now (at 8) gets upset when I leave for work. She would prefer that I not work at all. Sometimes there are tears, pleading.

Ds (27 mo) sometimes gets really specific about *where* he wants to nurse (on the bed, on the couch, this side, that side). Sometimes he changes his mind 2-3 times--leading me from room to room and disrupting others who are trying to sleep (cosleeping family), and then there are tears/tantrum when I make the decision "we are nursing on the couch, because sissy is trying to sleep on the bed."

Also, I've been meditating more on "must/must not" (although I may be the only one interested in this







). Today, ds wanted to ride his step 2 motorcycle to the playground. Cool, here's your helmet. He puts on his helmet (simply falling in step with my lead), and off we go. Get to the playground, and he wants his helmet off. Ok. After a while, he decides he wants to go home. Cool, here's your helmet. "No, I don't want my helmet". Oh, you want to walk? Should I carry your motorcycle? "No, I want to ride my motorcycle".

Ok....so the reality is, in our family, he *must* wear his helmet to ride his motorcycle outside (where he acts like a daredevil rolling over curbs and picking up his feet and coasting down the small hills







). What is the CL approach?

(ftr, ds was in a fed, rested mood, and I said "no helmet, no motorcycle". His response was "ok, I wear my helmet" and he rode home happily. Had he been in a different mood, he would have had a different response!).


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

so in that situation you would be able to find out why he didnt want to wear a helmet - which would probably be related to something entirely different that has nothing to do with the motorcycle (such as hungry, tired, etc) He responded well that time because his needs were met. if his needs werent met, as you said, it would be a different response, so you would meet those needs first. I wouldnt mind asking my child "how can we ride the motorcycle safely?" or "yes, you can ride the motorcycle. here is your helmet" and if met with opposition I'd probably look at other underlying causes (such as hungry, tired, etc)...


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I wouldnt mind asking my child "how can we ride the motorcycle safely?" or "yes, you can ride the motorcycle. here is your helmet" and if met with opposition I'd probably look at other underlying causes (such as hungry, tired, etc)...


I would ask my 8 yo how she could ride safely, but not my 2 yo. Like I said, he goes off curbs and free-rolls down hills--and he actually *did* fall on the way home (good thing for the helmet!!







). To me, "safely" is inside, on the rugs.

And, yes, hungry and tired would best explain why he resists at other times--but I can't really fix those underlying causes until we get home, you know?

Ok, "yes, you can ride the motorcycle. here is your helmet" is the positive phrasing of "no helmet, no motorcycle". But that phrasing doesn't make much sense when he is saying "I don't want to wear my helmet."


----------



## Calm

Neurolinguistic parenting is the name of Keith's parenting philosophy. I don't have the link right now but I did post it in one of my more recent posts. He has a facebook group, if you are there, with some discussions posted http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref...id=29761887925


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I am sorry I just can't understand the need to tear down another form of parenting, which seems to be the ongoing intent here against CL. Might as well have named the thread "the case against CL"
What a load of unwarranted self pity talk. I feel very unheard. I am not tearing it down. I have been specific in what I feel needs addressing. It hasn't been very specifically addressed in return. It has been very hard to pin down any kind of reasonable answer to some pretty simple questions. Flipping it as though it is our fault is not helpful, nor is it correct. I am not against CL and I have only seen a few come in and say they wouldn't use it, other than that, there has been no dissing, no tearing, nothing like that. I do get frustrated at the complete lack of understanding of what I, and others, are asking; it's like we are speaking two different languages. But that is not tearing down. Now, if you want to go and quote out of context phrases that sound like tearing down, I'm sure you could. I could also quote you and others as to how you've attempted to make us seem lesser than those who do things your way. Essentially, we are trying to reach an understanding here. Well, some of us are.

Quote:

This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends, some people started dissing CL not knowing what it was, and then continuing dissing it forvever just because.....
If you aren't interested, you are free to not participate. Why try to make the rest of us feel silly for still being here? Are you trying to bully us away from the thread?

Quote:

I have no problem with one person saying "that is not right for me" or "imo coercion is this" but when a person puts down a style of parenting that is what I don't understand the need to do. We all have our own truth.
Can you point out where this "putting down" is? Are you referring to me?

Quote:

I definitely agree with letting a child have their feelings and not trying to "fix" their feelings. I am unsure why one assumes that being consensual means you try to change what your child is feeling.
I get sick of repeating myself, and this thread could have been half its length had I not had to. Anyway... the reason we feel this way is because when we have given examples of solutions but a child was _disappointed_ with the result, we were lead to believe it wasn't consensual, and that not only _could_ more have been done, more _should_ have been done to make it more consensual. THAT is why we think that way, it's been made pretty clear. The breakfast for example, where my daughter and I reached a mutual agreement, but she was disappointed. A bunch of folk came in saying they would have just gone at the time she wanted (even less consensual in my opinion), or they would have examined why they "wouldn't" give the extra 15 minutes... and so on. Inferring, pretty strongly, that it could have been made more consensual, AND that her disappointment is why it needed to be made so. If I remember correctly, I think some CL mama even said that disappointment means it isn't consensual. I disagree, but that's not the point. If there is an ideal, what is it? To avoid disappointment, or to reach a mutual agreement regardless of feelings if necessary?

If parents are going to try to use CL at home, and they get stuck, that's what guidelines are for, until we are working it well. When we go looking for some kind of guidelines, we find the website, and some discussions here, and the yahoogroup.

The yahoogroup has great advice, but doesn't always help. Just recently I've been following a thread there about washing a child's hair who hated it, and so they just don't wash it. I did that with DD, I resonated with it. But I also acknowledged that it wouldn't be a fitting solution for everyone. And most of the threads are like that. Some parents are left struggling to find a consensual solution and feeling like they have simply failed to, when in reality, there is often not one to be found.

So we move onto threads here, and they are even less helpful.

We move into the website, and there are very clear statements made, powerful, life affirming statements made by strong, spirited women, like Pat. Initially, it is very motivating. But with more experience, you come to find all kinds of issues that simply don't fit those statements. Trying to allow self determination in a baby backfired, over and over again. Trying to negotiate with a young child was too much for them, and they said to mummy that "my brain hurts, you ask too many questions. I just want what I want, can't I just have it? It feels like hell, all this talking."

I mean... hell? That's some strong language for a 5 year old. So how can a mama be consensual with a child who has made it clear that she is suffering with any attempts to rush her development into logic and what not when she is still developmentally stuck in boundary pushing, trying to find the "edges" of her power and freedom. If I give none, it is disconcerting to a young child, but to give some means imposing my will.

Dichotomy from hell.

_Self determination regardless of age._ I would really like that addressed but it just isn't happening is it? But apparently asking upside down and sideways is just tearing it down. How can I get my solution then? How can I find what I'm looking for if you can't handle it?

_Always a consensual solution._ Another point that is untrue for so many families. Yet they are told that they just didn't look hard enough. AGAIN, this isn't tearing down CL for goodness' sake. It is asking for clarity where there is nothing but dark. _*Always*_ is a strong word, and you need to back that up with a strong guideline.


----------



## flowers

Calm, in response to the latter part of your post:

I don't think it's possible for anyone to be 100% perfect at anything. It feels like you are holding CL families to a very high standard and looking for someone to have the magic answers to your personal situations.

I very strongly believe that it is *important* for a child to feel disappointment (and the full range of human emotions) for human development. It's important for children to feel those feelings in the safety of a loving family unit. My husband and I live consensually and I feel disappointed sometimes. The difference is I don't expect him to fix my disappointment or blame him for it. Those are just my feelings and I need to look within to figure out a way to create a situation where I feel better. Our children need these same learning situations. If you have a group of people there is no way every single person is going to agree on every single count. The point is you don't move forward as a group if one person is seriously struggling or stressed out. You pause, reassess, get feedback and together try and make the best decision for a group.

People living in intentional communities live consensually. That doesn't mean every single person is super psyched about every decision. It means that every person has had the opportunity to weigh in and has the option of giving a final, "No, this does not work for me." Like I discussed in an earlier post, a final no is a serious thing to be used rarely and if we take it seriously our children will learn to respect others boundaries and also learn that you only hold up the group with a No when it's absolutely necessary. Those early years are all about establishing this and of course it's a learning curve for everyone. There are no easy answers and a million shades of gray.

We just had a dental situation and one of the pediatric dentists we consulted with told me I was not allowed to be in the room b/c parents make it worse and sometimes kids get upset but it's better to just get the work done.

Nope, I didn't agree. I found a dentist that believed what I did, we will do our best to navigate the extraction as gently, and help ds1 to feel safe and secure and we will not cross a line where the child is truly resisting or scared or upset. That's why I wouldn't leave him in a dental room without me b/c I depend on my mother's instinct of where that line is. Is he upset. Can I find a way to soothe him while he feels these emotions? Or is this upset one that is affecting his right to inhabit his body in a way that feels safe to him. That's the challenge of being a mother/parent. We need to stay so in tune that we see the times where our children can be nudged forward with support and love and know when we need to let them call the shots. It's a relationship. It's a give and take. It's consensual. My child trusts me b/c he knows I wouldn't force him. Sometimes he's having a meltdown and I sweep him in my arms to cross the street for safety. Does that mean we aren't consensual? Not imo.

(Calm, this post isn't really directed at you besides the beginning. I was just rambling.







)


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I agree, it is like we are speaking 2 different languages, and coming from 2 different "cultures" I think that really says it all. We feel we have addressed your questions, you feel your questions are unanswered or are upset you did not get us to say what you wanted us to. There is more then one right answer. Thats all I'm saying. What is true to you may not be true to me. It doesn't mean one person is wrong, IMO. For those who choose to find consensual solutions there are always consensual solutions. If one is okay accepting there is not a consensual solution there is nothing wrong with that either though. Self determination regardless of age, in my understanding, means that regardless of your age you can be self determining. Not in the sense that you would let a child get hit by a car (nor would I let my husband get hit by a car)... Knowing that your child or husband do not want to die and helping them to achieve that. Same as you would nurse a newborn and not expect them to make themselves eggs and toast for breakfast. That is really not about self determining, IMO. It's about the UNDERLYING issues, which is what *I* feel is continually unheard here. Developmentally a newborn cannot feed themselves, but they can determine that they want to eat. Developmentally a child may not understand getting hit by a car would hurt them, but we know they do not want to be hurt. We used the same approach as Pat in teaching road safety to our children. So far, those that can walk do not run into the street and never have. They are young yet though, so we will see what the future holds. Is CL possible for every family? I think it is for every family who truly wants it to be... but for every family? no... because it's not as important to every family as it is to others, and so they are more willing to accept "there is no CL solution for this". There is NOTHING wrong with that. That is what is right for that family. This is what is right for mine.

BTW, did you read all the information Pat posted from the CL group? She posted like 150 links a while back that probably would have offered a great deal of insight


----------



## sunnmama

Can any CL people (or Dar







) speak about what happens when a child had more than one underlying need, in conflict with each other?

For example, my dd struggles with anxiety. When it flares, the need she feels and expresses (fear and avoidance) is in direct conflict with what will actually reduce her anxiety (exposure, in small but growing doses).


----------



## Calm

I am already part of the group, have been for years. What difference would those links make? I even opened a few of them, and they are much the same as the ones I read in my email feed. They don't answer my questions.

Quote:

I don't think it's possible for anyone to be 100% perfect at anything. It feels like you are holding CL families to a very high standard and looking for someone to have the magic answers to your personal situations.
No. It's pretty simple what I've asked really and my issues were only given as examples to highlight a point. Since I'm sick of saying the same things, I'll quote myself, just my questions on self determination alone is frightening how often it was ignored. And the same amount of quotes can be found for my seeking on "always" and "underlying needs":

Quote:

*Self determination* regardless of age. I would really like that addressed but it just isn't happening is it?

Quote:

Time to look at it, because ultimate CL is actually about ultimate *self determination*.

Quote:

So if we agree a 9 month old cannot make sound judgment, then at what point does this sound judgment kick in? At what age do we start to allow more *self determination* based on said sound judgment? In the cities some people live, the biological imprints we have may not be the life saving ones they are in the bush. And if there IS this difference between a 9 month old and a 7 year old, then shouldn't that be stated when we say things like "we all have a right to *self determination*"?

Quote:

There are various degrees, and leaving off an oxygen mask is one thing, but not giving an insulin injection is another. How much *self determination* can a mother allow before her protective instincts kick up so fierce that she cannot help herself but to force... which begs the question, could we view that force not as force, but instead as power used wisely?

Quote:

As long as you want for him what he wants for him, then all wants are met and you both have a mutual agreement, even if it is the highway. Your CL is tight. You allow *self determination* regardless of age and personal harm. There are various degrees of consensual living and most people, I would suspect, would opt out at the point where health or life was at stake. If they hadn't much earlier than that.

Quote:

We could also say (because it's written on the website) that "all people regardless of age have a right to *self-determination*" is the philosophy, the ideal. An ideal should be achievable. That's all.

Quote:

Maybe some outlines for signs of readiness in a child and maturity for when the parent can give more slack, more "*self determination*" - an outline might help, although I haven't thought that through, just thinking as I write.

Quote:

Perhaps consensual living involves allowing a child the ultimate *self determination*. PAt won't say. MEaning, perhaps if she is to let herself get sick and die, that is the only way you can live consensually, allowing her free will and not imposing my will on her, my will for her to live and be healthy.

Quote:

Because yes, he has a right to *self-determination*, but he doesn't have the ability to deal with all that entails yet! Surely that is obvious.

Quote:

So we ask the reasonable and obvious next question which is, but if I can't meet those wants? What about childish wants, like wanting to jump out a window, do I stop them or do I "meet their wants". Who determines what is an irrational want, when do we allow full *self-determination*... the list of questions due to such statements given on the site is long, and valid.

Quote:

Yes, he has all the human rights I have, no question, including the right to *self-determination*. However, having the right to it, and having the ability to execute it are miles apart, and this is where the whole premise is flawed.

Quote:

at what point do we say now they are mature enough to cope with such decisions, *self-determination* and fate mastering?

This is all based on statements such as this:
*With accurate information, only the individual is capable of making decisions regarding what is right for him. No one is better at making those decisions than the individual. We are masters of our own fate. If we take the right to self-determination away from any individual, we are changing the course of their life, and may never come to know the person they were meant to become.*

Think about that statement above, and apply it to a toddler who has a determination to do whatever it is they want to do... and you have a seriously flawed premise. _That_ is what I am saying. *Hearing me now?!*







And I challenge the idea that a baby or toddler has many if any underlying needs that differ from the surface need or want. My son wants the remote, that's all. No underlying need for another toy, action, thing, statement, affection, play... nothin'. He just wants the remote. If it is something he can't have, then we have no underlying need, we have an impasse, and how am I to NOT interfere in his self determination when he has determined what he wants? BTW, my kids can play with the remote. It's just one of those examples for the sake of clarity.


----------



## Just My Opinion

Calm, I completely get you. I do hear what you are saying, and you sound like a great, reasonable, loving mama!

The thing that always fails to be addressed by "CL people" of which I was one, and which to a large degree still am, is what if the only 'underlying want' is an inherently unreasonable (if, age and developmentally appropriate) one?

Now, people would say, no way, no... there is *always* an important, underlying, unmet need that is not being addressed. I just simply don't agree with that -- that shift in thought came right around the time my daughter turned three







Sure, in most situations, we can easily determine a need, or want, or compromise, or mutually-agreeable solution -- but there are some situations that honestly, I believe she was carrying on about just to...test the waters, so to speak. Now, that in itself is completely age appropriate and developmentally appropriate so, while I honor it, in that respect, the other part of me is unwilling to participate in what is, in essence, an experimental circus act of determining just how far she can take this thing.

Now one may be thinking, omg, you think so little of your daughter!! No, it is that I think _so much of her_ that I can acknowledge those things as being perfectly in line with developing and growing and do not sanction her or resent her for. I don't think it is a flaw in my parenting that my daughter has not mastered perfect reason at all of three. The tone I hear in a lot of posts by hardcore there-is-no-other-way-in-any-situation CL'ers, is that someone is somehow failing their child if they dare utter the word no.

However, in those moments, those teaching moments where I am teaching her how the world at large is, in all probability based on my own life experience going to react in most cases -- this is part of my job as a parent just as much as anything else. To role play in these moments, to provide a safe environment for her to test out reactions. She is going to be in the world a lot longer (God willing) than she is going to be in our safe little home, and she needs a safe place to learn about reactions and behavior that our culture values or devalues. Now, with that knowledge is always the freedom to act however you want, but at least I know I will have given her a little help in a safe environment (such as for example, someone may not want to play with you if you use a teasing tone... rather than her actually having to lose a friend over a teasing tone).

People always love to bring up adults this and adults that, and in "intentional communities" this and that -- and while some of those points are valid, some are not. I would not live consensnually live with someone who conducted themselves like this at a meeting:

group member: okay sally hasn't helped cook a meal for the last 4 months, sally, are you agreeable to helping bring the bread to next week's meal?

sally: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

group members: okay, um, let's discuss this. We all agreed to participate in group meals, do you have a gluten allergy, or don't like bread... perhaps youd like to bring something else?

sally: I DONT WANT TO!!!!!!!! I SAID NO!!!

group member: gee sally, you seem really upset, can we talk?

sally: NO.

group member: okay, um maybe we can revisit this at another time...

Bob: I'll bring the bread!

sally: NO!!!!!!! *crying sniff* I was *sniff* supposed to bring the bread!!!

group member: but sally, you weren't agreeable to that... so bob has just offered, it's okay...

sally: I....*sob* wanna.... bring itttttttt!!!!

bob: that's cool, she can bring the bread

sally: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO

I mean, cmon, now. I'd be leaving thinking, okay, sally needs help. I would not be thinking, "wow... sally was really great in expressing or not expressing her need to bring or not bring bread maybe or not. I am sure glad she joined our intentional community!"

I do get a bit irritated when people claim that *their* children are *always* reasonable and able to make decisions rationally from birth and *their* children had intrinsic knowledge of safety and whatever...

I mean, my kid is very bright but I don't expect her to conduct herself like a 32 year old. She is a 3 year old, she sometimes acts like one. I get that. I honor that.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

it says with accurate information they are capable of making the best decision for themselves obviously a toddler who wants to walk into the path of an incoming car has not received all the accurate information necessary to make the best decision for themselves, so no, it would not be self determining to let them get hit by a car. IDK perhaps you are trying to make a point. If it doesn't work for you all the time Calm that is okay. You are a wonderful mother. So are CL mama's. Being different doesnt mean someone is wrong. I know some women who weigh 100 lbs and some who weigh 300 lbs that are equally beautiful. I know some fair skinned people and some dark skinned people who are equally beautiful. I know some tall and short people. I know people who are all in between, and all of them are equally beautiful. In that sense, I think with parenting it is possible for us to all be equally right. Different, but right for *our* own personal families. (hugs) to you, you sound very frustrated.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

My children act their age I respect and honor that. They do not have intrinsic sense of safety in all areas, I teach them. I teach them things, and they teach me things. However, yes, with patience and all underlying needs met, my children are always reasonable. However, they are NOT reasonable when underlying needs are NOT met - so they are not reasonable 100% of the time, they are just always reasonable WHEN all underlying needs are met. I do see a difference in the ablity and understanding and self expression of a 2 year old and a 32 year old, however I do think it is possible to give both of those people accurate information and support that will allow the to safely determine their own fate.


----------



## Just My Opinion

SLG I suspect we agree a lot more than we disagree, however I would say that the only "flaw" (for lack of a better word) in what you've said (from my perspective) is that a 2 year old and a 32 year old are not going to process the same information in the same way -- as life experiences differ wildly.

If I say to a 32 year old who has lived in my culture, if you cross this busy street without looking, you may be harmed greatly -- chances are, they either have experienced great harm firsthand, or have witnessed it second-handedly enough to trust what I mean. They have lived a life where they not only value being well but also value not being hurt _because they know what this entails._ This is an important distinction, because while I believe a 2 year old values being well, I don't think they value not being hurt as highly because they don't have the experience (typically) either firsthand, or by observation and internalization, of being hurt.

So, in that respect, I disagree with you. I don't think the capacity of interpreting, understanding, or choosing based on accurate information and support is at the same level in most 2 year olds compared to most 32 year olds (all things considered).


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I'm sorry but you just said what I said?

I am not disagreeing with you, but you are disagreeing with me, so I wonder if perhaps there was a miscommnication on my part. I help my children understand the dangers of crossing a road without being cautious because I realize they are NOT an adult with a full life's experience, they are a child with only some experience. What this changes is what constintutes as accurate (and complete) information for a 2 year old and 32 year old respectively.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

You are a wonderful mother. So are CL mama's.
SGM, you keep referring to me as not CL. I've said I like to think I am. Several times. And that largely, it works for me. From some of the CL responses I've seen here, I think I may be even more CL than those "on the other side" of this discussion fence. I'm having this discussion as a CL mama myself, not as the "enemy". I don't need it to be sold to me, or proven to me, and I think that's what has held this up so long. I just wanted simple answers, and I'm not sure who can do that, other than those who made the sweeping blanket statements themselves. But Pat doesn't seem to comment directly on my questions. Which is her choice, and I respect that, but it isn't helping me.

*With accurate information*... Hmmm, I _give_ my child accurate information. What then? She has the right info, may still make the "wrong" choice, or a dangerous choice. Therefore, it isn't just limited to accurate information. An ability to transform said information into usable format is also required. Don't you agree? Which again, brings up the question of "what age is self-determination appropriate"? Can we really *know* when our child understands?

Quote:

Now, people would say, no way, no... there is *always* an important, underlying, unmet need that is not being addressed
Yes. This. I also disagree that there is "always" (there it is with the always again). When stuck in an impasse, we are to fall back on ol' reliable - the unmet underlying need. However, the younger the child, the less this is valid, as there are less and less underlying needs then. Their heart is on their sleeve as infants, and as they grow and learn to transmute their communication to get needs met, it becomes slightly more complex. Looking at the deeper meaning of why a child wants a cat in the dryer is really clutching at straws... and arrogant to assume you "know" what they "really" want. When we are meant to trust they know what they want, and can "determine". It's all so contradictory.

Quote:

I do get a bit irritated when people claim that *their* children are *always* reasonable and able to make decisions rationally from birth and *their* children had intrinsic knowledge of safety and whatever...

I mean, my kid is very bright but I don't expect her to conduct herself like a 32 year old. She is a 3 year old, she sometimes acts like one. I get that. I honor that.
I feel validated, thank you.
I try to get people to see, c'mon, here's a baby running on the road, is that my fault? (general me, not literal me) Have I left him with some kind of unmet need ... or could possibly, just _possibly_, he is just running toward the road cos it's pretty? Cos it's loud? Cos it's _there_? Doing dangerous things is _not_ always due to an unmet need, esp if we are talking about a very young child or a baby.

If my son chews on a power cord, that's all he's doing. And it isn't teething, although sometimes it is. Mostly, it is to taste it, IT, not something else, but the cord. He wants to taste THAT cord. So replacing it with something long and black is just rude and not listening to my son, who has shown his intentions clearly - to put that cord in his mouth. If you believe that a child only mouths things cos they are teething, or want what that thing _offers_ (cold and hard, or long and thin) then we part ways in thought. Because I have read too much evidence to support that children are born with all their senses intact, and they use their sense of taste in their environment as much as they use their eyes, touch, etc. They are taught, by us, to stop doing that.

They are born with a valid desire to taste everything, so it isn't an underlying need sometimes, it is exactly what they want to be doing. It's like,
"I can see this thing, I wonder what would happen if I touched it? I wonder what it sounds like when I shake it? Hmm. I wonder how it tastes?"

Simple. Nothing more to it.

I like to validate that my child sometimes just wants what he wants. As does my daughter. As do I, for that matter. Some things are pretty, and I want to touch them, or taste them, or smell them. For no other reason, I just do. If someone came along and said, "hey, if you smell that flower, you may die, it has a special poison in it. Here, smell this lavender instead." I'm going to think they just didn't "get" me at all. If they had just redirected me away from the poison flower, I'd respect that. _*But they thought they knew my underlying need*_, that I just wanted to smell something, and that just leaves me feeling misunderstood. I wanted what I wanted, and if I can't have it then let me grieve and move on, don't offer me some shite because you think what I wanted was really just something nice to smell.

I don't want my children to feel misunderstood. So I treat them with respect, and if I cannot let them smell a flower because it is covered in poison dust, then I tell them that, and I don't think analysing their possible "underlying needs" with the simple things is helpful, cos I'm probably going to get it wrong, even if they do enjoy the smell of lavender and seem happy with the alternative.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Sorry. Earlier you kept referring to yourself as CC, CC, CC, somewhat CL but ultimately CC so I just keep thinking you are a CC mama. I am sorry for that. The way you practice CL works for you and the way I practice works for me. It is our own personal truths. Neither of us are wrong. That was really my point







so really, regardless of you being CC or CL, the point was that we can experience different truth. We can be different and have different opinions without the other person being wrong.

I respect that for _you_ there is no "always". That for _you_, _you_ feel sometimes there is no CL solution. and that for _you_, _you_ don't feel _you_ could really *know* what _your_ child understands. For _you_ its contridictory. I don't feel that there is anything I can say to change the way _you_ think. It's _your_ reality. It's not mine. It doesn't mean I'm wrong. We are both wonderful parents IMO. We are both right IMO. What is contradictory to you is not to me. I feel in any situation with *my* family there will be a CL solution, if I so choose to find it and use it.


----------



## spottiew

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
I am curious about the CL approach to situations like this, or where the child is simply upset about something the _parent_ chooses (or needs) to do.

My examples:

Dd (at 3-4) used to want to choose what *I* order when we went out for ice cream. There were sometimes big tantrums if I chose the same flavor as her









Dd now (at 8) gets upset when I leave for work. She would prefer that I not work at all. Sometimes there are tears, pleading.

my house!
i keep saying 'you can decide for you, but not for me', but he doesn't like that. so then i think he must think i decide for him sometimes... well, i decide things like 'go to shcool', yes, becuase i have to go to work.


----------



## churndash

I guess I was raised in a CL household - I don't think my parents ever called it that though. They considered themselves hippies, and I don't say that disparagingly as it's what they cheerfully call themselves.

Anyway, I didn't particularly like growing up that way, so I raise my children considerably differently; I guess the "benevolent dictator" style.

I make most of the decisions, although now that my oldest is a teenager she makes more of her own, but they are smaller day-to-day decisions, nothing life-altering.

This is what works for our family. I assume other parents are also doing what works for their family.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *spottiew* 
my house!
i keep saying 'you can decide for you, but not for me', but he doesn't like that. .

Yes, me too. I am wondering if, in a CL household, that would be considered "consensual", or if consensuality is not necessary in that sort of situation, or if the parent changes their behavior to meet the child's want, or...


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

it depends. If my child is trying to control me I will try to figure out why - however if my child tells me not to eat and I'm hungry then I am going to eat. I have told my children that I am in control of myself, I feel hungry, and so I am going to eat. Not eating would be child-controlled, not consensual, as I am hungry and need to eat, so not eating would not be consensual. just an example. Now if I wanted to take a shower and my child say no, and it was because they wanted to play a game with me first, I would be more then happy to play a game with them before hopping in the shower. alternately, they may be more then happy to know I am willing to play a game with them when I get out of the shower.


----------



## Cherie2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *churndash* 
I guess I was raised in a CL household - I don't think my parents ever called it that though. They considered themselves hippies, and I don't say that disparagingly as it's what they cheerfully call themselves.

Anyway, I didn't particularly like growing up that way, so I raise my children considerably differently; I guess the "benevolent dictator" style.

I make most of the decisions, although now that my oldest is a teenager she makes more of her own, but they are smaller day-to-day decisions, nothing life-altering.

This is what works for our family. I assume other parents are also doing what works for their family.

It is so fascinating to me how families switch back and forth like this - I am curious though what you didn't like about the way you were raised?


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cherie2* 
It is so fascinating to me how families switch back and forth like this - I am curious though what you didn't like about the way you were raised?

I'm not the person you asked, so am not trying to answer for her -- but my oldest periodically tells me that she's going to make her children do chores early on, and have a much more organized house ... she tells me that it's too late to start this with her now, and that I really needed to get her used to picking up after herself when she was a baby, and she says the key to keeping a clean house is that you clean it before you move in (I remind her that we did that), and then you just have to KEEP it clean, because once it gets messy it's just too late ...

Anyhow, in our case, I don't think it's really the CL that dd dislikes: It's my inadequacy in the organizational-skills department. I do periodically get one or more areas of the house looking really nice, and she's impressed -- but I never get it all that way at one time. And sometimes she gets the urge and will totally clean up her room, or organize some other part of the house. But I guess it's just not a strong enough interest for me (or her) to keep at it all the time.

We have some new friends who are way more consistent than we are in the CL department, and way neater. This mom never makes her children do chores, and she has one "collector" just like I do -- and she's shared with me how finding a place for everything is kind of like her passion. She loves doing it and is doing it continuously.

So since she (like me) has one child who wants to hang on to everything, she just has boxes in the basement where she will put up stuff her child's been doing, but doesn't want to deal with, and it will be there if she ever wonders what happened to it, and so on ...

She said she's just formed a habit of glancing around a room before she leaves it, and if anything doesn't belong she just deals with it right then so nothing ever piles up. And it irritates her husband that it takes her so long to get from one room to the next, but it makes things so much easier for her.

For a couple days I was trying a modified version of that and, before leaving one room, was trying to take at least one item to its proper place -- but it seems like in my case it may be too little too late, LOL.

So I think maybe it's my own shortcomings that makes CL look inadequate to my oldest.


----------



## Landover

I have read no other responses other the the OP, but I gotta say, that it is probably the best thing I have read on here in a LONG time. I don't post, or really even lurk, that often because the entire sentiment of "my kid and I are equal" makes me feel like society has gone mad.

I always talk to my kiddo, he knows that he gets to make lots of choices, but he also knows that I am his mother and I make decisions for him sometimes. It makes him feel safe, loved, and well protected.

Thanks for making my night!


----------



## churndash

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cherie2* 
It is so fascinating to me how families switch back and forth like this - I am curious though what you didn't like about the way you were raised?

Well, I guess it's one of those "you had to be there" sort of things.

My parents let me do whatever I wanted, as long as it didn't bother anybody else. I had no rules, no bedtimes, no curfew. I could eat or wear what I wanted, come and go as I pleased, etc. I don't think they ever told me "no".

It got to be exhausting after a while, making all those decisions for myself when I was 7 or 8 years old. I worried a lot. I also did a lot of stupid/dangerous things. And when I say dangerous, I mean, like I could have been seriously injured or killed!

I was much happier in school, where I knew where to go and what to do, and didn't have to try to figure everything out all by myself.

I love my parents and I don't hold it against them - they thought they were giving me a child's paradise. My mom and I have a great relationship and she respects my parenting choices.

Their style just didn't make me happy, and it's not what I choose to do in my household.


----------



## poiyt

I have wanted to post in this thread for a long time - but always felt intimidated to. FTR I am trying to be consensual, its a journey - and I do believe that my child and I are equal and have much to offer each other. What she lacks in experience I lack in imagination and creative thinking.

There are two things I wanted to say...

To Churndash - Not bashing the way you were raised, but it doesnt seem all that consensual. Letting your child run free, doing whatever they want, no rules etc - isnt consensual. I mean it *can* be if thats what all parties desire - but clearly you werent happy and that wasnt the case. There are some kids who thrive and ask for rules, or want guidelines or expectations and there is no problems giving them those - its the forced implementation of them that I find issue with.

Secondly - this is just an over all thing. I think we, (general we), get hung up on things that are negative and positive, good and bad - etc. Why is disappointment a bad thing? something to be avoided and discouraged? Why is anger a negative emotion? Those emotions are just as legitimate and just as important as being happy and content. If I constantly focus on making sure my child is happy then OF COURSE I wil be the one who goes without, and my child *may* become the spoiled one that everyone fears CL produces. I dont do things to make my child angry of course, but i recognize its importance.

When coming to mutually agreeable solutions - we can agree on the outcome, and have no everyone be happy - have there be disappointment - and thats not a bad thing. The important thing is that everyones voice is heard, everyone knows their opinion matters, and not one person has veto power.


----------



## Calm

Anyone like to share their ideas/opinions on why having veto power is a bad thing? And what their opinion is based on? And vice versa, anyone who believes having veto power is necessary or better, why?


----------



## Calm

I'm speaking for churndash here, which isn't a good thing but I think I can relate... the way I see how that can be negative AND consensual is that a child will always choose freedom, and exploration, over rules and answering to another. They may worry and feel burdened, but still choose that over "not eating all the icecream I want", if you catch my drift. I get that out of this simple statement:

Quote:

My parents let me do whatever I wanted, as long as it didn't bother anybody else.
whatever she "wanted". She wanted to do those things, but in hindsight perhaps recognised what that stress was she felt at the same time.

It's also why I think asking a child if they like their freedom is fruitless because if they can do what they want they're going to say "yes" because only the very mature and logic based thinker (8+ years) is going to say "actually, I do think that a little more structure would be more appropriate and ease a certain sense of responsibility I don't think I am developmentally ready for yet."


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Anyone like to share their ideas/opinions on why having veto power is a bad thing? And what their opinion is based on? And vice versa, anyone who believes having veto power is necessary or better, why?

It seems to me that even CL parents have and use veto power, although they use it with great discretion, and diffuse the impact of it through communication techniques. I am understanding the CL philosophy to be more about avoiding coercion (forcing a child _to do_ something) than granting total freedom (stopping a child from doing something unsafe, either directly--grabbing a child from running in front of a moving car, or indirectly--taking lots of time to work through _why_ the child doesn't want to sit in the carseat, and waiting until they are willing, but never driving without a carseat). Am I getting closer? If so, how do CL families define the line without using no, must, must not, etc? (this goes back to my recent example of ds and riding his motorcycle without a helmet).


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I think my children's happiness speaks volumes about how they feel. They aren't "eating all the ice cream they want" because I realize that is not REALLY what they want, and am able to meet the UNDERLYING desire. They aren't stresses, depressed, or overwhemed with responsibility. I dont talk to them about if we are going to pay the bills that month or buy groceries. I dont talk to them about what kind of car we are going to buy, nor do I demand their "responsibility" in keeping the house clean beyond what they choose to pitch in and do on their own accord. I don't follow them around all day saying "what about this? what about that?" I just let them be. It happens naturally, as they can handle more developmentally they speak up and request to have more say in those areas. Right now I put my kids to bed at 6-7. They willingly go. When that is no longer right for them, we will cross that bridge. If my kids want to stay up until 2 in the morning i will explore why. (is there a show they think all their friends are staying up to watch? would they be just as happy to go to bed at their usual time and I record it and they can watch it during breakfast before school) Thats just one example. I could understand stress if they had to "fend for themselves" but at the same time, as I read continuum concept, which at one point in this thread you said you were but have since had a change of heart and decided you are CL, I read about that tribe and it seems they are more self determining then even CL! (very interesting read)

It's not about "power" its not about WHO has power. My children make their own choices where appopriate and cooperate with me where appropriate. Not because I have power... IDK it kind of just flows. As they are developmentally ready to handle more they speak up about more. As they learn their preferences and needs, they share them with me, and we accomodate to make sure everyone is being respected.

My children experience a wide variety of emotions. Anger, disappointment, frustration, joy, excitement, confusion, sadness, anticipation, disgust, surprise, etc. I don't take their life experience away from them. Their emotions are their right. I allow them to have all those emotions. Yes, sometimes their emotions are hard for me... but what needs to be addressed at that time is my emotions. And for me to take the ooprtunity to explore whats going on for them and how I can be a support in their life. I guide them. I share knowledge, I give appropriate information. Overall though, the emotion they exude the most is happiness - and its not happiness in "getting what they want" this is an overall happiness. They are happy as they walk to school. They are happy as they go to bed. They are happy as they eat, as they talk, as they play, as they snuggle, etc. Their happiness is not contingent on whether or not they got the bowl of fruit they wanted for breakfast instead of the pancakes I felt like making because *I* wanted pancakes but didnt want to make them just for myself. (which is why I also keep microwave pancakes in the freezer lol - we all win!) If there was no fruit in the house I would allow their disappointment and we would move forward from there. In the end though, they are not burdened with responsibility, they are free, and they are happy. They are happy for my leadership in the areas they choose to follow, and they are happy for their freedom and my support in the areas they feel right in self determining.

At first, since we havent fully lived this way from birth, yes they seemed more miserable as they tested these limits. Then they realize that they don't feel right when demanding certain things. They realize that they are still safe, because I will still protect their safety. They realize they have a mother who understand them, because she can figure out what is really going on with them when they ask for a bowl of ice cream for breakfast. At that point, they make the shift too. They realize they dont want to have a say in everything. Then they experience the freedom I described above. They self determine what is developmentally appropriate* to them. I let them be. The rest of the time, they let me be, and follow my lead.

*(developmentally appropriate to them uniquely, in only a way they can know, not what some pediatric chart says... so in some ways its ahead in some areas and a bit behind in others, but generally I find the charts do give a good general idea of where my children seem to be at personally)

Life is not a challenge, for me or for them, when we are in tune and living consensually. It's not a burden. At this age, play and observance seems to be top priority, so often they just default to whatever I suggest or am doing, unless there is something they really need stopping them from being able to. Then they may experience conflict, within themselves, this has nothing to do with CL, but CL can help resolve. They may want to come help me fold the laundry even though I never asked, but they are busy playing and don't want to leave their toys. They are torn. A simple reminder that they are free to come help me, and we can go back to their toys when we are done may be all they need to hear. Or to know there is another load in the dryer so if they want to finish playing they can help with the other load. I give them accurate information. I feel they learn a lot in these moments, but I don't feel their childhood is impeded upon nor do I feel they are experiencing stress. They are experience conflict, and then conflict resolution, and then back to what seems to be their "base" emotion: happiness.

I see your question on what is necessary or better and I think that one is necessary and better for one family, but the other is necessary and better for another. I don't think there is a right and wrong. I think there are different truths, and I think different is a good thing. What I do is right for my family, despite the idea being thrown out there that somehow my children will be more stressed by this type of living or be burdened with inappropriate responsibility, my family is in these shoes, and we know this is not true for us.

CL looks different in every family. I see you quote the person who felt CL did not work for her in her family when her parents used it. Yet paid no heed towards my babysitter who her and her siblings are THRIVING haven being brought up in a CL way. She is CL with my children. She is very "successful" and so are her siblings, they have a great relationship with their parents, she is a genuinely happy person. I don't think her and her siblings were this was despite CL but because of CL. I also think that other children will turn out the same because of a different way of living. Because it can be different and still be right. It sounds to me that if churndash felt that way her parents were not really living CL. I also think there is a difference between CL and neglect. I assure you my 7 year olds will not be left to "come and go as they please" or put themselves in such dangerous situatons that they can get killed. I know people who were raised the way churndash described, and that is NOT what CL looks like in *my* home. So, if that was even CL, and it doesnt sound like it was since her needs were not being met, only her in the moment desires, which it also sounds like werent being met because she wanted to feel safe, but again IF that was CL, that is only how it looked like in one family.

You say this is not a case against CL, but you just keep agreeing with the idea tha CL is dangerous and anything negative said aganst CL, but when you hear success stories you blow them off. Can we please be honest about the intent of this thread? You are saying this isn't to put down CL, but its coming across as "no offense, but (insert offensive remark here)" Or as if calling oneself CL would be a free pass to talk negatively about it.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

sunnmama that sounds more like it, thank you for GENUINELY trying to understand and not just put us down. The thing is, its not really "veto power" because our children could do the same for us. We don't have power because we are the parent. We protect because we love them, and they can also protect us. Round table. We all have our own chair at the table - but it's not like we are all sitting at our own tables. It's not about power and who has it. It's about love and respect and we all give it and receive it.

My husband knows the dangers of the street, but I would still stop him from getting hit by a car. Of course I will do the same for my child, who doesn't understand the dangers of the street. (of course, we'd have to assume this of my child who can't even walk yet, so he's never on the ground outside near a road anyway lol) but theoretically, since thats what we are talking about. I wouldnt do that because i have veto power over my husband or my child, but because I love them. I also realize they would not choose to get hit by a car.

That being said, my kids still like to hold my hand. My son age 3 1/2 is just now at the point where sometimes he wants to walk without holding my hand, but is still responsive to holding it while we cross the street. It evolves with time. It's not about power or who as it though. Its not a CL parents using veto power. Its CL parents loving and respecting that the other person (child or adult) does not want to get run over by a car. By the same token, my child may protect me in the same way some day.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
As a strong CC parent, I buck against some ideas as they are not "natural" in continuum families. Negotiations, as mentioned, being the strongest point, but there are others. How does a CL family consolidate the CC aspects in their life? CC cultures are hierarchical, so before someone says they are not mutually exclusive, let me assure you they are in certain ways.

I really want to clear this up, so I can better understand where you are coming from. Are you a strong CC parent, who sometimes uses consensual options, or are you a CL parent who sees a need for power to veto?


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
They aren't stresses, depressed, or overwhemed with responsibility. I dont talk to them about if we are going to pay the bills that month or buy groceries. I dont talk to them about what kind of car we are going to buy, nor do I demand their "responsibility" in keeping the house clean beyond what they choose to pitch in and do on their own accord.

What about surgery for an 8 yo? Does the 8 yo get to decided? (real life situation for us, discussed earlier in the thread). Personally, I think that is the kind of thing that could stress a child with responsibility. Pat feels otherwise. That is where the personal beliefs and opinions come in.

SGM, gently, I am getting a LOT out of this converstation. I've been on many CL threads over the years, and this one has been exponentially more respectful and productive (from the point of view of understanding ideas) than all the others. The questions I am asking, and reading, are genuinely from a POV of seeking to understand--not to tear down.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I dont think it would be appropriate for me to talk about/give advice on an 8yo and surgery since Ive never been in that situation, but when I was 14 I had my gallbladder removed and I was happy to have it done! I think CL is different in every family, Pats family dynamics and relationship with of course be different then the next person. A consensual solution in one family may simply be "you need this to help you." and the child finding comfort and going through with it simply because they trust their parents judgement. If he child was adamantly against it, IDK what I would do, I haven't had much time to think about it like you have, or live it like you have, or have the relationship dynamic in your family that you have, so it would be hard for me to just come up with a consensual solution for YOUR family ya know?

This thread has been mostly respectful and productive, but if your way of life works for you, why do you need to understand another form of parenting? what I see is some people (not you, you seem open minded) trying to understand it in a certain way, and unwilling to understand it in any other way - a way that builds up their own parenting choices by putting down another, instead of respecting there is more then one "right" way. I have no desire to understand traditional parenting. I also dont understand claiming to subscribe to something you clearly dont.

Example:
I am a breastfeeding mama. *I formula feed though*, because I choose to. Breastfeeding can be dangerous ya know? I mean, what if xyz times 10, exponent 7 happened, then a person couldn't breastfeed anyway, and if they did they wouldnt really be breastfeeding because they had on a nipple shield and so therefor they aren't breastfeeding, so ultimately there are situation in which EVERY person would have to formula feed, and formula is better for you then breastmilk anyway. What? I'm not putting down breastfeeding! *I myself breastfeed!*"

can you see how that kind of reasoning would cause confusion to the person on the other side on the conversation? They claim to be a breastfeeding mother because they feel that means they can put down breastfeeding without anyone giving a second thought to it. They then basically project their own short comings on everyone else saying breastfeeding is ultimately impossible for anyone in a certaion situation. The notion is then topped with, if you can find a way to resolve the problem but it doesn't fit neatly in the package of what *they* determined breastfeeding to be then you are not *really* breastfeeding, trying to take away from a mother who went through hell to find a way to breastfeed by telling her she is not in fact breastfeeding.

perhaps an example outside what we are actually talking about would help, thats why I used breastfeeding.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

It may be hard to find the answers some are looking for, especially if someone is not open to believing that CL is right, or could be right.

Some are looking for black and white answers, when the answer may be not be black or white or anywhere in between. The answer may be orange, fuschia, or chartreuse.

It is not dancing around the question, its just that the answer is outside the box of what the other party is determining to be direct, though for the other party it is quite direct. Or that the direct answer lies within the person asking the question, and only if they truly want to find that direct answer. Often I gain support online from like minded mamas - they give me lots of ideas, and none of them work - but it inspires me to find something that WILL work because to me I know there are options that just havent been revealed yet - answers within *myself* that no one else can tell me. they can inspire me to find it in myself though.

I think that is why a CL mama can say "I am confident I could find a solution if I were in that position" and yet can't find the right solution for the other party. Because 1) the ideas they did suggest would probably be right for their family and 2) they don't have the years of experience with the other person's family that they have with their own. Of course, no one can really say with certainty that if they were you in your shoes they wouldnt have that problem, because there is no way to prove that. It's not to put the other parent down. Because what you ultimately choose to do will be something you feel is right for you, your daughter, and your family. The reason is that a CL parent feels confident they can accomplish the same (accomplish what is right for themselves, their children, and their family) and for _them_ that means a CL solution. Really its just saying we have confidence we could find a CL solution because CL is what is right in our family. It is not the ONLY thing that is right for ALL families. It is what is right for THAT CL family.

So, I'm sorry I dont have an answer or a right idea for you. I am confident you will find the right answer for your family though, "consensual" or not, it will be true to your family. At the same time though, I am confident that I could be true to my own family, and that I will always be able to find a CL solution in my life, because CL is right and true to my family. I also trust that if you ever decide CL is right and true to your family, that at that point you will find the answers that are within yourself. It's OKAY not to be CL. It's also OKAY to be CL. Both are right. Both are right, IMO. To truly understand CL be willing to understand that CL is possible for anyone who feels CL is right and true for them. CL is not only right and true because CL can be applied to any hypothetical situation. CL is right and true because it can be applied to any real life situation that includes a person who embraces CL, even if only in that moment. When it involves me, I can find a CL solution. As a specator I can offer ideas, but it's just not the same... I dont have all the answers, but I can find all the answers *I* need.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Example:
I am a breastfeeding mama. *I formula feed though*, because I choose to. Breastfeeding can be dangerous ya know? I mean, what if xyz times 10, exponent 7 happened, then a person couldn't breastfeed anyway, and if they did they wouldnt really be breastfeeding because they had on a nipple shield and so therefor they aren't breastfeeding, so ultimately there are situation in which EVERY person would have to formula feed, and formula is better for you then breastmilk anyway. What? I'm not putting down breastfeeding! *I myself breastfeed!*"

I'm seeing it more like "I'm a breastfeeding mama who sometimes *needs* to use formula because of [insert some compelling issue here...how about low supply and lack of access to donor milk]. Can we breastfeeding mamas admit that there might be times when a mama might actually *need* to use formula and not accuse her of being lazy or poisoning her child? Can we say that sometimes there just might not be an alternative to formula and that that is okay?" I could be wrong though.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I. A consensual solution in one family may simply be "you need this to help you." and the child finding comfort and going through with it simply because they trust their parents judgement.

That has been our approach, and dd is willing to trust our judgment on the issue. The phrasing includes "need to"--which is something that I've been questioning on this thread. I can understand CL a lot better if "must, need to, must not" are used sometimes, but have a difficult time understanding how we can effectively communicate without them.

Quote:


This thread has been mostly respectful and productive, but if your way of life works for you, why do you need to understand another form of parenting? what I see is some people (not you, you seem open minded) trying to understand it in a certain way, and unwilling to understand it in any other way - a way that builds up their own parenting choices by putting down another, instead of respecting there is more then one "right" way. .
Academic curiosity? Really! That is mostly what I do on MDC, explore other ideas for the sake of exploration.

Also, while we see improvement from defining direct boundaries with dd, we still have challenges. I am always open to finding new ways to relate to her (which is why I was willing to try the "kid decision" "adult decision" approach at age 6 to begin with, when she was struggling with anxiety under our previously more democratic atmosphere).


----------



## churndash

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I'm speaking for churndash here, which isn't a good thing but I think I can relate... the way I see how that can be negative AND consensual is that a child will always choose freedom, and exploration, over rules and answering to another. They may worry and feel burdened, but still choose that over "not eating all the icecream I want", if you catch my drift. I get that out of this simple statement:
whatever she "wanted". She wanted to do those things, but in hindsight perhaps recognised what that stress was she felt at the same time.

It's also why I think asking a child if they like their freedom is fruitless because if they can do what they want they're going to say "yes" because only the very mature and logic based thinker (8+ years) is going to say "actually, I do think that a little more structure would be more appropriate and ease a certain sense of responsibility I don't think I am developmentally ready for yet."

Well, sort of!

I always felt a sense of relief when I was in school, but it wasn't until I was older that I realized it was because I was "free" from making decisions all day.

I sort of feel the need to give an example of what I meant when I said I didn't like making all my own choices....let's see...

When I was 7, my grandma invited me to spend the summer with her. My parents, of course, told me to decide for myself if I wanted to go. Well I wanted to and I didn't want to. I thought it would be fun but I also thought I would miss my friends, etc. I didn't want to hurt Grandma's feelings by saying no, either. I was a little scared of the plane trip, but I didn't want anyone to think I was a baby. So the answer to "do you want to go?" was pretty complicated. I wanted to ask for help, but by 7, I already knew that I was expected to make these choices myself. If I asked my parents to decide for me, they'd just say it wasn't their choice to make. I was afraid they'd be disappointed in me if I asked for help.

Now today of course, my mom says she would have helped me make those decisions if I had just asked her to, but it was hard for me at that age to "go against" what I thought they wanted and ask.

But like I said, that's just me. I have no opionion on the subject in general, I just know it didn't work for me.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
A consensual solution in one family may simply be "you need this to help you." and the child finding comfort and going through with it simply because they trust their parents judgement.

I think this is important - our kids don't have the burden of making every decision in their lives, if they don't want it. It is perfectly fine to turn your decision-making power over to someone you trust - like a parent - and much of the time, this is how things worked in my house.

My daughter broke her arm when she was 11, and I didn't ask her if she wanted to to to the ER, for example... I decided we were going and she trusted my decision. However, when we were there they gave us two options for fixing her arm (the bones had moved out of place and they needed to apply traction and then pop them into the right place again) and she did choose then, with information about each. She was 11, though, and wanted that responsibility... at 5, I probably would have made the choice, and she would have been okay with it.

Dar


----------



## contactmaya

churndash said:


> I guess I was raised in a CL household QUOTE]
> 
> When i was growing up, i went where i pleased, ate when i wanted, went to bed when i wanted, etc etc, as did my 4 other siblings. When friends were over, they would often say 'we cant do this at our house', and i would say, 'well, in our house, we can do what we like', and they were pretty amazed.
> 
> I loved going to school, i loved practising piano. I basically just enjoyed life. I was in a band with my 2 brothers, we played in clubs (tho under age) Our mother drove us there.
> We never did drugs or alcohol whilst there (it was all around us) My brother to this day has never smoked weed or drank alcohol, though he moves in muso circles.
> 
> I grew up consesnually, and i liked it. I was free, nobody bossed me around. My mother always seemed to be there for me.
> 
> Sometimes i fanastised about going to some exclusive boarding school, so would have something to rebel against. I thought it would be fun to rebel. But i enjoyed feeling that my parents were on my side. I never felt the need to rebel, so i didnt.
> 
> I wondered what kind of a parent i would turn out to be.Both my parents grew up in very strict corperal punishment type households, so i thought maybe i would rebel against my own consensual upbringing. No, i like the way i was raised.


----------



## contactmaya

Flowers-I enjoyed your post because it gave me permission to call our way of living in my family consensual living. I think you are right, that the overall picture is more important. It is after all, an ideal, a goal, a process.The only problem for me though, is where do you draw the line&#8230;I guess if there is a series of events/ or repetitive scenarios, then its worth looking into&#8230;.

Also, I would not use the term 'heirarchy' in my family at all. I play a role as parent/guide, but that does make me higher, better, or give me automatic right to have it 'my way'.

<I do my best to stay as conscious as a being as possible.>>

That is really the bottom line for me too

Sunmamma <And, yes, hungry and tired would best explain why he resists at other times--but I can't really fix those underlying causes until we get home, you know?>>

That's where you might look at a 'series' of events' to use Flowers terminology, rather than looking at it as a one off sitation. If its happening all the time, then you know to make sure he isnt hungry and tired in general at this time&#8230;

Calm, I totally get where your coming from.

Maya
ps sorry i messed up the quotes here-i hope this is legible


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
I'm seeing it more like "I'm a breastfeeding mama who sometimes *needs* to use formula because of [insert some compelling issue here...how about low supply and lack of access to donor milk]. Can we breastfeeding mamas admit that there might be times when a mama might actually *need* to use formula and not accuse her of being lazy or poisoning her child? Can we say that sometimes there just might not be an alternative to formula and that that is okay?" I could be wrong though.

What I am saying though, is that is what the CL mamas are doing but isnt being done in return. We are saying, in a sense, its okay to formula feed if its right for you, its okay to breastfeed and use formula sometimes, but we choose to always breastfeed, even though we sometimes hit some bumps along the way. Yet the "formula feeders" are saying "yeah but if you use a nipple sheild you arent REALLY breastfeeding" or "its impossible to breastfeed ALL the time, because of xyz" that if you breastfeed ins spite of xyz then you are a true breastfeeder, but your child may die of malnourishment because you have a low supply or alternately, if you pumped and then bottle fed so your baby would get enough before falling asleep at the breast then you arent REALLY breastfeeding. The need to put down breastfeeding to feel better as a formula feeder. Why? why cant it just be that one is right for one person and one is right for the other person, and even if we do use a nipple sheild we can still call ourselves "true breastfeeders" (still speaking in metaphor here)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
That has been our approach, and dd is willing to trust our judgment on the issue. The phrasing includes "need to"--which is something that I've been questioning on this thread. I can understand CL a lot better if "must, need to, must not" are used sometimes, but have a difficult time understanding how we can effectively communicate without them.

Academic curiosity? Really! That is mostly what I do on MDC, explore other ideas for the sake of exploration.

Also, while we see improvement from defining direct boundaries with dd, we still have challenges. I am always open to finding new ways to relate to her (which is why I was willing to try the "kid decision" "adult decision" approach at age 6 to begin with, when she was struggling with anxiety under our previously more democratic atmosphere).

difference:
you: academic curiosity and looking for more ways to relate to your child.
what i was talking about: people who feel the need to bash another form of parenting to make their own look better, without respecting that CL is possible for anyone who makes consensus a priority. It doesn't mean its wrong not to, there is more then one right answer.

It is right to live 100% consensually.
It is right to have a hierarchy, that uses consensual techniques.
it is right to have total hierarchy.

so forth and so on. Not "either you re letting your child get hit by the car or you are not ultimately CL." .... equivalent: "either you are breastfeeding from the breast or you are not REALLY a breastfeeding mama or you are breastfeeding from the breast to the point that you would let your child die if you had no milk" WHY can't it just be you are getting your child breastmilk by any means possible, and therefore your baby is breastfed/fed breastmilk/ you are a breastfeeder whatever you want to call it? Why is there a need to "take away the positive of" or "put down" something different then what you do?

This point has been made many times, but it seems to continually fall on deaf ears. The only acceptable answer would be either CL ultimately means you let your child get hit by a car or CL is not possible 100% of the time.

For those of us who live consensually though, we *know* because we live it that consensual solutions are alway available and it _doesn't_ mean our child is going to die or have some terrible childhood filled with unnecessary burden of responsibility and lack of emotional experience. I suppose then, people want us to add "but that just because our lives are super easy and we have no hard situations to solve" but unfortunately, at least for me, it's not that simple and I'm not that lucky. Some times, the solutions are REALLY hard to find, and if CL wasn't important to me, I would probably say "there is no CL solution for this" but I find, when I think there IS a solution, there is. When I think there is not, there is not. What I find most helpful, is to simply always think there is, and since I began doing this, there always is. Perhaps it's a coincidence that takes place for those who choose to embrace CL and believe fully there is always a solution. Whatever the reason, its working for us, it works for many people who choose for it to work. It works some of the time for those who choose for it to work some of the time. It can be harder in a particular situation, but in the long run this is how our family flows most harmoniously and peacefully and smoothly.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I've learned and believe that there are no "must" and "must not", especially as directed by mainstream medical professionals.

Pat


SGM, a lot of my CL questions, here and on threads over the years, come from trying to understand Pat's belief expressed above. It seems that maybe other CL families believe differently?

No one is saying that CL leads to a terrible childhood. I hear some people saying that a CL approach wasn't a fit for them, and they are parenting differently now. Others are saying it was a great match, and they are parenting the same. I certainly have heard CL parents (on other threads) describe their own upbringing with disdain, and believing CL to be a better approach for their dc.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
It is right to live 100% consensually.
It is right to have a hierarchy, that uses consensual techniques.
it is right to have total hierarchy.
.


Well, I for certain do _not_ agree with this. I can't see any situation where it would be healthy for a parent to have 100% control over their teens, up to the day they move out--unless the child is developmentally disabled to the point where they will not ever be living independently. I think that is wrong and damaging.

For some, 100% consensual living from birth seems similarly extreme.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

perhaps I misunderstand heirarchy then - from my understanding 100% heirachy does not mean 100% parental control... heirarchy from my understanding does not mean the child is a puppet.

i defined hierarchy as : the organization of people at different ranks.

I'll pul some quotes you must have missed sunnamma.

I agree with pat, there is no must and must not.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Anyone like to share their ideas/opinions on why having veto power is a bad thing? And what their opinion is based on? And vice versa, anyone who believes having veto power is necessary or better, why?

DH and I held veto power for several reasons. It's Biblical; we are older and have more life experience; and it's the law. Sisnce I'm being held accountable for my child's actions by God and the state then I'm also going to wield the authority that comes with that accountablity.

I think that one of the things that is keeping this debate going is the word "power" and it's perceived negative connotation. Wielding power isn't necessarily a bad thing. And to quote Spiderman, "great power comes with great responsibility".

As I posted elsewhere in this thread (I don't remember which page; it was a while ago), babies are little dictators. They hold all the power (control if you will) of when they eat, where and when they sleep, held or not held, changed, etc. The parent's responsibility is to respond to their needs on demand. As the child grows up, this control switches to the parent (benevolent dictator). The child learns to live within the group. As the child grows and matures, the parents slowly gives back control to the child (republic). Ending during the teen years with an Athenian democracy. Too much power and control given to the child too early can be just as damaging as retaining power and control by the parent too long.


----------



## sunnmama

I was thinking of the examples in the poll....2% voted for a definite, strict hierarchy.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

the definition is still the same though.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I hear what you are saying sew chris. you look at it differently then I do. As I see it, a newborn is born with their needs being met, and you continue to meet them until they can meet them themselves.

baby/toddler: you provide food when they are hungry (you decide which food), help them sleep when they are tired, etc
child: may sometimes make their own meals, will let you know what they prefer, they may not need help falling sleep anymore, etc.
adult: they buy their own food, they provide their own roof over their head, they fall asleep on their own. alternately, they may have a companion (husband/wife) to support them when they need help, same as when they were growing up they had a parent to support them where they needed help (but less help is needed)

so I see a progression of ability and a recession of the amount of help needed.
you see power ping pong (from child > to adult, back to child < who is now an adult)

you see: child (as baby) power, parent power, child power(as adult)
I see: child (as baby) need lots of help, child (as child) needs moderate help, child (as adult) needs little help.
I see: child (as baby) defaults to parent _by choice_, child (as child) sometimes defaults to parent _by choice_, sometimes self determines, child (as adult) rarely defaults to parent.

I think there is a difference between self sufficiency and self determining. You can determine to follow someone else's lead.. It is still self determining to choose to follow someone's lead, but you are doing so by choice not by force or coercion.

I find out that as children get older they desire to have more say. I dont find that they have "all the say" then the parents have "all the say" then the parents give back "the say" lol. I find that the baby has little 'say' (because thats all they desire to have, they default the rest to the parent and go with the flow), and that 'say' increases as their desires to have say increases as their ability to handle having say increases.

I am able to see how both can be right. I respect your interpretation of the Bible and your choices in a parent. You are right for your family, and though I am different in my thinking and practices then you are, I am not by default wrong. I am right for my family.

***perhaps self reliant would have been a better term then self sufficiency, because in reflective though, it is pretty sufficient to know when to follow someone's leads and when to take the reigns yourself.***


----------



## cottonwood

Pretty interesting thread and OP, wish I had time to read the whole thing.

We have a definite hierarchy at our house in the sense that the kids look to us to create a safe space the has order and harmony, and to take care of them. Sometimes that means making decisions. It's not always a good thing to have the responsibility of making decisions, sometimes it's a burden, and I think it's better to carry that myself than force it on them. Where it's beneficial for them to have autonomy, they have autonomy. Which happens to be in most things -- we look, and feel, pretty RU and consensual. But I'm still ultimately in charge (to what degree depends on what age.) 2xy said it well:

Quote:

for me, consensual living means respecting everyone's wants and needs, and finding mutually agreeable solutions whenever possible. It's not extremism. [...] My goal is not to achieve "100% consensual living." My goal is to treat everyone like they matter.
Respect is the main thing. Something that was said in the OP does really bother me, and it's this idea that I somehow earned the right to be the Queen, by virtue of my age and experience. I don't approach it that way; in fact it seems to me a selfish and unkind approach. I approach my role in the hierarchy, rather, as my responsibility, my duty to be a leader as they need it. Using my power as a way to get what I want just because it's nicer for me, at the expense of them not getting something that's nicer for them, imo would be a serious abuse of that power.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I hear what you are saying sew chris. you look at it differently then I do. As I see it, a newborn is born with their needs being met, and you continue to meet them until they can meet them themselves.

baby/toddler: you provide food when they are hungry (you decide which food), help them sleep when they are tired, etc
child: may sometimes make their own meals, will let you know what they prefer, they may not need help falling sleep anymore, etc.
adult: they buy their own food, they provide their own roof over their head, they fall asleep on their own. alternately, they may have a companion (husband/wife) to support them when they need help, same as when they were growing up they had a parent to support them where they needed help (but less help is needed)

so I see a progression of ability and a recession of the amount of help needed.
you see power ping pong (from child > to adult, back to child < who is now an adult)

you see: child (as baby) power, parent power, child power(as adult)
I see: child (as baby) need lots of help, child (as child) needs moderate help, child (as adult) needs little help.
I see: child (as baby) defaults to parent _by choice_, child (as child) sometimes defaults to parent _by choice_, sometimes self determines, child (as adult) rarely defaults to parent.

I think there is a difference between self sufficiency and self determining. You can determine to follow someone else's lead.. It is still self determining to choose to follow someone's lead, but you are doing so by choice not by force or coercion.

I find out that as children get older they desire to have more say. I dont find that they have "all the say" then the parents have "all the say" then the parents give back "the say" lol. I find that the baby has little 'say' (because thats all they desire to have, they default the rest to the parent and go with the flow), and that 'say' increases as their desires to have say increases as their ability to handle having say increases.

I am able to see how both can be right. I respect your interpretation of the Bible and your choices in a parent. You are right for your family, and though I am different in my thinking and practices then you are, I am not by default wrong. I am right for my family.

I think that we are saying the same thing. I just tend to think of child development in historical/political terms. But then I tend to think of everything in historical/political terms. And then there is the experience of raising Erica which has colored everything. Life with a bi-polar child is not consensual. Especially when there was no information about bi-polar children nor was there any medical help for them. In a very real sense, Erica dictated the family dynamics. I am very thankful that Joy and Angela have the personalities they do. Otherwise, it wouldn't have worked.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Thought 1:

consensual living: way of living
attachment parenting: way of parenting
breastfeeding: choice
co sleeping: choice
riding a bike: choice

So, if you can breastfeed part time, co sleep part time, ride a bike part time, and the rest of the time you will be not co sleeping, not breastfeeding, or not riding a bike.

With CL, if you are LIVING consensually, then it's not really about each individual option. For those who live consensually though, its the overall belief there are always mutually agreeable solutions. With Attachment parenting, you may not breastfeed, but you can still be an attached parent. It's your overal parenting. So some CLers may not always use CL solutions, but it's a way of life, so this is their goal, and it is recognized that solutions are infinite and there are always mutually agreeable solutions - should you choose to look for an use them. Much like with attachment parenting, where you can realize that breastfeeding or co sleeping IS an option, and that if something comes up there are many options and switching to formula is one of them but its not the ONLY option.

Thought 2:

Some people would like to learn more consensual solutions, but do not want to live consensually. This is right for them, and possible. They are willing to use a solution that is not consensual though if they feel they "must". One who is LIVING consensually does not feel they *must*...

Upon hearing this, a non-cler who wants to use consensual solutions may feel frustrated. Or that CL isnt "workable".

To say that its impossible or imply that fully embracing it can only mean 1)bad things or 2)your life is perfect with no real conflict, is not true to CLers. For them to say it is not true to them, is frustrating to non CLers. So a simple concept is over complicated unnecessarily. One attempts to rip apart the concept of CL, instead of accepting that there is more then one right way to live.

The implcations set forth are: If a CLer does not experience the same troubles - then their life must be easy, and it is easy for any reason other then the fact that they have always embraced CL. If a CLer has troube then the only reason seems to be that its because of CL. Long story short : if something bad happens to a CLer its because they are a CLer if something good happens to a CLer its in spite of embracing CL.

Has this been said flat out? No. It's implied, perhaps unintentionally - perhaps in a persons subconcious desire to make their own way of life sound far superior. Of course we do what we do because we feel it is best. The question at hand is, can we respect that others do the same? Can we respect that for those who choose, CL is right. For some, other ways of life they choose are right. I can respect this, but I don't know if I am capable of expressing my thoughts in a way that can bridge the gap between those who have had a paradigm shift and those who have not.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I was labeled bi polar growing up. Which is not what it turned out I had, unfortunately (unfortunate because if my problem was known at the time I could have been helped so much more then I was). I am speaking in historical terms by the way, just further back in history







I am talking about how things happen naturally, instead of history beginning with modern society.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 
Pretty interesting thread and OP, wish I had time to read the whole thing.

We have a definite hierarchy at our house in the sense that the kids look to us to create a safe space the has order and harmony, and to take care of them. Sometimes that means making decisions. *It's not always a good thing to have the responsibility of making decisions, sometimes it's a burden, and I think it's better to carry that myself than force it on them*. Where it's beneficial for them to have autonomy, they have autonomy. Which happens to be in most things -- we look, and feel, pretty RU and consensual. But I'm still ultimately in charge (to what degree depends on what age.) 2xy said it well:

Respect is the main thing. Something that was said in the OP does really bother me, and it's this idea that I somehow earned the right to be the Queen, by virtue of my age and experience. I don't approach it that way; in fact it seems to me a selfish and unkind approach. I approach my role in the hierarchy, rather, as my responsibility, my duty to be a leader as they need it. Using my power as a way to get what I want just because it's nicer for me, at the expense of them not getting something that's nicer for them, imo would be a serious abuse of that power.

My children do not carry a burden of decision making. This seems to be the misconception, that because they are FREE to make decisions that they feel are appropriate for them to make, that thy are left to their own devices, neglected, and "forced" to make ALL decisions on their own. They dont care to make every decision. Much like there are decisions my husband makes simpl because I do not care what decision is made and don' want to think about it. A major aspect of CL for me is not forcing my children to do anything. That includes not forcing them to make decisions that would be a burden for them to make when they would be happy if I just led the way and allowed them to, follow. I agree with a lot of what you said actually, I just saw the opportunity to clear up that one misconception. I just don't agree im ultimately in charge of my children. I do feel, I am ultimately responsible for them though and with time they take more and more of that responsibility. I clean up after them as children, as adults they will clean up after themselves for example. I am responsible to provide them food and shelter, as adults they will provide that for themselves, etc. I think the difference is removing the "power" - as in power over others. We are empowered with control over ourselves. We do not dictate each other. i do not over power, control, over rule etc my children, nor do they do so to me. Everyone is heard and respected. Everyone's needs are met. In this sense equal only means fully. Everyone's needs are fully met, but everyones needs vary in degree, so it's hardly "equal" but as people are are equal and for that reason all deserve to have our needs fully met.


----------



## contactmaya

Riverscout - <<Can we breastfeeding mamas admit that there might be times when a mama might actually need to use formula and not accuse her of being lazy or poisoning her child? Can we say that sometimes there just might not be an alternative to formula and that that is okay?">>

that and&#8230;..I am a breastfeeding mamma, but when do introduce solids?
I am a breastfeeding mamma, but my baby is nursing a lot at night, what do you do?
I am a breastfeeding mamma, but I am pregant, did you tandem nurse?

I am a breastfeeding mamma, but I drink coffee, is that ok?

And any other question a bf'ing mamma may ask, in the name of discussion, exploration, doubt, needing support, you name it&#8230;&#8230;

Sunmamma,<<Academic curiosity? Really! That is mostly what I do on MDC, explore other ideas for the sake of exploration>>

Yeah that&#8230;.but even more so, the more important it is to me, the more I explore it. Hell, ive been on the AP yahoo group for over 3 years, and still enjoy discussing it&#8230;

sunmamma<<I can understand CL a lot better if "must, need to, must not" are used sometimes, but have a difficult time understanding how we can effectively communicate without them. >>

I think Flowers post answers this quandry really well&#8230; post 641 (on p33)


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
My children do not carry a burden of decision making. This seems to be the misconception, that because they are FREE to make decisions that they feel are appropriate for them to make, that thy are left to their own devices, neglected, and "forced" to make ALL decisions on their own. They dont care to make every decision.


This is something that I have a difficult time navigating in real life. One example is similar to Churndash's example of visiting grandparents--my 8 yo would dearly love to sleep over at her friend's house, and has tried several times (including last night), but is just not ready. She isn't even ready to sleep in her own _room_, let alone another house. So we try periodically (at her pleading), and it always ends with her feeling bad (calling late, apologizing--even though we aren't upset, feeling embarrassed in front of her friend, etc).

I think it would be better for her emotionally if I would just say "no sleepovers until ____" and stick to it. She would eventually show readiness and enjoy them, but for now it is just a source of angst. In fact, once I did say "no" to a sleepover (even though she was asking to sleep over at the party) because we did not know the family well enough. She sulked a bit before the party, but then _thanked_ me the next day because she was so happy to be able to save face by saying "My mom won't let me" rather than admit she wants to go home. So it can be tricky, ime.


----------



## contactmaya

SGM-cc and cl are not mutually exclusive, but very connected. The point is, the cc tribe seemed to live consensually….because they were living according to a continuum concept….


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Yes, in reading the book I can see where they connect. In some ways VERY alike, and in other ways vastly differnet....

I was just curious if to Calm the two were mutually exclusive? Because she kept saying she was CC, strong CC parent, referrenced being CC many times, but later on said she considers herself CL... so to her maybe they are close enough to be considered mutually exclusive? She sees the difference though, because she has said where CC and CL clash she finds she is CC.... so I've just been a bit lost on her stance, which is making it hard to see where she is coming from clearly, especially given some of comments she has made about CL.

sunnmama in that situation I would probably do this:

How about you go over there for popcorn and movie, and if you want to stay later you can stay. I will come get you when you are ready for me to pick you up. It's okay if you end up deciding to stay overnight too, and it's okay if you decide you want me to pick you up in the middle of the night.

In addition to that I would suggest sleep overs at my house. Or a mother-daughter sleep over. I would also set my limits if I had any (I may not be willing to go pick her up in the middle of the night every week, but I may be okay doing it monthly, and so the agreement may be trying sleepovers once a month at most - again with the intent to be go for the "party" part, and come home when tired - this may help some children if the sleeping over part isnt expected, but allowed if they choose to do that)

If I sensed my child would truly be happier not going at all, I would probably talk to them about that. My mom did something like this right a few times for me. I wanted her to say no. I didn't have to feel like I was trying to get a no out of her though. She could just say "if you don't want to go I will tell them you already had other plans"...

anyway, it's kind of a bit complicated for me to give you advice on YOUR child... especially since I have no way of knowing how my child would react in that situation either. I would hope my child wouldn't see me as the person they had to get a yes or no answer from... to not see me as the one with "all the power" to not even ask me if they can sleep over because they know they could, but they also know they don't want to. I guess I could envision my child asking me more of an insighful "should I sleep over my friends house" or approaching me with "I was invited to sleep over my friends house" and having a discussion from there. Instead of feeling like they have to ask (or beg) me to sleep over, even if they really didnt want to.

also, speaking from personal experience, I will say I am thankful for something when I don't get my way sometimes - I try to convince myself it is in fact BETTER this way. It's not a bad thing, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't have been happy if the answer to my question had been "yes, you can sleep over"

You obviously know your child does not need to apologize or feel bad if she leaves a sleep over early. Surely you have tried to convey this to her. She somehow still gets the vibe its a inconvenience or upsetting you in some way, even if thats not the vibe you are giving off. I would ask if there was anything in my actions that weren't lining up. Am I telling her its no big deal, but it is obvious that I've been inconvenienced? Is it obvious that I think she shouldn't have went in the first place? Once that was aside, I could also work on how child is perceiving things, such as the idea suggested earlier - going into it with the goal not to sleep over.


----------



## Calm

I haven't read all the responses yet, but am getting the obvious vibe from SGM and wanted to address that before I read on.

Quote:

What I am saying though, is that is what the CL mamas are doing but isnt being done in return. We are saying, in a sense, its okay to formula feed if its right for you, its okay to breastfeed and use formula sometimes, but we choose to always breastfeed, even though we sometimes hit some bumps along the way.
I am not and have never on this thread suggested you do something different to what you are doing, or that what I am doing is ok but what you are doing is wrong. You have misunderstood me more than anyone on this thread, and unfortunately, you have taken it upon yourself to be the main respondent for me - which although I appreciate, you just don't get me or my questions so it hasn't always been helpful, and is more intent on stripping down _my_ intent.

Let's get one thing very clear, I have made my intentions straight forward, about the use of the word _always_, and self _determination,_ as example. They _still_ haven't been addressed. I am not _tearing down_ anything, and I've already said that. This discussion would feel nicer if you didn't keep coming back to the same notions, and then you drift off into the rabbit hole with all your xyz formulas as though I'm making ridiculous examples or situations. As mentioned by a pp - gently. If you feel confronted, then see that for what it is and stop projecting onto me. I have asked direct questions, leading questions, given examples... I haven't laughed at you or anyone else or tried to make you feel stupid.

You keep wondering why I'm asking and aside from a few other reasons the main reason is that _*they haven't been answered yet*_. It's like "oh yes, there's always a consensual solution... uhh no, I haven't always found one, no, but there IS always one!" And regarding self determination, some say it's different for a baby others don't, it isn't clear, if it was clear, there wouldn't be such a misunderstanding of CL. People are confused, and I am standing here refusing to budge until we get logical answers... I'm not looking for a reason to use CL, I already use it. I'm looking for its boundaries. I'm looking for particular answers to particular questions because they have been problems for myself and others. So instead of fobbing us off as problems, perhaps try to understand what I'm asking instead of trying to convince me CL is "ok". I know it is. But I can't find its boundaries, and I have struggled with a couple of issues and also cannot see how the written "ideal" makes any sense, esp when dealing with toddlers. There are very blanket absolutes, and like I said, Pat may be able, with one well behaved child (a situation I was all too familiar with with my own daughter) to be 100% consensual. I WAS 100% consensual, it was a breeze (at least, I started it when she was old enough to rationalise, not as a toddler). But throw in another child, a strong willed child before they've even hit 12 months and you have a whole new look at CL. And I find the problems I am working through now.

You also seem confronted by me wondering about the safety of unchecked self determination in an undeveloped human who is put on earth specifically with a caretaker for a reason. I'm not trying to tell you CL is dangerous, but I _can_ see how it _could_ be. Can't you? If you can't then we're not looking at the same CL. And we can't discuss it. If someone can see what I see, if they can follow what I'm asking, PLEASE can you help me? I'm getting mighty sick of first having to defend why I am asking.

Sigh.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

they have been answered, just not by pat, who is the only person apparently whose opinion on CL matters to you. You wont budge until you get logical answers, and yet those of us who have answered you feel our answers were logical. Then you say you aren't trying to imply that we are "wrong" or "stupid" nope... just _illogical_, to you. I'm not projecting on you. I don't feel threatended because I know I am doing what is right for my family. I am only asking that you can respect that it is right for others. It is logical for others, even if these answers dont sound logical *to you*. I can see how NEGLECT can be dangerous. I don't see how CL is dangerous, unless coupled with neglect, and in that case, ANY form of parenting would be dangerous if coupled with neglect. Its not because of CL, its because of neglect. And in my experience, CL does not make one more likely to neglect, it in fact, for *my family* has made it pretty impossible to neglect, because we interact and are so connected. I am able to be consensual with 3 children - 1 high needs, 1 highly sensitive, and 1 special needs. All 3 very different children. It seems Pat is the only one whose response will matter to you, and you discredit her because she only has one child - which is probably why she directs you to the many OTHER CL mama's, which, by the way, I am one of, even if my opinions don't count to you, because they don't support the negative spin you are trying to give.

sigh.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
. Instead of feeling like they have to ask (or beg) me to sleep over, even if they really didnt want to..


She wants to at 6 pm. She feels differently at 11 pm.

We've discussed lots of what you mention in your post (although I am unwilling to do mommy sleepovers-have a nursing toddler, and she doesn't want me to sleep over). But the thing is she still ends up feeling disappointed and embarrassed when she decides to come home. And that is the thing! *I know* how it will end, and I feel like I could spare her if I just said "no".


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I understand what you are saying. I respect you know what is best for your family. It's not that I dont think there is a consensual solution, if its important for you to find one I bet one day a lightbulb will just go off and you will have a brilliant idea! There is nothing wrong with what you do now. I just appreciate that you seem to be able to respect that another family who is dedicated to CL would be able to find a consensual solution that that problem. It doesn't mean you are wrong for saying no, it just doesn't mean that everyone in that same situation would feel the need to say the same, or that if they didnt say no their children would be miserable. I hope that makes sense. I feel like you get what I am saying though, so maybe I am being more relaxed in my choice of words with you









But just to clarify, because you seem open minded I am totally down to brainstorm with you, unless you really feel that saying no is what is going to work, but did you want to think up some other alternatives? If so, I'm down to give it a go - as long as we can do so knowing that I can not possibly know what it is like for you or your daughter or your family dynamics and history and personalities in the same way you do - so I may not have an "answer" for you that will work, but perhaps you may be inspired and find another solution on your own? This may be one of those situations where if you want a consensual solution then you or your daughter might have to be the one to find it. I trust it exists. You don't have to trust this though to try to come up with some ideas - if you trust it exists you will find it though. If not, you may still find it so thats a bonus, and you are okay with not finding it so not trusting it exists works for your family, ya know?

but yeah, I'm willing to brainstorm with you if we can both respect that I am not in your shoes but also that if I were in my own shoes with my own family in the same situation that knowing myself and my family I could resolve it, even if I cant resolve it for you and your family.

Outside of the situation, ask yor daughte what age you think would be a good age for her to spend a night away from home. Then next time she asks, it may help to say "I thought we agreed to wait until 'x' age"

At the same time, I do not try to protect my child from disappointment, so if they chose something and turned out disappointed I would be there to support them, and of course we don't want to cause unnecessary disappointment, but I wouldn't see allowing my child to make a mistake about wanting to sleep over as unecessary disappointment. I would do what I could to help her make by giving information and brainstorming other solutions - but ultimately, if she chose to go, then chose for me to pick her up, and was disappointed, I would just focus on validating her feelings (without any I told you so's)

I dont mind brainstorming what those other solutions may be with you, like I said, but really she is probably the one you need to brainstorm with... but I find this "hypothetical question" (though I realize its not hypothetical to you) as fun, because of the attitude with which you are approaching voicing your curiosity in how to handle the situation consensually.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I am only asking that you can respect that it is right for others.
Why wouldn't I? Why do you feel that I disrespect your choice to use CL? My questions have nothing to do with what is right or wrong, what works for you or doesn't.

I also would like to hear from Pat to clarify _what *she* wrote_. _You_ didn't write it, so you can only do what I do - which is to guess or assume. It's not that I just want to hear from Pat, if there are others who use CL successfully all the time who understand the things she wrote and based it on, then I'd love to hear from them.

I would also like to hear from others who use it, that _aren't_ Pat, because as I said, I'm not sure they exist.

I hear you continually calling me closed minded. Take a look at this thread. I'm asking questions, you're not. Who's closed here?


----------



## Calm

BTW, using sunnmama to slot in things to suggest that I am not open minded, or that I am disrespecting your choices has not gone overlooked. I don't know why you insist on making this so unpleasant.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I would PM Pat then, and let her know that you are only willing to accept a response from her because you want to clarify her specific words on CL even though she has said CL is different in many families, you are not really interested in CL, you are interested in PAT's CL, so you really need to talk to Pat directly. Perhaps she, like I, thought you wanted to learn about CL, which is different in every family, but what you really wanted is clarity solely on how CL works in Pat's family. I sense it's an impossible situation for Pat though - because she cannot share experience on having more then one child, and you are not willing to hear about CL from people who do. We use CL successfully all the time based on what Pat has wrote - what isnt successful are the times I am not willing to use CL. So lately, I've been using it 100% of the time. you want to hear from others, just not ME, or anyone else who has responded here, except for Pat, whose answers aren't good enough for you... I just really dont feel like you want to understand. I've asked many questions too. I even read the book that you say you base your parenting on, and took a lot away from it to be honest. How is that close minded? I have said your way is right for you - but I am close minded in your eyes because I am not asking intentionally impossible questions to you about your style of parenting? and then saying I don't want to hear it from you, I want to hear it from Jean herself? and then saing Jean couldn't really understand because she doesnt have my kids anyway?

There are some here asking questions who obviously want to learn. I appreciate that







Sunnmama was not the only one, but her approach making me want to help her is separate from the fact your approach does not make me feel like you truly want to understand. This is how *I* feel. I am not *using* sunnmama. I WANT to help her because of how she has treated me. My discussion relationship with sunnmama is with her, not with you.


----------



## Calm

Now in the spirit of moving past unpleasantness and into further understanding again...

Quote:

For those who live consensually though, its the overall belief there are always mutually agreeable solutions.
This is one of a growing list of reasons I'm still asking questions. It seems that for me to call myself living consensually, I "always" have to be able to find mutually agreeable solutions (whatever that means, as we still haven't defined if disappointment is ok according to the _philosophy_, not our _opinions_) or have to agree that there always is one, even if I fail to find it.

I have had situations where there are not mutually agreeable solutions, or consensual ones. Even with adults. Even with round table conferences with highly intelligent creative people, some with IQs over 140. I've had to let go, or they've had to let go, or if it has been a child, then I've had to impose my will or they'd be sick or something less than sick but as unacceptable.

Now I know that Pat would prefer her child choose, even if they chose "sick", and I was once like that, I understand it. Pat and I were often the only ones on one side of an online debate in our belief that a person deserves full self-determination - we don't believe in jail or punishment, for adults or children. (I assume she still believes this also). And that for instance, in a situation of harm, an individual has a right to harm another, and the victim has the right to defend - therefore, know self-defense or your up shot's creek without a paddle.

I just can't get my brain to wrap around how this fits for a child, let alone an toddler, I can't make the synapse, and maybe I'm a ditz, but there it is, I just don't get what she's inferring and the inference I am assuming isn't positive.

I think we should treat children different from adults, but I don't think Pat does. I think she goes further than "children are _equal_ to adults" and takes that to "children are the _same_ as adults". I believe the former, I fear she believes the latter. However we've been in message contact and she is swamped right now so until she is willing and able, I am free to discuss the implications and possibilities -- as long as the attached assumptions of my intentions or openness are left out of it. That's irrelevant and unhelpful and has already been addressed by me.

Quote:

One who is LIVING consensually does not feel they *must*...
Really? See, that makes assumptions about all those living CL. Of which I am one. Since people seem to be able to say they are CL, yet NOT following it to the 100% self determination, "always" factor. Even at my most consensual living experience, I had "musts". This was a tough lesson for me, too. I hated every minute of learning this. I grew up with few "musts", I don't recall I ever had one but I probably did. I could choose school, I could choose what I ate, I could choose sex at 13 (and did), I could choose drugs (and didn't) I could choose to tidy my room or not (and didn't), I chose not to do laundry, or clean or anything. I chose total procrastination and laziness for the first 30 years of my life. Even at college, I used my IQ to get me through, I arsed my way through, by falling asleep on the desk before 11am... it was a mess. But I chose it, and spread the word about how there is no such thing as "must", don't tell me what I can and can't do!

Then I had a child. Uh oh. Uuuummm, help? I was plunged into an insurmountable depression, I couldn't handle the responsibility, the whole massive swag of "must" laid immediately at my feet. I was an empty shell of who I was, and even with all the compassion I felt around me, I couldn't help but feel they were all thinking "thank God, now maybe she'll grow up".

I lived a life of "no such thing as must" and I've lived a life of "must". I figured those with a life of "must" were just not getting my "secret", I thought I knew things they didn't know. I traveled to Bali, and Brazil, and I saw a life of "must" that I thought was reserved for the poverty stricken, that if they just moved, or saw the world as it was, they'd get out of the situation they were in. Choice. We all have it. But it also isn't as simple as that. I learned this the hard way. Now, when I give "charity", I give from a humble place, I give my soul, and I give with heart, because I know "must", and I'm not going to make presumptions about another woman and her children, fly blown and prostituting themselves based on MY limited experiences, which suggest that there are no "must"s.

Quote:

The implcations set forth are: If a CLer does not experience the same troubles - then their life must be easy, and it is easy for any reason other then the fact that they have always embraced CL. If a CLer has troube then the only reason seems to be that its because of CL. Long story short : if something bad happens to a CLer its because they are a CLer if something good happens to a CLer its in spite of embracing CL.
I find this is true with AP in general. My daughter has so far turned out great, but I get told it is genetics, or luck, or whatever; not my parenting. My son is a handful, I get told that perhaps I hold him too much, or pander to him, or whatever. I do get what you're saying here. I apologise if I have made this inference, it wasn't my intention.

I have found consensuality has lead to upsets on family members, each of us at different times. But by the same token, imposition hasn't been fun either. I do think that I learned a lot by having a high needs child to balance my low needs one. She's sensitive but that's got nothing on high needs.

Speak of the devil, DD was sitting beside me on the second computer a minute ago and the dog started growling. She has a fear of barking and she started to panic and freak out and blame me and carry on with her fingers in her ears. I told her to leave the room and shut the door, and she initially protested but it was leading to a crisis - which isn't pretty when it happens. She left, I dealt with the dog, came back to my post, she's still outside. Sometimes, these days, I am in no position to discuss, I've learned things. She cannot discuss when she has a panic fit, she just yells and I can do and say no right, we end up arguing when I try to help her see logic when she simply can't.

Consensual options? Perhaps. But sometimes, like this situation shows, the kindest thing to do is to direct her strongly away from a situation, even against her will. Then later, she can think again and can see that it was the best option.


----------



## Calm

It isn't that the answers aren't good enough. It's that they aren't answering it. I asked for an explanation of this:

Quote:

*With accurate information, only the individual is capable of making decisions regarding what is right for him. No one is better at making those decisions than the individual. We are masters of our own fate. If we take the right to self-determination away from any individual, we are changing the course of their life, and may never come to know the person they were meant to become.*
I asked, how can this be? And you answered with:

Quote:

it says with accurate information they are capable of making the best decision for themselves obviously a toddler who wants to walk into the path of an incoming car has not received all the accurate information necessary to make the best decision for themselves, so no, it would not be self determining to let them get hit by a car.
So I said:

Quote:

With accurate information... Hmmm, I give my child accurate information. What then? She has the right info, may still make the "wrong" choice, or a dangerous choice. Therefore, it isn't just limited to accurate information. An ability to transform said information into usable format is also required. Don't you agree? Which again, brings up the question of "what age is self-determination appropriate"? Can we really *know* when our child understands?
And you said:

Quote:

I respect that for you there is no "always". That for you, you feel sometimes there is no CL solution. and that for you, you don't feel you could really *know* what your child understands. For you its contridictory. I don't feel that there is anything I can say to change the way you think. It's your reality. It's not mine. It doesn't mean I'm wrong. We are both wonderful parents IMO. We are both right IMO. What is contradictory to you is not to me. I feel in any situation with *my* family there will be a CL solution, if I so choose to find it and use it.
I searched and searched, but that was all you said on the subject. And this has been standard as the "answer" to it. When responders get stuck, they make it about how it works for them. But not how it makes any sense to allow a toddler to self determine based on accurate information.

So you say the answers aren't good enough, and I guess technically, that's correct. But that's not my fault. It's not yours. You just can't answer it, and that's my point.







You can't answer it because to allow a toddler to determine his own fate is... well, many unpleasant words.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

you arent a ditz. nor do you have to practice CL 100% of the time to live with consensual options in your life.

I am sure pat treats her newborn different then her husband. I am sure she doesnt expect her newborn to feed itself, and im sure her husband knows how to use a plate and fork. I personally, dont fear anything for Pat. I personally, though I realize some disagree, see myself as CL, and yet I do see that children and adults are different. I mean OBVIOUSLY they are different? one is big one is small? one can talk one can not? one can walk, one cant even crawl? I don't think that is what equal means in CL... I went over that in another thread so I wont bore you with it again, especially since I'm not Pat and it doesnt matter what I say









So you want to ask Pat: is it okay if a child feels disappointment.
As a CL mama, I say yes. As other CLers have said, yes. As one poster described, disappointment is inevitable - such as if it rains when you don't want it to. CL looks for a way to work past that disappointment once the emotion has passed - not to ignore (unhealthy) it or avoid it (impossible) but no, we dont dwell on it. we find something that is a good solution for everyone on a "rainy day" This is many CLers standpoint, but I understand you want to hear it directly from Pat. So question one for Pat:

Is it okay for a child to feel disappointed in the way you (Pat) define CL?

You can call yourelf whatever you want. I am just saying that many of us CLers feel there always are consensual solutions. Even if we can't tell *you* what is the CL solution for *your* family. I mean obviously you are okay with parenting without _always_ having a CL solution, so why does it matter? So some CLers are different. Some CLers trust there is *always* a solution. You don't think there is, therefor for you there is not. It's not a BAD thing, its just different. No one is wrong.

I feel that there is this urgency that one must be right and one must be wrong. I say, there is more then one right.

I understand must and living without must. I too have experienced both. I respect that some people live with must I certainly don't just those who feel they must, though I can't say I appreciate the idea that I can't live without the thought of must. (not saying you are saying this) I am just saying, that I agree with pat that there is no must and must not, and its possible to live this way, but you are right in that not everyone realizes this.

Or, you could have removed the dog from the room.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
It isn't that the answers aren't good enough. It's that they aren't answering it. I asked for an explanation of this:

I asked, how can this be? And you answered with:
So I said:

And you said:

I searched and searched, but that was all you said on the subject. And this has been standard as the "answer" to it. When responders get stuck, they make it about how it works for them. But not how it makes any sense to allow a toddler to self determine based on accurate information.

So you say the answers aren't good enough, and I guess technically, that's correct. But that's not my fault. It's not yours. You just can't answer it, and that's my point.







You can't answer it because to allow a toddler to determine his own fate is... well, many unpleasant words.

I am not sure what you are asking or implying here. I thought I had replied re: accurate information - let me see if I can find it (what page did that start on?)

I cant answer it because I dont have the answers for YOU and YOUR family. I can suggest some ideas, but the right answers for YOU are with YOU and YOUR family. I can allow my toddler to determine his own fate without the unpleasantness you imply... which is consistent with the other negative vibes you send off in this thread, which is maybe why not a lot of CLers are even giving this thread the time of day?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

okay accurate information:

let me clarify - you want to know:

what if a child TRULY understands that running in front or a moving car will result in getting hit by that car, which will result in extreme pain or death, but they still want to do it? thats what you want to know? I guess I cant answer that because I cant imagine there being a situation where a child TRULY understands the implications of getting hit by a car. I trust that my child wants to watch Mickey Mouse Clubhouse tomorrow morning, and so, I know if they understood that getting hit by a car would prevent that he would not want to get hit by a car.

Son, if you run into the street you could get hit by a car and be hurt. It would hurt more then when you bumped your head this morning on the doorknow

my son would definitely so "NO HURT! NO HURT!!!"

but lets say in bizarro world (what would be bizarre for MY child I am saying) he said "I want to run in the street anyway!"

I would think he doesn't have accurate information on what hurt means in this situation. I wold say "but if you did get hit by a car, then you wouldn't be able to watch mickey tomorrow morning."

and at that point, if THAT didn't help him understand, again in some parallel universe, he would be talking to me about "but what if I dont get hit by a car" (which he isnt currently capable of conversations like this, and so it wouldnt get to this point) but at which point we could discuss other options (which I went over way back in this thread)

I feel like what you are asking is, what if a toddler knew that getting hi by a car would hurt. and they there was NOTHING in their life they loved enough to want to enjoy later that day or the next day, so there would be no way to help them understand the implications of their actions, AND on top of that, were not open to ANY other solutions regarding road/car/traffic experience.

Is that what you want an answer to? I mean there are millions of hypothetical situations that are just so unlikely I cant understand even entertaining the idea of them. Much like a what if monkey poop fell from the sky and the hippos stepped in it and your child wanted to ride the hippo but the hippo was going into the ocean and your child doesnt know how to swim? i mean really??

I'm pretty sure Pat said something about just picking up a child and zooming them away like an airplane ride. I mean we are talking about a toddler here, so I find my toddler ideas work for toddlers. When I have an older child, we'll work with child ideas, and I trust they will work too. I've seen and heard them working with other children. children who survived a life of being self determined.

but thats the best way I can describe accurate information though I realize it doesnt matter because my name isnt Pat


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I understand must and living without must. I too have experienced both. I respect that some people live with must I certainly don't just those who feel they must, though I can't say I appreciate the idea that I can't live without the thought of must. (not saying you are saying this) I am just saying, that I agree with pat that there is no must and must not, and its possible to live this way, but you are right in that not everyone realizes this..


I admit, I don't get this. Or does this philosophy (life with no musts) accept non-survival as a result of choice? Because, to live, we must breathe. I can skip while I breathe, or I can sing while I breathe, but I must breathe.

My child must be in a carseat in the car. We can choose not to use the car, but that decision would have global effects on our entire life (and we don't even use the car much!). He can climb in himself, and he can choose a new seat (if we have the budget), but he must be in a carseat.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

we don't breath, our bodies breathe by default. if we held our breath until we passed out we would start breathing again by default. It's not that we must breathe. Its that we do breath. Its not that we must have a heartbeat, its that we do have a heart beat. These are the things we can't change, like when it rains, and has nothing to do with self determination or must or must not. It has to do with what is. When you are alive you breathe (eventually) and your heart beats.

You don't HAVE to drive a car. You CHOOSE to. For whatever reason, you choose to. So there is no must or must not there either, unless you choose for their to be a must. There is a choice there, if you choose to take it. There are also a ton of solutions that make using a car possible while using a carseat without doing it against the childs will.


----------



## Dar

Sometimes we aren't able to provide full and accurate information to our children. Sometimes that's because we're making incorrect assumptions about what they already know, and sometimes it's because we can't figure out a way to communicate it to a young child who doesn't have the capability to comprehend complex information verbally, and sometimes for other reasons, I'm sure. That's why finding creative ways to communicate with young children - things like intentionally running over stuff with a car so that kids can see what a car really does when it runs over something, for example - is a big part of parenting this way.

It's not always easy to find ways to communicate important information to kids, just as it's not always easy to find mutually agreeable solutions. I believe they always exist, whather or not I manage to find them. Perhaps that's why this works for me?

It's also important to examine our our hegemonic ideas about parenting, which can be harder...

Dar


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Dar as always you summed it up beautifully. especially with "I believe they always exist, whether or not I manage to find them. Perhaps that's why this works for me?" I think that is exactly why it works for us.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Or, you could have removed the dog from the room.
he was trapped, thats why he was upset

Quote:

which is consistent with the other negative vibes you send off in this thread, which is maybe why not a lot of CLers are even giving this thread the time of day?
well, if that is how arrogant they are, should I even care about those kinds of people?

Quote:

what if a child TRULY understands that running in front or a moving car will result in getting hit by that car, which will result in extreme pain or death
No, this is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the child may not understand at all, even given accurate information. And yet, apparently she still has the right to self determination. Accurate information is all that is required to "grant" someone their full self determination rights. And the _judge_ on what is accurate? _*The PARENT.*_

Quote:

Son, if you run into the street you could get hit by a car and be hurt. It would hurt more then when you bumped your head this morning on the doorknow]
the fact that you can say that and he would understand means you are talking about an older child. I'm not.

Quote:

I would think he doesn't have accurate information on what hurt means in this situation.
And I would say he had accurate information, but poor understanding. And this is the critical factor I'm trying to get you to understand.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure Pat said something about just picking up a child and zooming them away like an airplane ride
but that interferes in their self determination! Can you see the contradiction yet?

Quote:

I understand must and living without must. I too have experienced both. I respect that some people live with must I certainly don't just those who feel they must, though I can't say I appreciate the idea that I can't live without the thought of must. (not saying you are saying this) I am just saying, that I agree with pat that there is no must and must not, and its possible to live this way, but you are right in that not everyone realizes this..
can you put this another way, I don't understand what you're saying.

Quote:

You don't HAVE to drive a car. You CHOOSE to. For whatever reason, you choose to.
And _this_ is one of the more frustrating aspects of these discussions. Because you must wear a seatbelt, but you keep saying but you don't have to go in the car. But we keep saying but if you do go in a car, you must wear a seatbelt. My god son used to take his seatbelt off while driving on highways. He had to put it back on, he must wear it and the choice on whether to go or not has already passed. Do you not understand what we keep saying when we say that you must wear a seatbelt when driving in a car? Here it is, true or false (there is no other answer!!)

When driving in a car, you must, by law, wear a seatbelt.

True or false?

You may add to it, of course. Perhaps like this:

When driving in a car, you must, by law, wear a seatbelt otherwise you cannot go, or you can choose to go a different way. Perhaps you'd prefer to walk.

But the fact is, the answer to the statement is true. You must wear a seatbelt _while driving in a car_. So there is one "must" we have disclosed. The option to not drive in a car is of COURSE an option, that's not our point at all.

I told my husband about the guideline about self determination and he said, "there is no such thing as accurate information". Again, brilliant man. something worth thinking about.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

you shouldnt care about anyone but yourself, but I think it speaks volumes of them over me that if they see your negative vibe they are choosing not to engage - I dont think it makes them arrogant. I would say they have a maturity I have not yet acquired. Feel free to call me arrogant if you need to say that about a CLer.

Actually the child is the judge of what is accurate. The parent is only the judge of if THEY think what they are saying is accurate. Hence why we must reevaluate what we have said. See, we can know our child would not choose death. So if they are choosing someting that ultimately results in death, we can realize that we must have THOUGHT we provided accurate information, but was not accurate information for the child. Unless of course, we don't know if the child wants to live. Which of course, with a toddler, is easy to determine witha simple question like do they want to watch mickey mouse tomorrow. Yes, they do? okay so we have established that they do want to live. what is next? giving them what will be accurate information TO THEM. My son is 3 1/2 and has less language skills then a 2 year old. He undestands. He is not an older child. I admit it made me feel good for once for someone to refer to him this way though, since usually people wonder what is wrong with him that he doesnt "get" so many of these things. However, no I am not talking about older children. I am taking about 2 and 3 year olds who were once 1 and 2 year old who were once babies in baby carriers who couldnt walk let alone run into a street.

no I dont see the contradiction and I realize you wont find peace until someone says yes CL is a contradition. There is that need to tear CL down again. Pat zooms her child away, and this is acceptable to the child. This is the same as offering the breast to a hungry child. This is self reliance issue, not a self determination issue. My child would love to be zoomed around. way more fun then running in to the street. If it wasnt, then it would be because for some reason going in to the street was really important. that reason is not a just because and so we can find the underlying reason and address that. If it was a "just because" my child accepts an airplane ride because that meets their need to do something "just because" they got an airplane ride just because









now you are getting into law and nitpicking. If you ride in a car you have to by law wear a seatbelt? yes. do you have to follow that law? no. do you have to ride in a car? no. So you dont HAVE to wear a seatbelt. you can keep in line with the law and not wear a seatbelt by finding a non car related solution to your problem. For the record, I dont even have a car. so its totally doable to live life without driving.

wearing a seatbelt is a must for you because you choose to ride in the car. Wearing a seatbelt is not a must for those who are willing to not ride in a car. So wearing a seatbelt is not a must.

You are right, its not your point. Its our poin though. So you live in a world with must. I live in a world without must.

I am not impressed AT ALL by your husband IQ, no offense, but that is quite average an IQ in my circles. (I realize its impressive to the general public, but then again so is my IQ and my husbands







)

Just want to say I DO understand what you are saying. I admit I am having a hard time finding a way to bridge the gap between my thoughts and yours though, and also having a hard time seeing you as allowing that to happen, but perhaps I just have crappy bridge building skills. It's very hard because its like parallel universes. I am building a bridge to where you are, but my bridge starts on a different plane. If there was a way for us to eclipse then the bridge would be where it needs to be. Different paradigms. I think its hard to bridge a gap in paradigms.


----------



## Calm

I had removed this post and the following one. Due to it being quoted, perhaps from an email notification or before I removed them, I have put them back up. Please note that I would rather they not have been here.

Quote:

you shouldnt care about anyone but yourself, but I think it speaks volumes of them over me that if they see your negative vibe they are choosing not to engage - I dont think it makes them arrogant. I would say they have a maturity I have not yet acquired. Feel free to call me arrogant if you need to say that about a CLer.
And you all have meetings and they confided this in you, did they? They find this thread and what I'm saying and asking "negative", and therefore will not even "give this thread the time of day"? And... are they all as hurtful as you? And could perhaps the fact that very few *non*-CLers - a much larger percentage of the readers, as you know - be avoiding this thread because I'm flogging a dead horse? Did hearing that feel unnecessarily hurtful and humiliating?

The fact is, I'm not the only one with these questions and concerns, how about just pretending that I'm the majority, and approach it that way.

Quote:

There is that need to tear CL down again.
Please, STOP. I asked you to STOP. How is this helpful? I'm not making this about you, and even if I was "tearing down CL", I'm not tearing YOU down, yet you are tearing ME down. Keep to the subject matter, I am not the subject matter!

Why do you insist that saying things like there is incongruency or contradiction some kind of proof of tearing it down? I get it, you love it so much you are horribly irritated that I dare question it. You've posted a lot since you joined, you have no doubt noticed that the fastest way to close a thread is make it personal. Is that your mission? To shut this discussion down?

Quote:

Actually the child is the judge of what is accurate.
uh, what? Are you kidding? I can't even address this, this is going somewhere beyond my desire to even follow at all. Children judging the accuracy of information? Yikes. So looking at this how you are leading it... we have a 12 month old who, with accurate information, has the full rights of self determination, and _he_ is the judge of what is accurate information. I tell/demonstrate to my son accurately that the road is dangerous, he deems that is accurate, and stays away from the road.

Or he deems it inaccurate, and I'm to know this... how?

Or he still goes toward the road... am I now looking at a situation where a person (a 12 month old) has made an informed choice I must not interfere with, _*or*_ am I looking at a situation where a person simply doesn't understand the information? Have you thought this through much?

So not going in a car is not a necessity to you... and in typical CL fashion (at least on this thread), that means it is therefore not a necessity for _*anyone*_. You think it is a perfectly reasonable solution for parents to walk or stay home all the time if their child doesn't want to wear a seatbelt.. and this is _*consensual*_ living as you see it? Is that the best "solution" to the seatbelt issue - just don't go?

Quote:

I am not impressed AT ALL by your husband IQ, no offense, but that is quite average an IQ in my circles. (I realize its impressive to the general public, but then again so is my IQ and my husbands )
Was this necessary? Did you know that the need to say "no offense" usually means you've been offensive? I keep sharing little anecdotes about my life and these are the responses you keep giving me. I shared what he said about accurate information... no need to keep humiliating. It says so much more about you than it does about me.


----------



## Calm

The sad thing is, if I wasn't here asking these things, all those who asked before would be left without answers or understanding ... unless they asked further and then they'd be publicly humiliated for it and told to stop being negative, just have faith and to stop questioning (sounds like the religious discussions I've had). I've seen sunnmama keep giving it a go, but still haven't seen her find satisfaction. I've seen people come and go in this thread, and many others, who ask much the same things and they are given much the same responses as we see here and they just leave it. For many it just doesn't matter that much to them, they are happy to go about CL in as big or little a way as they like. I am that way myself. They may tentatively ask about an inconsistency, but come to their own conclusions if it doesn't fit, and walk away.

I kept going for the answers for them. Now I'm not. I guess I'm not that big of a martyr.

I wanted to know how I can let my child be self determining, and what accurate information is, and how all that differs with age. I wanted to know how anyone can say there is always a consensual solution. If that is just faith, then it's faith. I'm not very faith based, I always want more than that. But I can also accept a philosophy is based on faith. Is it known that CL is faith based, that the words of "trust" are enough?... tell me, cos then my questions will be done, and answered. Even though that won't have addressed the self determination issue, it does address the use of the word "always".


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Calm: And you all have meetings and they confided this in you, did they? They find this thread and what I'm saying and asking "negative", and therefore will not even "give this thread the time of day"? And... are they all as hurtful as you? And could perhaps the fact that very few *non*-CLers - a much larger percentage of the readers, as you know - be avoiding this thread because I'm flogging a dead horse? Did hearing that feel unnecessarily hurtful and humiliating?

(no, was it intended to be hurtful? I am not speaking for others, I shared a thought. I felt I was clear in that)

Calm: The fact is, I'm not the only one with these questions and concerns, how about just pretending that I'm the majority, and approach it that way.

(and how about pretending IM a fair representation of CL, instead of demanding that only Pat's responses matter? I guess you feel it somehow helps your 'side' of the argument... the argument isnt CL against Calm's parenting though... You are just right for your family, but CL is ALSO right for those who use it)

Calm: Please, STOP. I asked you to STOP. How is this helpful? I'm not making this about you, and even if I was "tearing down CL", I'm not tearing YOU down, yet you are tearing ME down. Keep to the subject matter, I am not the subject matter!

(and Ive asked you to stop, but you aren't willing - I have no torn down anyones style of parenting the way CL is being torn here. And yes, that is exactly what you are doing. If you treated my home the way you question CL it would be considered ransacking. We are on the subject matter, but whenever I address the subject matter you pretty much deam my insight as irrelevant because its not what you want to hear)

Calm: Why do you insist that saying things like there is incongruency or contradiction some kind of proof of tearing it down? I get it, you love it so much you are horribly irritated that I dare question it. You've posted a lot since you joined, you have no doubt noticed that the fastest way to close a thread is make it personal. Is that your mission? To shut this discussion down?

(Nope, my mission is that we can accept that CL is 100% possible for those who chose it to be, but that also there are other ways of life that are just as "right". I'm not in it to ransack anything the way CL is being ransacked.)

Calm: uh, what? Are you kidding? I can't even address this, this is going somewhere beyond my desire to even follow at all. Children judging the accuracy of information? Yikes. So looking at this how you are leading it... we have a 12 month old who, with accurate information, has the full rights of self determination, and _he_ is the judge of what is accurate information. I tell/demonstrate to my son accurately that the road is dangerous, he deems that is accurate, and stays away from the road.

(I think we were beyond your desire to follow a long time ago. You are obviously misunderstanding me in a HUGE way. I am saying that I know if my children understand the dangers of the road they would not choose to put themselves in that danger. So I have to find a way to convey accurate information IN A WAY THEY WILL UNDERSTAND. Honestly though, havent been in that situation with my 11 month old and dont see myself being in that situation in the next month. Perhaps around 15-18 months, this will be more relevant, but I'm not sure the way this one loves his sling. However, Since you have no desire to follow though I wont burden you with any more knowledge on what I am saying there)

Calm: Or he deems it inaccurate, and I'm to know this... how?

(its not about whether he things its accurate or inaccurate, its about providing the accurate information in a way they understand.)

Calm: Or he still goes toward the road... am I now looking at a situation where a person (a 12 month old) has made an informed choice I must not interfere with, _*or*_ am I looking at a situation where a person simply doesn't understand the information? Have you thought this through much?

(I have thought this through. I am not saying one wouldn't "interfere" I'm saying that my first step would be to provide accurate information that a child would understand in their first experiences of walking on the side of the road - which we are still in the in arms phase when outdoors at that age, so I can't speak for your situation, only mine. That aside, if my child was saying YES they want to watch mickey mouse tomorrow, but still want to go into the road, we'd look at other solutions. Yes, if a car was coming I would move them so they didnt get hit by a car. i would also do that for my husband, a friend, or a stranger. I feel comfortable that I am not interfering with someone being self determining by saving their life when they dont understand their life is in danger - they have ALREADY self determined they want to live, I am only supporting them in that determination. I wont get into suicide in great detail, but even when I myself was suicidal what I really wanted was to know someone cared enough to stop me. Underlying needs. If I really wanted to kill myself nobody would have been able to stop me anyway. Stopping me wouldn't be stopping me from being self determining. The underlying "determination" was that I wanted to be loved, not that I wanted to die - I can't imagine my 11 month old wanting to die, and therefor I cannot relate to what if you 12 month old still wanted to run into the road and get hit by a car - self determining means letting them do that - well, thats just not the case for my child, my child self determined to live, so if they dont understand that what they are doing would kill them I have to meet that 'base' determination my child made to want to live, and other solutions can follow from there- this is much like when a child is insisting on ice cream but what they really want is connection - you meet the UNDERLYING need, not what you see on the surface.)

So not going in a car is not a necessity to you... and in typical CL fashion (at least on this thread), that means it is therefore not a necessity for _*anyone*_. You think it is a perfectly reasonable solution for parents to walk or stay home all the time if their child doesn't want to wear a seatbelt.. and this is _*consensual*_ living as you see it? Is that the best "solution" to the seatbelt issue - just don't go?

(nope, just ONE of the solutions. My DD went through phase where she didnt like being in her carseat and we resolved that consensually. What we did was she would sit in it in the house. I woult sit in it. Her big brother would sit in it. We would play games while she sat in it. She got in and out of it as she pleased. Then we moved onto buckling it. she loves car rides now. Is it easier to just say "too bad" and strap the kid in? perhaps for some it is. This didnt feel right to me. This is CL as I see it. Others may have other ideas too. I'm not saying a non-CL way is wrong, I'm just saying that yes, I can find CL solutions for this.)

Was this necessary? Did you know that the need to say "no offense" usually means you've been offensive? I keep sharing little anecdotes about my life and these are the responses you keep giving me. I shared what he said about accurate information... no need to keep humiliating. It says so much more about you than it does about me.

((this whole reply, and thread, says volumes I think. I am only saying PLEASE accept that CL is not some horrible thing that and that it is a REAL WORKABLE solution for those who chose for it to be and that ITS OKAY if something DIFFERENT is right for someone else. I ACCEPT YOU CALM. Even if you don't accept me, but it sure would be nice if you were calm in your posts!))

The sad thing is, if I wasn't here asking these things, all those who asked before would be left without answers or understanding ... unless they asked further and then they'd be publicly humiliated for it and told to stop being negative, just have faith and to stop questioning (sounds like the religious discussions I've had). I've seen sunnmama keep giving it a go, but still haven't seen her find satisfaction. I've seen people come and go in this thread, and many others, who ask much the same things and they are given much the same responses as we see here and they just leave it. For many it just doesn't matter that much to them, they are happy to go about CL in as big or little a way as they like. I am that way myself. They may tentatively ask about an inconsistency, but come to their own conclusions if it doesn't fit, and walk away.

(sunnmama has shown such respect in this thread even though she has a different opinion. Her tone, as I read it, comes across as genuine interest, not tring to "make a point" I have offered to brainstorm with her a few posts back and that offer is still on the table if she wants. I cant promise satisfaction though, because to her a non-CL solution may be what is satisfactory. And that may just be what is RIGHT FOR HER FAMILY. I think there are those who LIVE consensually, and those who use consensual solutions. BOTH ARE RIGHT. Neither is superior, in my eyes. )

Calm: I wanted to know how I can let my child be self determining, and what accurate information is, and how all that differs with age. I wanted to know how anyone can say there is always a consensual solution. If that is just faith, then it's faith. I'm not very faith based, I always want more than that. But I can also accept a philosophy is based on faith. Is it known that CL is faith based, that the words of "trust" are enough?... tell me, cos then my questions will be done, and answered. Even though that won't have addressed the self determination issue, it does address the use of the word "always".

(Yes, as Dar and I have both said, we *feel* that you have to believe there are always solutions for there to always be solutions. But even if you don't believe there are always solutions, you may sometimes be able to find them...

but I am guessing for your questions to be done you need pat to answer.

question 2 for Pat: Does belief that there are always solutions contribute to there always being solutions?

self determination was answered many times in many ways. perhaps you need to clarify exactly what you aren't getting about self determination. My child can "self determine" to approve when I pick them up and zoom them away from the road. Self determination is not neglect, which seems to be where you get confused.

I don't see the need for turmoil. Ask questions by all means, but can they be asked without hurtful implications? Can other CLers besides Pat be seen as holding valid opinions on CL? And ultimately, even if it doesn't sound workable to some, can others respect that it is workable for those who have chosen it to be? Can we accept that there is more then one right way to live?

I understand if that goes too far against someone's opinion, but I just think what is being presented here isn't abuse or neglect, and me personally I am able to accept how others live as long as they arent abusing others or neglecting their children. Perhaps that i what prevents one from doing what I ask above though. Perhaps they cant differentiate between self determination and neglect. If thats the case, thats the case, what more can really be said, especially to one who doesn't seem to truly want to understand or accept the difference? Perhaps sunnmama would be willing to translate what your misunderstanding is between self determination and neglect, so that could be cleared up? Or perhaps, we can just accept that I cant explain it in the way you need to understand, and you cant understand in the way myself and others have explained, and just accept that disapointment of not being able understand each other.

At that point, maybe the benefit of the doubt could be given to the CLers? and I say this because CLers who believe fully in CL and it "works" for them know this to be true in a way that others who don't can't know. There is no way for me to "know" what you do is best for your family or not - I just trust that it is. So I'm humbly asking for the same, but I accept if you are not willing to do so. )

(is me)


----------



## Calm

It is online ettiquette to remove any quotes if a person removed their post. Although, I think perhaps we are beyond etiquette? I shall therefore put them back up, for the sake of context.

I am not interested in dialogging with you, super glue mommy. Not at this level. You have made this about me, not the subject matter. I can't deal with this amount of bitterness and hate and distrust. You have taken the piss at my daughter and my husband when I've spoken of them with pride, which was the last straw for me.
I assume you are just totally misreading my tone. That can be the only justification for the way you have interacted with me. Many many pages/days ago, we pointed out to each other that perhaps we were in reaction to each other's tone, and since then, I have been very careful to remove potential for misunderstanding, yet you still reacted like this. So perhaps it wasn't me that "caused" you to go berko to begin with. I can't even keep up with your responses on this thread, I go away to think about things you've written, and come back and another four posts are here by you. I don't know how you keep up with it and still get about 50 posts on your post tally per day on top of it. I'm trying to keep up, but then I'm told I'm pushing it, tearing it down, and whatever else you are intent on proving. Just because no one is calling you on your stuff here, doesn't mean there _is_ no stuff to call. You've gotten personal and bitter frequently and I've tried to overlook it and just keep up with the subject and my questions. And here I am now, instead of getting into more nitty gritty about the subject I'm obviously interested in, I've got to prove my worth for being here at all, I've got to write this post.
I wonder if you're interested in helping me or if you are just more interested in debate. You obviously like to post a lot, and debate things, it isn't a stretch to think this is just a bit of fun to you. I could be wrong. But you are making assumptions about me, knowing nothing about me at all. You are putting a tone on me that isn't there. If you can read my posts with a calm tone, you'll see what's really there.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

and how about pretending IM a fair representation of CL, instead of demanding that only Pat's responses matter?
Again, I repeat myself (read that with a calm tone, and the following words, please) I do not only want Pat's response. However, she can handle my questions without losing her head. She is also the one who wrote the guidelines.

Quote:

You are just right for your family, but CL is ALSO right for those who use it
I am not saying CL isn't right for anyone. I said myself I am CL, why do you conveniently forget the facts and slide in these red herrings when I have not said these things?

Quote:

and Ive asked you to stop, but you aren't willing
You have not asked me to stop, and if you have, I overlooked it. Quote it for me (again, said calmly, please don't forget my tone). Why should I stop asking my questions? Would that be more convenient for you? You can always leave the thread, have you thought of that? I can discuss with Dar, or wait for Pat. It seems this thread really bothers you, so why are you here? (remember, calm calm calm)

Quote:

I have no torn down anyones style of parenting the way CL is being torn here.
If I wanted to tear down CL, it would look very different to this thread.

I think that with more clarity more people would take it on, and therefore it would benefit more children. People get stumped with the idea that children are treated like adults, not only is it a new concept but it doesn't seem to make sense. I'm trying to find how it makes sense. You have helped me with a few things. But there are some things it is clear you cannot help me with, and therefore cannot help those families.

I cannot see how a baby or toddler, or even older really, can be self-determining in some situations. Even with accurate information. Impulse control is a learned thing, for starters (still reading me calmly? Just making some reminders, and these reminders are also not to be taken as sarcasm).

And then there are things about choice that I'd like help with, such as the example of my child wanting colour and preservative filled candy bar. Dar is comfortable letting her child decide, as are most of the parents on my street, I notice, CL or not. The contents of their lunch boxes make me shudder. Dar answered me reasonably and completely by simply saying that she doesn't mind if her child eats chemicals. I even asked for clarity and she confirmed, yes, she is ok with that.

However I am not. (I am not judging her negatively, just so that isn't suggested, I am just different to her) It's like eating poison to me, because it is. MSG is poison, aspartame is poison, most colors are poison, preservatives are a joke but yes, poison. I trained in learning this, it is more than my job, it is my life. How can I allow my child to eat poison? She knows it is poison, she "has accurate information", but she still chooses it. Not a big stretch there, she's a kid, and that's a candy bar!

I asked for a CL solution, I got one, but it doesn't fit me. That's ok, that happens, we're all different. If something is not an option to _me_, it can still be an option to someone else. I might think playing on the road is fine and another CL mama might not and therefore she might bring in negotiations at that point and find a mutually satisfying alternative. To me, she doesn't _have_ the option of allowing her child to play on the road. It's just not an option. To suggest it is, and that she just isn't willing is unfair.

If there is only one consensual solution, but it isn't an option for a parent, then that solution doesn't actually exist. Not for them. To me, this is consensual living between adults, realising that our options are different, and therefore, no matter how many consensual options I have, another mother might be faced with _*none*_. But this is denied by you, as representative of CL, so to speak. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that true? If an option is not valid for one mother, but in the same situation is valid to another, is it considered an option regardless? Could this be why CL, you, consider there to always be a consensual solution to a problem? (just checking again, calm calm, not tearing anything down, just seeking...)


----------



## Calm

I have a lot of questions. I didn't realise until this discussion started going how many I had. With each successive answer that felt unsatisfying, it only brought more questions. I don't apologise for that. And to be honest, I can't believe it is being suggested that I stop asking. Here, just take your pill and be quiet, shhhh, go nigh nighs. That's how I've felt in this thread. And the hostility seems unwarranted. I hope tone reminders help this problem, so the focus goes off the idea that anyone is tearing something down and goes onto actually solving something here. Which reminds me... we're still relaxed, not raising voices or being facetious or nit picky... calm.

Quote:

So I have to find a way to convey accurate information IN A WAY THEY WILL UNDERSTAND
Bingo. I just had to quote this because you've nailed part of it. This is what I'm trying to say. I believe that the part you have in capitals there is how the guidelines should read. As it stands, it is too open to misinterpretation (maybe not by you, just in case you were going to say "I get it therefore it is easy to get"). It doesn't end there though, that addendum only helps. More needs to be added to help people with this whole philosophy. "In a way they will understand" brings more questions up for me.

We are talking about small children self determining here, it is not a small subject that we just walk away from. This is a BIG subject worthy of a thread much longer than this. Self determining children, of any age - this is _big_, this is rife with potential to misunderstand. A child is going to make decisions on things from what to eat through to whether or not to play on a railway track. Kids do die, I've lost one, I know they die, they don't just get hurt. They die all the time, they get sick, they also do stupid things. Not all of them do it from a place of damage or unmet needs and that is where I guess I differ from the CL standard. I'm ok with being different in this regard. I asked a few questions about the unmet needs thing, didn't resonate and so just left it. Joined the majority on that one.

I do still wonder about self determining toddlers, with accurate information. I mean, my son is climbing the stairs and I'm ok with this. The rest of the house (my mum, DH, brothers, etc) can't watch, it freaks them out. They are steep, and made of wood, and the bottom is solid concrete. He has determined he can climb them, but he nearly fell today. I was so proud of him and myself for our decision, and still am. But he nearly fell. I have even wondered how much damage he could do to himself if he did fall, and I have surmised he will survive unless he hits a lower step in such a way as to tweak his neck.

I am going to block the stairs. I feel this is blocking his decision, his self determination because he is sniffing around the blockade and looking at me and signing for me to move it. I walk them with him but he's not interested in that, he wants unlimited _access_. But I've made a decision based on years of experience and just knowing a bit more than him about physics. He had accurate info, I know this, he even knew to turn and go down backwards, he showed a little fear, which showed me that he respected the volatile nature of the situation. But it isn't enough.

Accurate information + understanding does NOT = SKILL.

So there are many reasons I'd like to see the guidelines reworded, and none of them seem to bother anyone but me. They just decide to omit that part in their CL journey. Yet perhaps there is a way to incorporate this into their journey, if it was worded in another way.

Quote:

its not about whether he things its accurate or inaccurate, its about providing the accurate information in a way they understand.
But you clearly stated in a previous post that the child decides if information is accurate. What did you mean by that?


----------



## Calm

Quote:

There is no way for me to "know" what you do is best for your family or not - I just trust that it is. So I'm humbly asking for the same, but I accept if you are not willing to do so.
What are you talking about? Where do you get this stuff? I don't give a rat's pajamas what you do at home, honestly. (remember, calm tone, relaxed) You say you like CL, great. What has that got to do with whether a child can be self determining or not? What has that got to do with my suggestion that for some mamas, there is no such thing as "always" consensual solutions and there is such a thing as "must". I haven't suggested you stop using consensual solutions.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

which post did you remove? I went ot bed after my last post, so you didnt really give me a chance to do anything? I had insomnia last night, working on 3 hours of sleep here.

I don't feel I am "berko" and certainly have not used any name calling with you.

Again, you said many times you are CC. I have also seen people say "oh I supplemented with formula" and then proceed to rip formula feeding apart to formula feeing mothers, as if somehow when they claimed to use formula themselves it gave them free pass to insult. If you practice CL, then by all means, you can answer these questions for your self about what CL looks like in your family. What I hear though is you saying how you don't agree with or get the very fundamentals of CL. Why do you follow CL if this is how you feel about the fundamentals of it? Perhaps, like you said in earlier posts many many many times, you are a CC mama who uses consensual solutions as a tool. There is nothing wrong with that mama. That rocks for you and your family so you need to embrace it and be proud of it! You don't have to determine anything about another persons way of life to own your way of life and be proud of it!

I mean, so you don't "get it". So what? what you DO get is working for you! I hear those who don't understand CL all saying they are HAPPY with the way they parent and think that having veto power is the BETTER way for them. I haven't seen anyone say "I totally don't agree with CL but I want to be a CL mama so can someone explain it to me in a way that sounds like what I am already doing?" I am lost on what this "need to understand" is. I mean I get the need to understand, just not taking to the degree where you hold a singular way of life under a microscope and twist and turn it every way. It would be like if I saw something was red and I wanted to believe it was orange, and holding it under the microscope and trying different kind of lighting in the room in hopes that somehow I could *make* it orange because I so desperately want it to be. I mean, if I really wanted orange so bad, I could go get orange and just accept that the red is red. I might look at it closer, a bit confused... is it REALLY red, but I wouldn't spend weeks at the microscope trying to force it to be another color.

I wasn't asking you to stop asking questions. Actually, it was more me asking if you COULD do something, not for you to stop something. So you are right, I didn't ask you to "stop".... What I asked was this:

Ask questions by all means, but can they be asked without hurtful implications? Can other CLers besides Pat be seen as holding valid opinions on CL? And ultimately, even if it doesn't sound workable to some, can others respect that it is workable for those who have chosen it to be? Can we accept that there is more then one right way to live?

I understand if that goes too far against someone's opinion, but I just think what is being presented here isn't abuse or neglect, and me personally I am able to accept how others live as long as they arent abusing others or neglecting their children. Perhaps that i what prevents one from doing what I ask above though. Perhaps they cant differentiate between self determination and neglect. If thats the case, thats the case, what more can really be said, especially to one who doesn't seem to truly want to understand or accept the difference? Perhaps sunnmama would be willing to translate what your misunderstanding is between self determination and neglect, so that could be cleared up? Or perhaps, we can just accept that I cant explain it in the way you need to understand, and you cant understand in the way myself and others have explained, and just accept that disappointment of not being able understand each other.

At that point, maybe the benefit of the doubt could be given to the CLers? and I say this because CLers who believe fully in CL and it "works" for them know this to be true in a way that others who don't can't know. There is no way for me to "know" what you do is best for your family or not - I just trust that it is. So I'm humbly asking for the same, but I accept if you are not willing to do so.

I guess I don't see CL as something I need to "convince more people to take on" or that *my way* (CL) is the only way that benefits children. I think your approach and the approach of many in this thread benefits children. It is not my goal to get more people to use CL, but I was hoping for respect without insinuations about what I do.

My kid dont eat candybars, but at this time I can only speak about this from a ome that doesn keep candybars in the house and children who don't feel the need to get someting every time we go to the grocery store and when they do get something they choose as stuffed toy or art supplies.

I think CL solutions are always possible because the parent is determined to find CL solution - not because the part is okay with her child playing bingo on the train tracks or eating a candy bar - though yes, maybe some parents are okay with that. And so are some mama's who aren't CL. That is not what CL is about to me, no. To me it is not about willingness to let your children do what others parents dont - though YES that is sometimes a factor, but more so is a factor of CL not being important to parents and so CL solutions are not important to find, and so parents will resign "there is no solution"

*I will step back now for you, and leave this floor open to any CLers who feel comfortable to answer your questions*

You use phrases like rats pajamas then say "i mean that calmy"

I use CL, and you obviously care very much about what CL means. There are always consensual solutions because I chose for there to always be solutions. There is no must because I chose for there to be no must.

Yes in a previous post I used poor wording, which I clarified for you, I am taking about a child understanding the accurate information. I think I described self determining VERY clearly, you seem to have this conviction to ask for the sake of others, and I have seen many people pop into this thread who have been able to understand what CL means better now, so you acheived that, but perhaps not everyone is as open minded as those posters to think outside their box enough to understand what self determining means. Is your point for me to say to you "I am out of ways to describe this" so you can say I don't live consensually, to prove your notion that there arents always consensual options, or that accurate information cannot always be expressed in a way the other person understands? If so, I hear you on that. For me, I know I am capable of helping another person understand me, but it does not mean they will admit to understanding. Is consensual possible with those who refuse to try to come to a consensual solution with you? I am not very skilled in this area... I know it is possible for *some* to live consensually with everyone around them. I find my children are understand me, and my husband and friends understand me, and even strangers understand me. You do not understand me or want it to appear that you do not understand me. I can say that I may not be expressing myself in a way that is understandable for you. You remind me a great deal of my mom, who was a wonderul women albeit toxic _to me_, but I could not live consensually with her. I just didn't have the skills to do so and it is apparent I do not have those skills now. I hope the people I know in real life continue to come from aplace of genuinely wanting to understand and being reasonable, in the meantime I will work on my ability to express myself more clearly and brainstorm some ideas of how I can live consensually with those who are not willing.

What I am talking about and where I get this is from LIVING CONSENSUALLY.

As I said, I am signing off now, feel free to take your last jabs at me and get your last word against me. I have said nothing nasty to you and yet I have been torn down post after post and I have to respect myself now.

Please, any CLers who feel comfortable to engage Calm in the kind of discussion she is leading feel free to do so, the floor is yours!

sunnmama, I am still here to answer any questions you have as you continue to phrase them respectfully and with what seems to be genuine interest in understanding, and not intent to rip my way of life to shreds under the microscope.


----------



## kalimay

"Perhaps sunnmama would be willing to translate what your misunderstanding is between self determination and neglect, so that could be cleared up?"

SGM,
I am sorry you feel like Calm is trying to tear down CL. That has not been my impression. I am glad she is continuing to ask questions because I am still confused. Just because I am confused does not mean I am trying to tear something down thought just trying to understand. With that in mind I also do not understand how a young child can be self determining.

"I have seen many people pop into this thread who have been able to understand what CL means better now, so you acheived that, but perhaps not everyone is as open minded as those posters to think outside their box enough to understand what self determining means."

I don't think I should have to think outside the box to understand self determining. Here is a dictionary definition.

1.the act or power of making up one's own mind about what to think or do, without outside influence or compulsion.

For the record, I think that respecting each others needs and wants equally is excellent as is trying to come up with mutually agreeable solutions. I believe there is a hierarchical component to the parent child relationship though and this is why. The parent has the information. They are the outside influence and to deny that influence seems inaccurate to me. I used the word manipulate earlier in the thread and I think it offended some posters but I am not sure what other word to use, maybe guide.
Do CLers believe your children chose to be raised in a CL family? I guess that would be a thread, maybe for spirituality. But see, you chose that. That is what you are teaching them because you are the parent.
Pat calls herself her sons' "trusted adviser." Trusted adviser is a position of power. It is the information that she and her husband impart that her child listens too, he likely would make other decisions with other parents who imparted different information.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Thank you for your respectful inquiry.

Based on that definition including : without outside influence : no one could be self determining because we are immersed in life and therefore are surrounded by influence.

Here are some other defintions of self determination:
*of one's own fate or course of action without compulsion

*refers to independence and control over one's life. It is an ordering of one's desires and determination to purposefully control one's destiny.
(sharing the non political definitions)

deinition of compulsion:
*an urge to do or say something that might be better left undone

ETA: I looked up the definition of influence, so we could maybe understand better the definition you found (by the way, could you source your definition, it would help me take it better in context as some definitions also refer to political stuff - the self determination of a country, instead of as an individual - where in CL I think its reffering to personal self determination... though I can see how the family itself coudl also be self determined within their world.

influence:
a power to affect persons or events especially power based on prestige.

(CLers don't use power nor do they see their role in the family as one of 'prestige' we offer information not to have control over the other person, but to help the other person make a self determined decision that is not compulsory. This is where understanding their desire to live comes iinto play, which because I was suicidal at one point in my life I feel comfortable opperating on the assumption people do not REALLY want to die, but there is another underlying need they have. I also feel safe trusting that my child (who has just told me they do want to have a snack when we get home) is certainly not feeling hopeless and desiring to escape life. My child just wants to run into the street. Which we still may be able to make possible in a safe way, but we would have to find that way first and often if they understand the accurate information they are given it reduces their desire to do dangerous things. There is a huge trust that I believe comes from both being attached and practicing CL. (so other mama's are attached too, of course, I am just speaking of my own attached relationship with my children)

Many of the other definitions of influence don't seem to me to fit in my mind with the definition of self determination, because we are all influenced simply by being alive. I mean, IDK, maybe some people aren't influenced by life? I know I am. I know if its raining that may influence what I do that day. I know if someone I love is hurting that will influence how I feel. My connection with my children leads me to be influenced by them, and I imagine the same is true likewise - that will out imposing myself "because I'm the parent with veto power" my children will take influence from me. They will do so for a different reason. they will do so because they feel safe with me, because they admire me, because it feels right, because they know if it doesnt feel right, they can choose what does feel right for them and I will support them still, I will find a way to help them be self determined (which as we have defined would mean without compulsion - I dont determine FOR them, I help them determine for themselves, by helping them recognize -even if not directly - compulsion, and helping them to eliminate that from the equation before moving forward so that they CAN make self determined choices.)

My first experience ever of my child wanting to run into the street was because his ball went across the street just 2 days ago (at age 3 1/2) He wanted to run across the street, not just because, because frankly given all his other options running into the street probably always seemed like a boring choice to him lol, but because he wanted his ball back. So I said Stop! We will get it together"

Impulse (compulsory) aside though my son would not choose to run into the street because he has been taught from an early age that streets are dangerous (Dar explained this very well a few posts back) but when impulse takes over, I help him remove that impulse SO he can make a self determined decision. Giving him information that he understands (which in this case I knew the underlying need so I went straight to that: the information he needed was to know we WOULD go get his ball, but we would do it together, safely) In another situation the information given may have been different.

hope that helps.

source:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...ition&ct=title
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...ition&ct=title

CL seems to be intermittently confused with both neglect and child led parenting. I am in control of my own fate, so I can make choices for my life. I choose to live consensually with others. No one is forcing my child to live consensually with me. They are very happy though, and I hear often how they simply exude happiness. We are a very connected and respectful family.

I suppose it is a matter of spirituality because one could also say, a child did not ask to be born, and for me, that definitely falls into spirituality. I do believe though that I am very connected and respectful of my family. My goal is to treat them the way I think THEY want to be treated, is of course if I am treating them a certain way that is because that is what I understand they need. I do this because *I* live *my* life consensually. To explore the idea a bit though, as I stated earlier my family seems to go with the flow until there needs differ, then they speak up. So it is them speaking up that clues me in to the fact they have a need outside of my own, and then we work to meet that need consensually. So yes, I do think they choose that, because if they didn't choose that they would not 'ask' for that.


----------



## sewchris2642

We just thought that Erica was just extremely shy, had a low stress tolerance, and a personal space that was 6' in diameter. The diagnosis of bi-polar, OCD, and social anxiety wasn't made until she was in her twenties.

It all depends on how you define "modern history". A society led by one leader (a dictator, tribal chief, khan, patriarch) is the first government that people came up with. As a metaphor for the stages of child development, using political/governmental systems to describe them has its drawbacks and flaws just like any metaphor.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I have social anxiety and sensory issues.

I dont even remember my metaphor... I dont remember using political/government system as a metaphor for child development?

I just said that we start meeting the childs needs/wants, and they evolve to meet more of their needs/wants until they are self sufficient.

instead of what you describe.. which is lets say there is a baby named A. a power as baby to parent power, to a power as adult. See Saw.

Where as I kind of look at it more as evolving as the travel down the path of life.


----------



## sewchris2642

And that's the problem here as I see it. You have that child that not only understands that he can have A or B but not both, he also doesn't demand C. I had children like your son. Erica wasn't one of them. Erica in your situation of the street or Micky Mouse Clubhouse would choose both. She had no concept of one or the other. It was always everything she wanted she could have even if the wants were mutually exclusive or impossible. And being hurt or hit by a car was not in her universe.

In my example of her having to wear a hat outside when it was hot, she could A: wear the hat and go outside or B not wear the hat and stay inside. She wanted C: not wear the hat and go outside. That was not an option for her. No amount of reasoning, emphasizing, or validating her feelings was going to change her mind. No amount of reminding her of her previous experience with heat exhaustion was going to deter her from what she wanted now. What was decided last time had no bearing on this time.


----------



## WuWei

Can't chat.

There are no victims and nothing to defend.









Peace. Breathe.

All is well, ladies. Hug your babies and touch their cheek with yours. Smell their hair. For this brief moment they are with you.

Pat


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

it would be okay if my child chose both. its not a matter of mickey mouse or street. its a matter of helping my child determine that they DO want to live, which I inherently know, and so that if they DO choose to play in the street, we need to find a safe way to do that. However, I would still be looking for the underlying REASON for wanting to play in the street.

I understand children like Erica because I WAS like her (from what you have described so far)... am to an extent still, though I have so many more coping skills as an adult compared to as a child.

In the heat exhausten example, which I have had on a field trip at school growing up, a hat is not the ONLY thing one can do to prevent heat stroke - and so, I would tap into those other options if my child didnt want to wear a hat to go outside.

My children don't like hats either.

Me personally, I find that the heat cant escape my body if I wear a hat, so if I wear a hat its to protect sun damage, but definitely not to keep my body temp down. wearing a hat, in my experience, since heat escapes through the feet and head, would be counter intuitive.

Ways to prevent heat exhausten:

drink plenty of water
rest
eat
go out at night
wear light colored loose fitting clothes
avoid sunburn (which is where I think you got wear a hat from - this can be done in other ways - stay in the shade, wear sun block)
go inside to air conditioning to cool off from time to time

im sure there are even ome other more creative solutions out there as well. I have to be careful with this with my own children (who dont wear hats!) because I live in a very hot and sunny climate.

also don't get me wrong - my son is only okay with a or b or a and b or not demanding c if he is okay with it. if he's not okay like that, then we have to find other solutions. Erica sounds VERY normal in that regard. I think the bigger surprise is you had a child like what you think my son was like (okay with either a or b) that is not always the case. My child understands he can have a or b or both or neither or c or x or 27 or giraffe. it's not so cut and dry. its not always black and white as I explained earlier. sometimes the answer isnt black or white or in between (gray) sometimes its fuchsia or chartreuse or mango.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Can't chat.

There are no victims and nothing to defend.









Peace. Breathe.

All is well, ladies. Hug your babies and touch their cheek with yours. Smell their hair. For this brief moment they are with you.

Pat

Thanks Pat! Me and my youngest just got out of the shower and he is nursing now


----------



## UhOhWhatNow

My child isn't old enough for me to really jump in here- he is 4 weeks old and I am at his command LOL







I do have a dog though! I am very concerned with the feelings of my husband, my baby, and my dog (the dog has been my best friend for 12 years, is 100% indoors and a very very important part of my life- sleeps in the family bed, etc). I consider ALL of them in any choice I make. I do not allow misbehavior, but I am so respectful and loving and I am certain I will be with my son, too.

In our marriage, DH's word is law, and he enforces things with me and the dog and I imagine some day the baby- but he respects us all too. But ultimately, if he says something needs to be a certain way, then it is (he never asks me to do anything I am ethically not okay with or which is abusive, etc!). The Golden rule- he who has the gold makes the rules. And in this house, it's he.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
And that's the problem here as I see it. You have that child that not only understands that he can have A or B but not both, he also doesn't demand C. I had children like your son. Erica wasn't one of them.

I'm kind of surprised to hear that there are children like that who simply accept A and B as the only possible options, actually...

And this is what I was talking about earlier when I alluded to examining our own beliefs and ideas... because there are never just A and B... or even A, B, and C. We have a whole alphabet of options, and beyond...

Dar


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UhOhWhatNow* 
The Golden rule- he who has the gold makes the rules.


That isnt' the golden rule as I've learned it


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
I'm kind of surprised to hear that there are children like that who simply accept A and B as the only possible options, actually...

And this is what I was talking about earlier when I alluded to examining our own beliefs and ideas... because there are never just A and B... or even A, B, and C. We have a whole alphabet of options, and beyond...

Dar

But the options are not equally workable or safe....and some exist only in theory because they are completely unworkable in the moment....

Car:

It isn't only my choice to ride in the car; it is also my dc's choice. My dc very much want to visit their grandparents' houses, for one thing, and it requires car travel at least part of the way (we can walk to the train station, and take the train to their state, but the then we must take a car from the station to their house--distance 60 miles). Not visiting is an unsatisfactory option, albeit an option.

We could ride without seatbelts. It is illegal and unsafe, but we could do it. I don't think that is a meaningful choice, although it does exist.

As I see it, if we are to visit the grandparents in their home (which the children want), we must wear seatbelts. I think it is disingenous to suggest
that we are choosing to wear them, and that their are other options. We are choosing to visit, and seatbelts are part of the package.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I want to fully understand your situation sunnmama









I can only imagine my children in that situation (at least accurately) My children if they wanted to go would be happy to wear their seatbelts if they knew that was part of the deal. My children also LOVE car rides though, so it's not like I can accurately place myself in your shoes even though I try.

I would look at all the options:
can the grandparents visit us?
can we find out the underlying cause for not wanting to wear the seat belt? (uncomfortable? - can we make it more comfortable?, not wanting to be confined? - will the children agree to taking stretching breaks every so often?, boredom making it hard to sit still? - is there an activity that would be engaging to them to do on the way while buckled in? do car rides make them tired, and sleeping with a seat belt on is uncomfortable or too hard to do? etc, I could probably go on for days lol, I was a kid once too!)
can we meet the grandparents somewhere half way (if it seems they are fine at the beginning of the ride but not near the end)

I mean I realize the difference here is "what if you run out of options and everything is unworkable" where as the CL family doesn't consider that - they believe there are infinite options, and it seems in believing that we find them. And those who don't believe it, dont find them. Dar worded it well a few posts back as well. Perhaps the reason we are always able to come up with CL solutions is because we trust they are always there?

there seems to be a divide in this thread in trying to understand CL that takes place when one "side" is saying "how can I make this work" and another side is saying "but ultimately it might not work"... we never get to the latter, because we keep asking how can I make this work, instead of saying this is why it wont work.


----------



## Dar

I think I've pretty much given up on suggesting solutions for particular situations, since there are so many possibilities, and with the little I really know about anyone else's situation I think the odds of my hitting upon a workable solution are slim.

dar


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
I think I've pretty much given up on suggesting solutions for particular situations, since there are so many possibilities, and with the little I really know about anyone else's situation I think the odds of my hitting upon a workable solution are slim.

dar

I'm not looking for a solution, as it isn't a problem. My dc accept that they must wear a seatbelt (or be in a carseat, as the case may be). I just don't understand how this conversation would work without "must" (or need to, etc), why it is preferable to happen without must, or how it actually is not at "must" when they choose to travel by car.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
I think I've pretty much given up on suggesting solutions for particular situations, since there are so many possibilities, and with the little I really know about anyone else's situation I think the odds of my hitting upon a workable solution are slim.

dar

Totally understandable. Thats why I was asking if instead of saying CL is ultimately impossible for some, if it could just be respected that its ultimately workable for those of us who choose to "work it"?.. to just trust that it is true for us, and we will trust what they say is true for them. We can all only accurately speak for ourselves. Though I don't mind offering ideas for someone who is seeking to find a solution, I don't like offering ideas for someone who is seeking to prove there is no workable solution. The former seems to accept that even if I dont have the answer for them it doesnt mean the answer doesnt exist..


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
I'm not looking for a solution, as it isn't a problem. My dc accept that they must wear a seatbelt (or be in a carseat, as the case may be). I just don't understand how this conversation would work without "must" (or need to, etc), why it is preferable to happen without must, or how it actually is not at "must" when they choose to travel by car.

What you are saying is that you gave your child information (it's illegal to ride in a car without a seatbelt) and they self determined to ride in the car wearing a seatbelt, so its not a problem. Sounds good to me









The must issue

1) you CAN choose not to use a seat belt. for me personally, that is a mutually agreeable solution.
2) because that is nor a usable solution for me, I find another solution.

We aren't addressing what we *must* do, we are addressing all of our options. I guess it all depends on how you choose to look at it, as I stated earlier. We aren't looking for how it wont work, we are looking for how it will.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
I'm kind of surprised to hear that there are children like that who simply accept A and B as the only possible options, actually...

And this is what I was talking about earlier when I alluded to examining our own beliefs and ideas... because there are never just A and B... or even A, B, and C. We have a whole alphabet of options, and beyond...

Dar

That came from SGM's post #712: " okay accurate information:

let me clarify - you want to know:

what if a child TRULY understands that running in front or a moving car will result in getting hit by that car, which will result in extreme pain or death, but they still want to do it? thats what you want to know? I guess I cant answer that because I cant imagine there being a situation where a child TRULY understands the implications of getting hit by a car. I trust that my child wants to watch Mickey Mouse Clubhouse tomorrow morning, and so, I know if they understood that getting hit by a car would prevent that he would not want to get hit by a car.

Son, if you run into the street you could get hit by a car and be hurt. It would hurt more then when you bumped your head this morning on the doorknow

my son would definitely so "NO HURT! NO HURT!!!"

but lets say in bizarro world (what would be bizarre for MY child I am saying) he said "I want to run in the street anyway!"

I would think he doesn't have accurate information on what hurt means in this situation. I wold say "but if you did get hit by a car, then you wouldn't be able to watch mickey tomorrow morning."

and at that point, if THAT didn't help him understand, again in some parallel universe, he would be talking to me about "but what if I dont get hit by a car" (which he isnt currently capable of conversations like this, and so it wouldnt get to this point) but at which point we could discuss other options (which I went over way back in this thread)

I feel like what you are asking is, what if a toddler knew that getting hi by a car would hurt. and they there was NOTHING in their life they loved enough to want to enjoy later that day or the next day, so there would be no way to help them understand the implications of their actions, AND on top of that, were not open to ANY other solutions regarding road/car/traffic experience.

Is that what you want an answer to? I mean there are millions of hypothetical situations that are just so unlikely I cant understand even entertaining the idea of them. Much like a what if monkey poop fell from the sky and the hippos stepped in it and your child wanted to ride the hippo but the hippo was going into the ocean and your child doesnt know how to swim? i mean really??

I'm pretty sure Pat said something about just picking up a child and zooming them away like an airplane ride. I mean we are talking about a toddler here, so I find my toddler ideas work for toddlers. When I have an older child, we'll work with child ideas, and I trust they will work too. I've seen and heard them working with other children. children who survived a life of being self determined.

but thats the best way I can describe accurate information though I realize it doesnt matter because my name isnt Pat
Last edited by Super Glue Mommy; Yesterday at 06:44 PM. "

What I have tried to get across in this thread is that there are children who will always chose the option she posed tongue in cheek above "Much like a what if monkey poop fell from the sky and the hippos stepped in it and your child wanted to ride the hippo but the hippo was going into the ocean and your child doesnt know how to swim? i mean really??" I do mean really. Erica would pose exactly that option (if she had thought of it). If I proposed it it, she would reject it out of hand even if that was the option she really wanted. Simply because I proposed it.

From what I have read so far, SGM doesn't have a child like that. I did have a child like her son who when told that getting hit by a car would hurt worse than being hit by a doorknob would believe you and not run into the street. Erica was not that child. She would believe that she could get hurt by a car only after actually getting hurt by a car. No amount of telling her or showing her by driving the car over a soda can (for example) was going to mean anything to her.

Another thing I would like to have addressed is what happens the next time the child wants to go into the street. Does a CL family go through the same options/solutions every time or does the child accept the option/solution that was agreed to the last time?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

my son is not like that. my daughter is. My daughter's answer to everything is no. Or, if she is feeling compliant, she chooses whatever the most recent option she heard

Do you want chocolate or poop? she would say poop if she was feeling agreeable. other times she if I said "do you want chocolate, or do you want ice cream?" she would just NO! no chocolate! no ice cream! (just an example) I treat my children individually. there is no one size fits all in our home.

sometimes the child defaults to the last solution made. sometimes the child decides that they dont like that arrangement after all, and so we seek to find a new solution.

Your daughter sound so much like I was as a child, and a bit like my son in some ways and a bit like my daughter in some ways. I don't it would be impossible for me to live consensually with any of my current or future children, because I look at how can I live consensually, not how is consensual living going to fail me.

It truly does make a huge difference in my experience to look at it that way. I think those who truly believe it and truly want to embrace it are successful with CL for that reason. If its not important to you, or if you are unwilling to trust it then the whole concept is irrelevant. Noting anyone says will change your mind, because you are content with the way you alread think. And thats okay. It's just not the only right way to live.


----------



## Dar

I just realized that I've been having online conversations about parenting in this way for at least twelve years, and it always comes down to playing in the street and sitting in a carseat.







Neither of which have been a huge issue in my life, I have to say...

I think that with young children, words aren't used nearly as often as many people seem to be thinking. If you know that a child won't choose what she truly wants when given an oral choice, don't give her that kind of choice. When Rain was little - under 2 - we used to play in the street (neighborhood, not busy, all the kids would play there) and whenever a car came I yelled out "Car!" with great urgency, exaggerated my facial reaction, and grabbed the nearest kids to zoom out of the street. The other kids got into it, and Rain also thought it was a lot of fun and followed along.

It never occurred to me to sit down and ask her if she wanted to play in the street or run out of the street - I led, she followed, and it was good for both of us. There's nothing long with social learning, as long as you're not coerced into doing so.

I suppose if Rain (or another kid) had not run out of the street with the rest of us, I would have found another way to deal with it, but it was a fun game and they all enjoyed it...

Dar


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I have the same experience Dar. That generaly, the kids just go to with the flow, so we haven't really had a need to get all into the carseat or street ssue, except when talking hypothetically, which is usually with people who don't agree with self determination, or dont understand self determination.


----------



## kalimay

"CL seems to be intermittently confused with both neglect and child led parenting. I am in control of my own fate, so I can make choices for my life. I choose to live consensually with others. No one is forcing my child to live consensually with me. They are very happy though, and I hear often how they simply exude happiness. We are a very connected and respectful family."

I am glad it is working for you family but I am still stuck on a 3 year old being self determining. I know a three year old can make choices for themselves but I believe it is inherent in the parent child relationship at that age for them to trust in and believe in their parent so I cannot see them as being completely self determining. I know that my influence on them is really strong and my beliefs about what is best for them are going to influence my interactions with them and ultimately influence their decisions even if I am not forcing them to do something. When you say "No one is forcing my child to live consensually with me." at the age of 3 I am wondering what you mean.

So do those of you who believe young children are self determining believe that only of kids who are raised in a CL family?

To get away from car seats and streets, I have a couple questions.

Did you offer your infant children formula and breast milk to see which one they preferred and then feed them accordingly?

If an adult parent is sexually abusing a 3 year old child but the child consents to it do you think it is because the child made a self determined decision or do you think the parents' influence led the child to consent?

What I still cannot understand is to say something like, oh we do not believe in blame or must in our family and our child is completely self determined. Don't you think they believe that there is no blame or must because it is what you know to be true and you have expressed to them their whole life. And please let me say again I am not saying it is wrong to believe in or to teach your truth to your children but to say they self determined that that is what they believe is a stretch to me because like I said before if they were raised by different parents at age 3 I am guessing they would believe what those parents believe.

Would you at least concede that there is a difference between the reasoning skills of a very young child and that of a young adult? There is also the fact that a young adult has access to much more varied information not just one adviser that they completely trust.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

nope, I dont think allowing a child to be self determining is at all exclusive to CL










I didn't offer my child formula, when they were born they rooted for the breast, and I gave them my breast.

As I said, CL does not mean you walk around from the moment they are born saying "do you want this or this? this or that? how about this this or that and that and this and that?" not at all. The follow our lead, and as they grow they feel more comfortable moving "away" from us. they seek a little independence at a time. So basically, we just go with the flow. This is still self determining. If they didnt want to do something, we would know, and then we would find a way to support them respectfully.

What is a stretch to you is not a stretch to me. Wwhat you cannot understand is the easiest for me to undersand. I am sorry I cannot control your ability to understand though. I have made attempts to explain, but its obvious what you do is working for you and what I do is working for me. Your understanding isn't really necessary, as it does not change what my truth is, nor does it change what your truth is, because you are fine where you are at. At best, it would change your opinion of what *I* do in *my* family, and I guess what it comes down to, is I've put a lot of energy in trying to help others understand, but it's not really that important to me that they understand because its not gong to change my reality or theirs.

Yes, children have access to more information then infants. young adults more then children. and adults more then young adults. You are asking if I am willing to agree to that, I am not only willing to agree to that, I already said that (in different words, many times), so its like asking if I am you willing to agree with myself lol.

you are also now confusing self determination with abuse. Children aren't consenting to be abused in those cases. They are being manipulated and confused into letting someone hurt them. A child "self determining" to let someone sexually abuse them is not in reality self determination because its going against a more basic determination they had for themselves, before someone over powered them (physically or emotionally)

I feel this thread is getting very far out of hand now with these implications about sexual molestation and such. If anything I have felt my parenting has helped protect my children from being a victim in this way (and I think there are other ways of parenting and life that can do the same) I feel very sick now. Sorry, I hope you find the answers you are looking for.

If you cant, that is okay. My mom doesn't understand pre algebra, but that doesn't mean that x+7=9 solve for x isn't 2. x is 2, even if my mom can't understand that. Of course I realize with CL we are talking more about pi - which goes on infinitely, not x. I can see how infinite is harder to accept then set parameters.

I had planned to stick around to reply for some of the posters (with respect to not respond to calm since she did not want answers from me and I wanted to leave the floor open for other CLers who felt comfortable with her approach to the conversation to answer her) However at this point, I want to say my PM box is open to anyone who genuinely is looking for support, and also to recommend the yahoo group Pat has linked several times in this thread. (here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consensual-living/) but I don't feel comfortable anymore, so I need to leave this to the people who do. I am willing to help those who want to find a consensual solution, not those who want to prove there is none. If you are reading this and that is what you are looking for, I recommend the CL group posted above, and also welcome you to PM me.


----------



## kalimay

"you are also now confusing self determination with abuse. Children aren't consenting to be abused in those cases. They are being manipulated and confused into letting someone hurt them. A child "self determining" to let someone sexually abuse them is not in reality self determination because its going against a more basic determination they had for themselves, before someone over powered them (physically or emotionally)"

I am not confusing self determination with abuse. I am trying to point out that if a parent believes something they can convince their child of said thing and the child would consent to it.
I am sorry my example offended you but I am trying to point that a parents beliefs and the information that they share with a young child have a huge affect on the child and what they believe and the decisions they make. And that can be positive as the way you are raising your children or it could be negative with a different parent, but that it is the parent that forms the childs' beliefs. So the decisions that I believe a 3 year old will come too will be heavily influenced by their parent and to say they are self determining still does not seem accurate to me.


----------



## Calm

I am not interested in taking jabs at you, and never have been, Superglue mommy. I have also not taken any jabs at consensual living. I also said I wanted Pat to help me in areas that only she can help, such as the fact that she wrote the guidelines. I didn't say I didn't want any other input, i said the opposite. I said I would not discuss with you at the level you were intent on keeping it. If you raise the level, I am fine with discussing things. Keep me out of it, and stick to the subject matter, tis all fine with me. But you have made such long posts for page and pages about me and my intent and make thinly disguised insults and assumptions about me left and right. I won't play at that level.

Initially on this thread, I used some sarcasm and often that results in a witty and fun banter but with you it got personal. Fast. I was talking about a concept, CL, but you were talking about me. You called it mirroring me but I guess we have a very wide stance on how we view things. I became very guarded here, and made sure I was clear and boringly straight. You never let up on the sarcasm that was directed at me, and you intensified it and added to it. It creeped this thread into a level of discomfort for more than just myself. You keep saying things like this (over and over and over):

Quote:

especially to one who doesn't seem to truly want to understand or accept the difference?
Who are you to tell me what I "truly" want? If I didn't want to understand, why would I be here? The mere fact that I'm here is testament to wanting to understand. What I don't get is why you are here. What is it that you are trying to understand? You've said you have all the answers for you, you have things so sorted you have no questions left, only answers. Is it that you are intent on tearing me down? I'm a person, CL is just a concept. Who would be more out of line here? In another attempt to actually discuss and leave ME out of it, here we go...

Quote:

What I hear though is you saying how you don't agree with or get the very fundamentals of CL.
I thought living consensually was just that, living consensually. I thought _that_ was the very fundamental factor. That was enough for me, I didn't have to consider a child with self determination or feel that I'd "always" be able to do _anything_ and I didn't particularly care how much I "had" to do in my life (must).

Once the initial shock wore off of having musts in my life, I then embraced them. I couldn't give my child away, or not feed her. I did come to a place where I _wanted_ to do those things, but even occasionally after that I'll admit that it still felt much like a "must". It was hindsight that then showed me that I'd lived with more musts than I thought, such as wearing a seatbelt. I grew up without one as it wasn't law in my country when I was a child. Mum held me on her lap and then I just sat in the back without one. Then at some point the law came in but it didn't feel like a must because I adapted very fast. IME it's only when you _don't_ want to do something that anything forced on you becomes an issue.

Quote:

Why do you follow CL if this is how you feel about the fundamentals of it? Perhaps, like you said in earlier posts many many many times, you are a CC mama who uses consensual solutions as a tool. There is nothing wrong with that mama. That rocks for you and your family so you need to embrace it and be proud of it! You don't have to determine anything about another persons way of life to own your way of life and be proud of it!
This and the next quote helped me realise what is causing conflict here. I hope to meet you in heart space now, if I am right (Gods willing).

What I'm hearing is you are taking this personally, as though my scrutinizing of certain facets of CL is scrutinizing your life. Ok, I can understand then how this is upsetting you. I'm not sure how to fix that, other than to recommend you separate your life from CL and look at it in the way I am, just for the sake of the discussion.

Quote:

At that point, maybe the benefit of the doubt could be given to the CLers? and I say this because CLers who believe fully in CL and it "works" for them know this to be true in a way that others who don't can't know. There is no way for me to "know" what you do is best for your family or not - I just trust that it is. So I'm humbly asking for the same, but I accept if you are not willing to do so.
You have written this exact paragraph several times. Are you just copying and pasting past posts? I know it works for them, I just don't see how knowing that answers my questions.

Breastfeeding works for some mamas, spanking works, slinging works, anything "works" for whoever it works for. But when someone comes along and asks questions about something, then we just answer the questions. I've gone onto breastfeeding and slinging threads and gentle discipline threads when people start scrutinizing AP philosophies and I ask questions and I really try to understand what they are having an issue with because some of these struggling mums can be pretty angry and negative about the subject at hand. I'm not trying to convince them AP is a valid choice because it is clear to me they _want_ to be doing it, they are just frustrated.

Some mamas genuinely believe there is no way to control an unruly kid without hitting them. They tell me that my methods are all fancy dancy but they just don't work for them. I could say, well, it works for me but they already know it does.

I say, so you want this to work for you too?

And they may say, no, I just need you to know that sometimes, it doesn't work for others.

I say, I believe respectful, well behaved children can be raised without hitting, would you like to learn how?

They might say, "so you're saying it always works, I'm just not using it effectively, I'm too stupid to figure it out? How can you say always about anything?"

To which I would say, "I didn't, and I won't. I do not believe in absolutes. There may be some very valid reason to hit a child that I am not aware of. In fact, I don't say "don't hit" to my kids because it is teaching them an absolute that will not work for them in the long run. They may one day struggle in self defense with an absolute like "don't hit" imprinted on them. So I'm not going to sell you an absolute. Where do you find gentle guidance is failing you, or impossible?"

And I will stay with them question after question and at no point, at least in the last 5 years, have I thought they were tearing me or my choices down. They are confused, they see problems, flaws, loopholes, inconsistencies, potential for dangerous failure. I can see exactly why they see that, too. Doesn't make them unwilling or stubborn. It makes them compassionate and willing to learn... just a tougher nut to crack. There are many people like that on MDC in the different forums, getting unsatisfactory solutions to things we all take for granted and we just turn our backs on them as though they just want to take the easy road. Or something. Some are quiet and easily intimidated and ask a quick question and then zip off to the proverbial corner. I see that person, I feel that person, and on threads like this, _I represent that person_.

When I am drilled about my parenting choices, I just answer the questions. And yes, at times, I have felt they were looking for me to _*justify*_ those choices. I argued with my mother about holding my son when he whined or cried, for instance. I held him pretty much all the time. I felt judged. But that's because I was feeling defensive, I think. When I feel secure in my choices, I don't tend to react like that.

It took mum a while to get me to realise that she just didn't understand at all how what I was doing was better than the alternative. She could see problems, and wanted to protect me from them. She saw me suffering and felt that it was what I was doing that was causing it. All these things on the outset look much like judgment, particularly when there are questions and more questions and pointing out of potential errors in the philosophy. I've been in your shoes, at least, if you feel the way I felt in this situation.







<---not sarcasm.

You are not CL, SGM. It is just something you do. I honestly am not judging your parenting choice, and don't think anyone is doing anything dangerous with CL. When I do bible and religious study, which often includes debate, sometimes a novice to the debates, or a sensitively attached Christian may need a reminder from me that _they_ are not the bible, nor are they their religion no matter how much of their life it is to them, and I have a right to theoretical discussions, and they have the right to leave.

According to you I am unwilling, impossible to please, stubborn, disrespectful, intent on tearing down and whatnot







. Perhaps if you didn't perceive me that way, it wouldn't have been dripping from every word you wrote. I don't perceive you in any way other than not understanding my questions or intent. I don't have a personal opinion on you because it is irrelevant.

BTW berko is aussie slang for fast and furious and a bit incoherent, kinda like the Tasmanian devil.

If anything I said resonates with you, please let me know. I believe anything can be mended with communication, compassion and a willingness to wear the other's shoes. Being Buddhist for 4 years was at least good for something. I have apologised several times on this thread for perceived wrongs. I have not enjoyed such in return. I am trying to be open, I am not perfect however. I do not wish to continue on the path this has gone and the only way to end it is if you are able to see my intentions, but if not, then you might have to continue on your choice to ignore me now. And I do believe that it is written plain as day on the CL website to "always assume positive intent".


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

sexual abuse can happen with any kind of parenting. It is not more common with consensual parenting. Believe me, myself, my sister, my mom, and my aunt can all attest to this. None of us were raised consensually. We were all sexually abused. those 3 by trusted family members, myself by a "friend's" brother's friend who was living at my friends house at the time. What you are saying is true of any parenting style, and that is why I am an uneasy with the example. Offended? No, but uneasy with where the conversation is heading? very. I feel the sexual abuse issue could be a thread of its own, and that is has nothing to do with CL nor is there any increased risk due to living consensually. On a personal parenting level, I hope to give my children the tools they need to protect themselves from this as well as do my best to help protect them from it. My older two are 3.5 and 2. They are both very aware that their bodies belong to them. I don't attribute this solely to CL, I don't think it happened in spite of being CL though - I can't imagine any other kind of outcome while living consensually with them. My son is mostly this way because of sensory issues. I guess in a way his sensory issues protect his body in a way he doesn't choose to consciously due to neurological delays... as for my daughter, she will not let anyone, even me, touch her privates anymore. She says "no touch my butt!" (which she is using to describe her front, she doesn't mind if I wipe her butt actually) but she wants to wash herself in the shower and clean herself after going to the bathroom. This came about I think by her starting to explore, and me giving her information about how her body belongs to her at that time, and also from living a life where she feels her body has always been respected as her own. Again, I don't think this is because of CL, but being CL I cant imagine being CL in a way that teaches a child to let someone else control their body physically or sexually.

Hope that brings some understanding to why I am moving away from this now. Bless you all. You are all in my eyes wonderful parents. I am also able to recognize myself as a wonderful parent, despite whether or not others agree, or whether others understand where I am coming from.


----------



## mammal_mama

SGM -- I am glad you shared so eloquently!

I recently heard a similar thing to what you just responded to. It was actually on a blog where people of different faiths (and even some non-believers) discuss various issues.

And I was sharing about how we left a church we were in, because of our concern that there was a stress on everyone needing to experience God in a certain way -- and my husband and I realized we wanted our own children to feel free to experience God in their own ways.

And this other person came on and said he felt "parents like us" left our children free for "other people to give them experiences," which could be harmful for them.

This just seemed so weird because with AP and CL, we find our children always seek US out when they are wanting a new experience -- they are not showing any inclination to want some strange person to "give them experiences." And because we are always eager to help them do the things they want to do -- i.e. finding safe ways for our 9yo to "play with fire" as that is a current interest of hers, I don't think they see any reason to want to break away from us and seek out "experiences" with strangers.

Not that we wouldn't protect them if they showed signs of wanting to go off with a stranger -- just saying, I don't think kids normally want to do that.


----------



## kalimay

SGM,
I am sorry if my post upset you. I will take it down if you want me to. Let me know, also I would have to be talked through doing that as I don't know how.

To be clear I was not talking about a child being abused by a parent who was practicing CL. I was more trying to get at the fact that I think 3 year olds are really impressionable. So much so that they can consent to things that are not right because the trust fully in their parents and that that can go both ways, good and bad. That is one of the reasons it is hard for me to see how a 3 year old can be considered self determining.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I know you werent talking about the parent abusing the child.
I don't feel the need to censor your conerns.
My 2 and 3 year olds are self determining. I feel if anything, this is *one way* to PROTECT them from such abuse. There are other ways too. My children feel very strongly that their bodies are theirs. They are impressionable, yes - the impression I have had on them is that their bodies are THEIR bodies. That NO ONE has the authority to determine their body for them. They aren't going to determine to let someone else sexually abuse them. Even children who have been sexually abused and are at first afraid to speak up because they felt they did something wrong, which is where I think you are getting this idea from?, do not WANT the other person to do this to them. We can give our children accurate information, as I do with my children, so they can understand what sexual abuse is, and so they can protect themselves from this or seek our help in protecting them. Even my children at the very early ages of 2 and 3.5 understand this very well.

It is okay if you do not understand CL. It is okay if those are your concerns. I understand CL better, naturally, because I am living it. So I have a secure feeling about CL because I know first hand my children are not more likely to be abused because we practice CL. I also know, that my personal parent beliefs (as well as other ways different then my own) help to protect my children from such abuse.

I really dont feel comfortable rationalizing this concept, so I hope you can forgive me for not doing so. It's just not CL related to me, I feel the over reaching forced connection between the idea that the two are connected to be really inappropriate *to me*, and I'm respecting you don't see it that way.

***I really just want to make it clear that it's not you I am upset with. i just don't feel comfortable with the way this thread is heading at this point. Others may feel very comfortable. I am just hoping before I part ways for good I can leave having made it clear that it's not about *you*.... *I* just don't feel this is an appropriate connection and that is why I am *choosing* to step aside. You don't have to respond, but if you do I hope it can be just to let me know that you understand it's just not something *I* feel comfortable with and that *I* am not upset with you. If you are interested in giving me some peace of mind as I gently step away from the discussion that would be a wonderful way to do so - that I could leave knowing you understood this wasn't personal about you, it was just *my* feelings and comfort level that I am trying to respect... Are you able to understand that? If not, I am sorry, I don't know anything else I can say to make it clear that it's not you, I am just respecting myself here.***


----------



## Calm

SGM, I understand. Go with peace, all is well







and I appreciate your perspective and I have learned from you. You gave it one helluva shot. Thank you.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal mama*
And I was sharing about how we left a church we were in, because of our concern that there was a stress on everyone needing to experience God in a certain way -- and my husband and I realized we wanted our own children to feel free to experience God in their own ways.

This is beautiful. I can resonate with what you're saying. I am afraid of influencing DD. I know it is impossible for me to avoid that, but I'm really trying to limit how much I influence her. There are a few things I want her to keep intact and pristine and at the top of the list is her spirituality. I'd like hers to unfold naturally, not by things she has heard from me. She asks so many questions. She is interested in reincarnation (always talks about her past lives) and so many things; she seems to have a strong spiritual inclination. I try to answer her in the way of "some people believe abc and some believe xyz but no one really knows" but I can tell she doesn't feel happy with that. And really, who does? We want to know why, what, who... but I can't give her absolutes or some kind of belief, as easy as that would be. Perhaps her journey is the Quest.

Quote:

I was more trying to get at the fact that I think 3 year olds are really impressionable. So much so that they can consent to things that are not right because the trust fully in their parents and that that can go both ways, good and bad.
Yes. This is the same sort of thing, I understand you.

Just as an aside, my daughter attended this at school: bravehearts. I thought it was brilliant. They are taught how to distinguish between "yes" feelings and "no" feelings. I was struggling with how to impart this to DD without giving her a body complex in some way. I had told her that no matter what anyone told her, if an adult ever told her to keep a secret, esp from her parents, the first thing she should do is tell her parents. I didn't frame it exactly like that, but along those lines. At almost 7 she is still sexually very open and has no issues with us touching or seeing her. This openness worries me, but Bravehearts and keeping our communication free and open helps keep the faith for me. I have really tried, like the spirituality factor, to keep her sexuality unhindered by our beliefs. It hasn't been easy, and I have had to confront my own demons in the process.


----------



## Calm

In the spirit of sharing my Consensual Learning journey, I have found some dialogues I found worth sharing from the websites and such.

Quote:

I was faced with something like this was when my first son was about 8 months old. I never ever grabbed anything out of his hands - I asked, gave him something more interesting, or waited until he was done. We were walking back to the car, and he wanted to hold the car keys. Fine. I put him in his car seat, and he won't give the keys back to me (which he previously had always done when I asked). I explain we need to go, I try to give him other more interesting items, no go. Meanwhile, it's 100 degrees out, and I am about to explode in the hot car. I finally had to just rip the keys out of his hand to get the a/c > turned on. He wailed, I felt horrible, but could not figure out what > else to do.
Response:

Quote:

I would have climbed back out of the car, sat in the shade until ds was done playing with the keys, or when he dropped them, I would take the necessary car key off and give the key ring back to ds.
The first thing that came to my mind was also the first thing that came to her mind (I assume "her"):

Quote:

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the thoughtful reply. But I have to say that a lot of this sounds like the child's wants being more important than mine.
Response:

Quote:

It sounds like you don't feel that your needs are being met with the process? Or that the act of negotiating is perceived as "giving in"? Or that you really could just use some process for efficiency and expediency, ease? What aspect of the process (solutions) feels discounting or invalidating of your needs? What part of the process (solutions) feels that the child's wants are more important? I am wanting to understand the ambivalence about the process.

Quote:

Getting the baby back out of the car and hiking 10 minutes back across the concrete parking lot in the extreme heat to find shade so he can continue playing with the keys is putting his needs way in front of my own. What about if I had another child with me? What about their needs?
response:

Quote:

I believe that there were other suggestions that could also meet your needs. Hiking for 10 minutes across a concrete parking lot in extreme heat to find shade doesn't sound fun, I agree. I believe there are many alternatives that don't include this necessity. The issue is to find one that is agreeable to both (all) parties. Personally, I wouldn't go to places alone with multiple children where I had to hike in that situation. That sounds like something that I would work to find another alternative to meet the need of that outing. Perhaps, going when it wasn't as hot. Perhaps, taking a stroller, perhaps, having a second set of keys, perhaps....
I think most parents learn from incidents they've already had. Like this car keys example, next time she'll be prepared, no doubt. She'll probably have a second set of keys, and if she's lucky, get a space nearer the shade so she and her melting icecream can wait out the key explorations of a toddler.

But many of these suggestions are about that "next time" and not very helpful for "this time". The only suggestion that addressed the issue of _this_ time was hiking ten minutes to shade across a concrete parking lot in extreme heat. That was the only choice she had that allowed her child to hold the keys until he tired of them (ten minutes, for an average toddler). Which in extreme heat is not really an option at all. I'm in Australia, I can tell you about extreme heat.









I hide the keys now. I just can't deal with the whole key issue. DD used to want them while they were in the ignition and we were driving. I gave her a bunch of old keys after that but the first time it happened, I didn't have that option. The best option I had was to ask her to wait. Which, you can do indefinitely if you need to cheat. I can be the bearer of the eternal "Yes!" if I just add "soon" to it. Or the ever elusive "one day".

Mama! Keys!
Yes, Darling. Soon.

Mama!!!! Want pony!!
Yes, darling. One day.

Oi, ma. I want to sleep over at my gym instructors house.
Yes! Of course honey. Just don't trip over my dead body on your way.

The eternal yes. Love it.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I don't get why it's wrong for kids to learn that sometimes they don't get a choice in what they

do at that moment. As an adult

there are plenty of times that I don't have a choice
Response:

Quote:

Are there times that you don't have a choice? I guess, I don't feel that I have anyone deciding

what I have to do at any moment. I

believe that I do not have to do anything I don't want to do. I believe our son doesn't have to do

anything he doesn't want to do

either. I don't. He doesn't. That works for us. Perhaps, we just believe differently.
I also find this interesting:

Quote:

I guess I feel it is important for kids to learn that they have to make compromises too.
Response:

Quote:

Wow, I totally disagree with this. I believe it is important for our son to believe that he doesn't
have to do anything he doesn't want to do. Our beliefs are so different. I feel so empowered
knowing that I do have choices, that I can negotiate, that I don't have to compromise my needs,
my principles, my beliefs, values, etc. I believe that being true to myself prohibits martyring and
self-
sacrifice. I believe that I deserve not to 'have to make compromises' in living my life. There is
reality. But living with reality is a process of finding the tools to negotiate for what I
need/want/desire and I practice honoring other's needs/wants/desires as equally valid. The
solutions which we create that do not include compromise, which are mutually preferable, are
much more satisfying,
imo. Compromise in the context that you describe sounds like sacrifice. That is not something
that I embrace or practice. Nor do
I expect or feel that it is important to learn or live. Personally, I believe the opposite.
I agree with the responses in many ways. For instance, I don't think it is my place to teach my children that life is a certain way, as this may be limited by my beliefs. Well, it is limited by my beliefs, and I would rather my children paint their own reality - again, unhindered by belief as much as possible. Meaning, I don't feel the need to *teach* pain so they know that life can be painful. I don't need to thrust them into a synthetic situation in the hopes they will learn something negative and be prepared for adulthood. Although, my parents did absolutely everything for me, except have fun, I did that without any problems. But I didn't make official phone calls, I didn't pay bills or debts, I didn't do anything with any responsibility because my father had the philosophy that "no need to hasten her discovery that life comes with responsibility". And the biggest bone of contention in all my relationships? My lack of responsibility. So it can backfire but nothing is fool proof and my parents meant well.

The response asks if the questioner really doesn't have choices sometimes. My experience of being a mother allows me to answer a resounding YES to that question. Hell yeah. Fricken fracken heck yes. There are many things I have to do. I get up at dawn and this is not my choice, because I have never been a morning person and I look forward to sleeping in again one day. I make the most of my situation - I do The Work of Byron Katie so I have a perspective on "what is" at any given moment - but I still have no choice about some things. Again, this may be different to someone who considers it a choice to suicide, or to give the kids away, or to get a caretaker to do the more odious tasks while I continue in my skills of Shirker of Responsibility and Master of Delegation.

I have gone through my list of options so many times I've worn a path in my brain. If there was an escape hatch, I'd have found it. There isn't one. So therefore, we open a new list of choices. I can choose how to _*feel*_ while doing that which I must do. This allows the control freak within me to feel as though I have some control. I remember telling DH when he'd grimace while changing a soiled diaper to imagine it was a poop the baby had done after being constipated for days. He'd be celebrating! WOO HOO, he's POOPED, look at this, honey, he POOPED!!!

He *has* to change the nappy. He *doesn't* have to be a misery guts about it.

As DH and I laugh our way through all these average daily miracles and challenges we come across a phrase like, "you don't have to do anything" and we smile at one another knowingly. Yes, we do have to do these things, and that's ok. In my experience, childhood comes with far fewer "musts" than adulthood. Adulthood is a shock in responsibility. When I _*chose*_ to have a child, that was when I _*chose*_ to wake at dawn. Only, I didn't know that then. So it was uninformed consent.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I can choose how to _*feel*_ while doing that which I must do.


Bingo!
This is the mindset that helps me (and I agree, there are innumerable musts in parenting, esp of babies! To not do these things would be criminal neglect--not a valid choice in my mind).


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
I just realized that I've been having online conversations about parenting in this way for at least twelve years, and it always comes down to playing in the street and sitting in a carseat.







Neither of which have been a huge issue in my life, I have to say...

I think that with young children, words aren't used nearly as often as many people seem to be thinking. If you know that a child won't choose what she truly wants when given an oral choice, don't give her that kind of choice. When Rain was little - under 2 - we used to play in the street (neighborhood, not busy, all the kids would play there) and whenever a car came I yelled out "Car!" with great urgency, exaggerated my facial reaction, and grabbed the nearest kids to zoom out of the street. The other kids got into it, and Rain also thought it was a lot of fun and followed along.

It never occurred to me to sit down and ask her if she wanted to play in the street or run out of the street - I led, she followed, and it was good for both of us. There's nothing long with social learning, as long as you're not coerced into doing so.

I suppose if Rain (or another kid) had not run out of the street with the rest of us, I would have found another way to deal with it, but it was a fun game and they all enjoyed it...

Dar

The car seat situation was my reality so I'm very interested in how others solved it.

As I see it, you didn't use CL in the playing in the street situation. You used redirection and took advantage of the fact that toddlers follow which is just good parenting. Giving only the choices that you "know" that your child will chose isn't giving them all the information. Only part. Just maybe the child would chose tuna sandwich over pb&j or cheese if given that option. But you don't have tuna so you don't offer. From what I'm reading here and on the website is that tuna is an option that is discussed even if it would mean packing all the kids up and going to the store for tuna. As CL is being present here though, it isn't new. It's being described as good, common sense parenting mixed with warmed over self esteem left over from the 80s wrapped up in modern psycho babble. I guess that Solomon had it right; there is nothing new under the sun.


----------



## sewchris2642

Super Glue Mommy said:


> nope, I dont think allowing a child to be self determining is at all exclusive to CL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't offer my child formula, when they were born they rooted for the breast, and I gave them my breast.
> 
> As I said, CL does not mean you walk around from the moment they are born saying "do you want this or this? this or that? how about this this or that and that and this and that?" not at all. The follow our lead, and as they grow they feel more comfortable moving "away" from us. they seek a little independence at a time. So basically, we just go with the flow. This is still self determining. If they didnt want to do something, we would know, and then we would find a way to support them respectfully.
> 
> What is a stretch to you is not a stretch to me. Wwhat you cannot understand is the easiest for me to undersand. I am sorry I cannot control your ability to understand though. I have made attempts to explain, but its obvious what you do is working for you and what I do is working for me. Your understanding isn't really necessary, as it does not change what my truth is, nor does it change what your truth is, because you are fine where you are at. At best, it would change your opinion of what *I* do in *my* family, and I guess what it comes down to, is I've put a lot of energy in trying to help others understand, but it's not really that important to me that they understand because its not gong to change my reality or theirs.
> 
> Yes, children have access to more information then infants. young adults more then children. and adults more then young adults. You are asking if I am willing to agree to that, I am not only willing to agree to that, I already said that (in different words, many times), so its like asking if I am you willing to agree with myself lol.
> 
> you are also now confusing self determination with abuse. Children aren't consenting to be abused in those cases. They are being manipulated and confused into letting someone hurt them. A child "self determining" to let someone sexually abuse them is not in reality self determination because its going against a more basic determination they had for themselves, before someone over powered them (physically or emotionally)
> 
> I feel this thread is getting very far out of hand now with these implications about sexual molestation and such. If anything I have felt my parenting has helped protect my children from being a victim in this way (and I think there are other ways of parenting and life that can do the same) I feel very sick now. Sorry, I hope you find the answers you are looking for.
> 
> If you cant, that is okay. My mom doesn't understand pre algebra, but that doesn't mean that x+7=9 solve for x isn't 2. x is 2, even if my mom can't understand that. Of course I realize with CL we are talking more about pi - which goes on infinitely, not x. I can see how infinite is harder to accept then set parameters.
> 
> I had planned to stick around to reply for some of the posters (with respect to not respond to calm since she did not want answers from me and I wanted to leave the floor open for other CLers who felt comfortable with her approach to the conversation to answer her) However at this point, I want to say my PM box is open to anyone who genuinely is looking for support, and also to recommend the yahoo group Pat has linked several times in this thread. (here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consensual-living/) but I don't feel comfortable anymore, so I need to leave this to the people who do. I am willing to help those who want to find a consensual solution, not those who want to prove there is none. If you are reading this and that is what you are looking for, I recommend the CL group posted above, and also welcome you to PM me.[/QUOT
> 
> But you see that is exactly the problem. As a newborn, I wasn't given the choice of breast or formula either. I was offered formula and rooted for the bottle. My mom made that choice. My kids weren't given the choice of the bottle. I chose breastfeeding for them.
> 
> Dar making a game out of getting out of the street isn't giving Rain the choice of getting out of the street or staying. It's taking advantage of a toddler's tendency to follow and is manipulation. And there is nothing wrong with it. It's a great way to get a toddler out of a dangerous situation. But it's not self-determination.
> 
> As for the sexual abuse situation, it's just what you have been posting taken to the logical extreme.
> 
> Thanks for the yahoo link. I lost it and couldn't find where Pat posted it way back when.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

re breastfeeding:

every baby I have held or seen held always roots for the breast when held (at first), and usually no matter who is holding them, whether or not they are formula fed. My children choose to be breastfed.

that aside, yes some things we choose and our children just go along with it. Then as they get older they want to choose more and more for themselves and I let them. You can't force the child to latch on (breast or bottle) but they choose to. As I said, ts not about walking around saying "how about this or that?" to every little thing. You just go with the flow, and they let you know when they want to start having their own flow. This isnt manipulation. I am just living my life and they live it right along with me. Then they come to points where they say "well hey, how about I do it different then you" and I say okay. If it affects me too, then we look for something mutually agreeable that respects everyone effected.

Dar chose to make getting out of the road fun. That was Dar's self determination for Dar. Rain chose to engage in this game with her mother. That was Rain's self determination for Rain. I posted information on the definition of self determination a couple pages or so back, that may help clear up your misunderstanding of the term. Or it may not.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...&postcount=728

When Dar makes a game out of running out of the road and Rain plays along:

Rain is determining her fate without compulsion (compulsion is an urge to do something _that might be better left undone_) Rain was absolutely self determination (by dictionary definition of the term) in that situation. She CHOSE to engage in a game with her mother. The same as I may CHOOSE to watch NCIS with my husband because I both love spending time with him and love the show. My husband turning on the TV to watch NCIS is not effecting my self determination. I choose to sit down and watch it with him. He isn't manipulating me or determining for me. If he asked if I wanted to watch it, or told me it was coming on in 5 minutes it does not effect my ability to self determine. I hope you are able to gain understanding of the term. If not, perhaps by your understanding no one can be self determining.

There was NOTHING logical about the sexual abuse comment, since the conversation is still heading that way I will return to lurkdom.


----------



## kalimay

SGM,

I understand you are done and thank you for your participation. I just feel like I need to speak again because I feel I was not understood.

I was not in anyway speaking of CL or of your children being abused. I used a heinous example, and maybe shouldn't have, to point out that if a parent believes something that is not a fact and passes that on to their child their child will believe it.
So when a parent says we don't believe in blame or must in our family the child believes as truth there is no blame or must. But to say that a self determining 4 year old child choose that philosophical belief system is not accurate in my mind. And again I am not saying it is wrong or bad to teach your child your truths but to say that they choose that truth implies reasoning skill, information, and experience that they do not yet possess. They are still so connected to us at that young age I just can't agree they are completely self determining. And one more time, I am not saying that is something that is wrong with CL just that I cannot call it self determining.

Thank you so much Calm for your last comments. I won't quote because I would probably end up with the whole things anyway but I wanted you to know I have also learned from this thread and am glad you kept at it.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

My children are living, and I am just respecting their way of life. They self determine, so of course I cannot determine for them to be CL. I can only determine for myself to live consensually. By definition of self determining, practicing CL is me allowing others to be self determining, and to be self determining myself. Its okay that you cannot see it that way. That is my reality though, even if it is not yours. I am connected to many people in life, I am still self determining. I hope you read the definitions. By your definition of self determining, NO ONE of any age could be self determining. By the actual definition, anyone of any age can be self determining. At the same time a parent can self determine to stop their child from being self determining.


----------



## kalimay

"My children are living, and I am just respecting their way of life. They self determine, so of course I cannot determine for them to be CL. I can only determine for myself to live consensually. By definition of self determining, practicing CL is me allowing others to be self determining, and to be self determining myself. Its okay that you cannot see it that way. That is my reality though, even if it is not yours. I am connected to many people in life, I am still self determining. I hope you read the definitions. By your definition of self determining, NO ONE of any age could be self determining. By the actual definition, anyone of any age can be self determining. At the same time a parent can self determine to stop their child from being self determining."

Your first sentence confuses me. You do not think it was you who determined for them to be CL. Do you think if they were being raised by a different family they would be CL?
I did read the definitions but I have also read child development and psychology texts and I do not believe a young child has the cognitive or reasoning skills to make some of the decisions that have been discussed on this thread.
I believe that children know their own bodies. They know when they are hungry, full, what they want to play, eat, ect.. I do not believe this makes them capable of making complicated medical decisions and I would not be comfortable telling my child they were deciding something like say whether they were having surgery or not, particularly if I felt the surgery was medically necessary. Maybe because I know my daughter would agree to the surgery because she trusts me completely, it does not really seem like her choice to me.
I don't think a 3 year old can separate their parent in the role of "trusted adviser" and parent. To a three year old, we are the authority. I don't mean in a sense of do as I say but as we have all of the information and experience and this is what is true. Maybe if we were totally subjective in our role as parent I could see it. But we are not so I still see it more as our influence than that the child is self determining.
So when it comes to decisions that are beyond the basic daily care of their bodies I still thing the parent is in control.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

no I havent determined for them to be CL. I am only choosing for me to be CL. No, my children did not choose for me to be CL, if that is what you are saying. Thats because the only person who determines me is myself. *I* choose to be CL. My children self determine their lives, and I respect it. That doesn't mean they are CL, it means their mother is living consensually with them (which is their mothers choice) it does not mean they have to live consensually with me. If I choose to live consensually with my neighbor, that does not mean I am choosing CL for them. They can still treat life like they are the dictator over everyone else, or treat life like everyone else is in control of them. Sometimes my children choose to just do whatever I am doing. Sometimes they choose to do something different. Sometimes they want to be leaders, sometimes they want to be followers, sometimes they want to be team players, and sometimes they just want to be them separate from everyone else.

example: It's time to go to the grocery store.

scenario 1:
Me: Time to go!
My daughter: (goes and gets shoes) Okay!

scenario 2:
Me: Time to go!
My daughter: No!
(work to find a mutually agreeable solution)

She does get to decide when to live consensually and when to just go with the flow. Of course in a case where she is saying "hey I want something different from you" she appreciates me respecting that. That is not me choosing CL for her, it is me choosing CL for me by respecting her differing place at the moment.

My daughter feels safe to say no when she doesn't feel right saying yes. I view this as a good thing.

I was raised by a non CL family and I am CL. My husband is not CL, but I am. My mother is not CL, but I am. By *my* choosing to live consensually with others I am not determining them to be consensual livers. I am only respecting their right to self determination, which includes them not being CLers if they don't want to be.

I want to apologize though. I just realized that you were sharing your opinion, not seeking to understand. Yor post was not trying to understand, your were just trying to share what you already decided. You already determined an opinion on the subect and I was treating you like you were one of the posters who was still trying to learn about this.I don't desire to debate with those who already have a set opinion- only to help those whose goal is to understand.

I respect that you interpret self determination differently then I understand it. Take care


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I have the same experience Dar. That generaly, the kids just go to with the flow, so we haven't really had a need to get all into the carseat or street ssue, except when talking hypothetically, which is usually with people who don't agree with self determination, or dont understand self determination.

That's been my point. I've had the same experience over 25 years ago. And so did my mom over 55 years ago. And I'm sure her mom did as well. So on and so on back through the ends of time. However, as you well know, there are those kids who don't go with the flow but must swim upstream despite all evidence of an easier way to go. And it's those kids I'm asking about in reference to CL. It's for those kids that the car seat or the street issue isn't hypothetical but very real situations. All of my for instances have been real, drawn from either friend's children or from my own children.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

yes, kids like my son and myself as a child. I understood Chris. You have the same *general* experience as my *general* experience. We both have experienced that kind of *different* child though, and I was a *different* child myself


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
We both have experienced that kind of *different* child though, and I was a *different* child myself









My 8 yo dd is/was the *different* child (carseats and parking lots were big issues for over a year!), but I must be doing something right (warning: brag to follow).

Yesterday, she was entertaining ds (2) and another 2 yo boy in the sand volleyball court while I chatted with the other boy's mom. We don't see each other very often, and our toddlers don't "know" each other. She did mention to me that her son doesn't have great social-play skills, and he doesn't play with other kids very often. But, from the looks of it, everything was going fine. We were out of earshot, but watching while we chatted.

Today, dd told story of what "really happened", lol. Ds asked dd to make a birthday cake with the sand. She started making the cake for him, and the other boy destroyed it (of course!). Ds was upset and asking dd "why he do that?!" Dd sent the other boy on a mission to find "candles" (sticks) for the birthday cake. When he returned, she sent him for more sticks, lol. She scrambled to finish the cake, and the boys added the candles. Everyone happy







I was so impressed that she managed the whole situation with no toddler tears, no "NOs", and no help.

Do I get points for having a CL dd?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

You *are* doing something right. _So are CL mama's_. I don't see parenting as a competition for who gets the most points. I think we are all doing a wonderful job. Your DD sounds like a total doll though.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
You *are* doing something right. _So are CL mama's_. I don't see parenting as a competition for who gets the most points.

Oh, gosh, I wasn't suggesting otherwise! I was just bragging and being silly.


----------



## Calm

irrelevant stuff, so deleted.







back shortly, must buy Chinese food.


----------



## ernalala

You heard her, she MUST buy it, therefore she is not living consensually lol.









SGM and Calm, I have been following both of your standpoints and I understand what each of you is trying to address here. Personally, I also can see the cl 'flaws' as Calm describes, and I also see the way of not experiencing any flaws or burdens within the definition of the 'cl concept'. And, tbh, I do not care, in my personal experience. There may be flaws but these must not be a burden for me to be able to practise consensual living it won't make me get stuck, or I won't let it. I do find it an interesting discussion though. And I do think the questions being asked over and over again are genuinely asked from a place to try to define cl more clearly to people who are really open to a cl lifestyle (or already practising) but may be troubled by the parts they experience as flaws/unclear edges in cl 'guidelines'. I've always believed that some people need very strict, almost mathematical definitions to make things workable for themselves, and others can go with a concept without needing it to be wrapped in sharply defined edges. I call these the mathematical and the artistic approach/perspective, t and so there are the mathematicians and the artists among us people, the ones who calculate everything and the ones who follow their feelings/instincts, and of course you have these extremes and all the variations inbetween. It is extremely hard for these 'end of the spectrum' parties to be able to completely understand each other because they just come from such very opposite perspectives. There is no intended stubbornness, no failure to listen, no defeat. It is not needed to have the last word to feel ok for leaving a discussion.

I know it too well, I can have these endless discussions with my BIL







. And I experience these as very frustrating! But if something, like a disagreement , or opposite/different perpective, upsets you so much it may be just better to let it go. It is not failure to want to get out of a discussion that brings you nowhere personally and upsets you to the point of stresslevels being overtaken. (That's what I may do, leaving it as self-protecting mode). And it is ok to agree to disagree too and not having come to a cl place in a discussion.
Take care, peace, and really thank you for your perseverance.


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
Today, dd told story of what "really happened", lol. Ds asked dd to make a birthday cake with the sand. She started making the cake for him, and the other boy destroyed it (of course!). Ds was upset and asking dd "why he do that?!" Dd sent the other boy on a mission to find "candles" (sticks) for the birthday cake. When he returned, she sent him for more sticks, lol. She scrambled to finish the cake, and the boys added the candles. Everyone happy







I was so impressed that she managed the whole situation with no toddler tears, no "NOs", and no help.

Do I get points for having a CL dd?









That's a smart little girl you've got there. And I know you were just sharing because it was a cute story, but I think your example speaks volumes about the way we choose to engage with our children affects how they engage with the world around them. Good work.


----------



## Calm

You rock, Ernalala.

I felt a little twitch when I read your (very accurate) view on mathematical vs creative types because I like to think of myself as creative. But when it all boils down, I do have to face the uncomfortable fact that I probably am more "logic" based, more of a science head than I prefer to admit. Maybe there is a way to be both, and even if there is, I guess I am still boringly close to the mathematical end of the spectrum.

Maybe it's like patience, which only recently I have discovered/decided that there is no such thing as being either patient or impatient. My mother has the rep of being highly impatient, bordering on nervously hurried. Yet she has so much patience in some areas it can't be denied. My husband says I am one of the most patient people he knows and the next day he can call me too impatient. It depends on what I'm waiting for, much like my mum, and no doubt like everyone else.

With that in mind, maybe I can fly happily in a creative and intuitive space but need a hard edge on subjects that have me stumped, I start looking for a logical foundation to cling to when there just might not be one. A large part of my healing work is intuitive healing. My husband even bought me a ridiculously expensive divining tool to encourage this. This duality, dichotomy within me is a struggle sometimes. Where my spirituality meets my science, they slam together painfully and only the book (not the movie) What The Bleep Do We Know even came close to explaining how this feels to someone like me.

You are very perceptive, and this is no doubt going to end painfully for me when I resign myself eventually to the fact that CL is not evidence based, it is faith based. In one way, this is great because it means that we are both right because faith means it is how I interpret it. ie some have experienced situations with no consensual solutions, esp in the "here and now" situations where you aren't prepared with options. Some have _*not*_ experienced this, and that is their truth. We are _*both*_ right. Unfortunately, much like canons, bibles, guidelines and laws, those that write them get to choose what is the given truth. And in the case of CL, the given truth is from someone who is on the "has not" side, therefore does not believe the other side exists.

Beliefs. Even seemingly altruistic ones are nothing but limiting thoughts. NLP says, _the moment we think we know, we become closed_.

Thought provoking. Thank you Ernalala. I just had a thought that I'd like to start a movement called Parenting Beyond Belief. And then I googled it and darnit, it already exists. Looks interesting, but is only about raising kids without religion. Although that interests me and I think is very important (imo), I'd like the theme to stretch further than that. It would be impossible perhaps to write guidelines wouldn't it?







how do you give information without influencing someone? What a complex issue, now I think about it... how do you help someone raise kids in such a philosophy, without using belief to explain it?








My bwain hurts.


----------



## GoBecGo

I am not CL. There is a definite heirarchy in our home with as much flexibility as possible for all of us. DP and I have rank over DD (who is 3) because we have so many more resonsibilities than her. She has rights over the things she can be responsible for (for example it is my responsibility to make sure the family is able to eat well, so i cook and i generally choose what to cook (open to requests though







) but SHE is responsible for making sure her body is fed because i cannot know if she is hungry or not, thus if she chooses not to eat at a mealtime that's fine and if she later asks for an apple that's also fine). But DP pays the rent on our home so i don't let DD make the decorating decisions (like scribbling on the walls) because she's not in a position to be able to pay for damage or undo it (matt walls, not easy to wash anything off and pale colours = 4 coats to cover anything).

I believe really strongly in rights and responsibilities being tied together, and that as she grows her ability to be responsible for herself and her things and her life will grow and little by little all the responsibilities i am holding for her (and thus the rights that come with them) will gradually be passed to her.

I haven't read the whole thread (39 pages and i DO have a kid here!







) but i fail to see how anyone ca be truly CL with toddlers/kids, because you're shaping their world and choices so much by being who you are anyway, i don't see the difference from the child's point of view between "you can't have a pony because you're unable to look after it and i'm not able to do so for you" and "you can't have a pony because it's not economically viable for our family" when the result, from the child's pov, is "you can't have a pony".


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoBecGo*
I believe really strongly in rights and responsibilities being tied together

This feels right. I haven't thought long and hard about it, but my knee jerk reaction thus far is that it feels right.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
this is no doubt going to end painfully for me when I resign myself eventually to the fact that CL is not evidence based, it is faith based.

BIG "Aha!" moment for me!

I don't do well with faith-based. I have to admit, when Pat mentioned LoA pages back, I squirmed inside







. I have faith-baggage to be sure.

This goes miles toward helping me understand the divide on the concept of CL.


----------



## Calm

Scan the thread, and note how many of the posts by Pat are simply "trust" and "have faith". I will admit to feeling a little bit like I did in sunday school when I first started asking about bibilical inconsistencies. At first they tried the "have faith" angle but I bucked at that. I couldn't get answers and I couldn't get it to make any sense and the teachers got more and more angry and frustrated at me and I knew, even at the age of 8 that something had to give. So I stopped asking for a very long time. We eventually, all of us, stop asking.

someone is going to feel offended by that, but it _*is*_ how I felt.


----------



## ernalala

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I just had a thought that I'd like to start a movement called Parenting Beyond Belief. And then I googled it and darnit, it already exists. Looks interesting, but is only about raising kids without religion. Although that interests me and I think is very important (imo), I'd like the theme to stretch further than that. It would be impossible perhaps to write guidelines wouldn't it?







how do you give information without influencing someone? What a complex issue, now I think about it... how do you help someone raise kids in such a philosophy, without using belief to explain it?







My bwain hurts.

Lol. Sounds familiar. I am mostly the artistic type and may have difficulty handling strongly mathematical views, but not always. Totally depends on situation and subject. And if you can relate to both views/sides, it can clash totally within yourself and get you even more confused







.

As for the last subject you mentioned, that's exactly what I'm intending to do in our home, raising children beyond belief, particularly useful too in a multicultural family where we decide not to hold on to any spiritual belief or religious practices, while those around us may do, and more than one religious background/environment/upbringing involved doesn't make it easier







. However passionate I can be about certain things, on explaining about religion I try to be as objective as possible towards my children. It is complex. But when you do not make much of an issue about it, it doesn't need to be that complex in practice, I believe (pun intended).


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I think in a sense it is faith based... You have to have faith in yourself and faith in others and faith in general. I can see the spiritual side to that - the idea that the energy you put out in the world is the energy you get back - and that only if you believe that will you experience it that way. When I wake up and think "today is gonna be a bad day" I usually have a bad day. If I think "today is gonna be great!" then I have a great day, and even if something goes "wrong" I learned at a young age that I don't have to let the rest of my day be bad because of it. I can choose to "restart" and go forward having a great day from that point on. I know many people who have "bad luck" on friday the 13th and to me its just another day. They believe their luck is bad, and then it is.

I give information all the time and get information all the time. I mean heck, look at all the information in this thread - some people WERE influenced by it , and some people WEREN'T. You can't be influenced if you dont want to be. You can only be influenced if you choose to be.

If someone says to me "come on, you should do these drugs. they are fun, they wont hurt you" they are giving me information. I choose not to believe that information. Or I may choose to believe it. Even if I believe it, I can still choose not to be influenced by it. I can choose to make a decision different then what they are suggesting. I don't run around blaming everyone for every bad mistake I make, that they influenced me to do that - because they can only influence me if I want them to. I am ultimately responsible for me.

what I am noticing is this:

Those who favor CL: Based on the definition of self determiniation are able to practice CL because they have faith in a childs ability to be rational.

Those who don't favor CL: Misunderstanding the defintion self determination to the point that either a)no one can self determine because we all have outside factors that *might* influence us or b) the assumption that only adults can self determine because they are less likely to be impressionable because of their age and life experience, the assumption that adults can be rational but children aren't.

So it boils down to 1-2 things:
1) Understanding the definition of self determination
2) Faith that a child is capable fo being rational

I probably am not explaining this well, it feels like one of those things that you just get and seem so basic it to you that you can't seem to simplify it. Like my husband who can o long division in his head but not on paper lol


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
yes, kids like my son and myself as a child. I understood Chris. You have the same *general* experience as my *general* experience. We both have experienced that kind of *different* child though, and I was a *different* child myself









Then I reask my question: how do you apply CL with a child who never compromises, never accepts the options offered, wants what is not offered, doesn't see the fact that she can't have 2 mutually exclusive things, requires/needs down time away from the family but refuses to have that down time?


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
Then I reask my question: how do you apply CL with a child who never compromises, never accepts the options offered, wants what is not offered, doesn't see the fact that she can't have 2 mutually exclusive things, requires/needs down time away from the family but refuses to have that down time?

I think the way the question is framed is a good start at an answer... you expect her to compromise and to choose from the options you offer. I don't expect either. When you start from that perspective, I think it's much harder to make this work.

As far as faith... TCS theory, which is more my thing, starts by positing that a child is rational unless coerced and that coercion leads to irrationality. I don't think that's ever been logically disproved, and it seems to work for me... the rest of the theory (non-coercion, mutually agreeable solutions, sharing information) flows from that.

So I take that basic premise on faith, I suppose, but all of the evidence supports it and none disproves it. It's sort of like Euclidean geometry beginning with the premise that 2 points determine a line...

Dar


----------



## contactmaya

nak Dar, i always find your posts clarifying.
As for TCS though, what do you think of the fact that its got a very bad rap (it was banned altogether from the Unconditional Parenting yahoo group) I was never really sure why. I think it was because people felt that TSC people didnt take parents' needs into account. I think that might be another misrepresentation. Interested to know how you see that whole thing.
Also, do you mean tcs is more your thing than cl, and why? i think they amount to the same thing really.

Mmm,... that cl is more faith based than science based. ...very good point...Well...that would explain the sensitivity to asking all these logical questions. Still, i think its possible to have faith in something (like the fact that solutions are always available, or that children choose whats best if you let them), and still, analyse the relationship bet. parent and child from a scientific viewpoint (similar to homebirth, get your medical facts covered, but have faith in the process)
There is also something innately logical about a person responding more positively when they know their needs are respected.

....but, have not read more recent posts so sorry for any repetition
...ps calm, thanks once again for the thread
pps. if i havent already made it clear, i practise CL


----------



## mammal_mama

Dar, I had the same thoughts about TCS while reading about the differences between mathematical and artistic types (or logical and faith-based types).

I actually have a new friend that I met through the secular unschooling group I recently joined in my city. She became part of the TCS movement before even marrying and having kids, has actually met Sarah Fitz-Claridge. She's the friend I talked about earlier in this thread, contrasting how consensual living works in her family (where she was TCS before marriage, and while she and her husband were dating, he read up and got on the same page with her before they started their family), with how it's rather inconsistent and sometimes confusing in ours.

And she had actually moved into TCS from The Continuum Concept, and is also familiar with Unconditional Parenting. She's more the type who reads everything online, but hardly ever comments. contactmaya, she recently mentioned some things about what happened with the Unconditional Parenting site, as well as the fact that TCS discussion has been banned from Sandra Dodd's Radical Unschooling site.

It seems so weird to me since all of these different philosophies -- TCS, CL, RU, UP -- seem very similar to me in practice (UP less so, since Kohn believes that sometimes you do have to impose your will on your child, so I actually see UP as kind of a middle road _heading towards_ non-coercion, but not quite there). And my friend agreed that they are all very similar.

She thinks most people have a problem with TCS because, I can't remember exactly how she phrased it, but I think it has something to do with the way TCS folks like to be intellectually-challenging, i.e. they're less likely to assume that *all* parents are "really doing the best they can," and that sort of thing. They'll critique and challenge, whereas lots of parents are really not open to criticism.

I'll admit that, while open to criticism myself (and finding it valuable in my own life), I prefer when it comes with warmth and understanding. And it seems that the purely-logical types may not feel as much need for that (though I could be wrong, don't want to assume what others need or don't need). But it seems like the warmth is not a need for some TCS-folks, personally (at least not a need in online discussions, I'm not assuming they don't need it in their homes or anything) -- so they have a hard time understanding why some people find pure criticism with no warmth, rather cold and unhelpful.


----------



## Dar

MM, I think you pretty much pegged it... I'm more the mathy-logical type, so TCS worked for me... although I haven't been at all formally involved (or even on the list) for 10 years or more. I generally don't talk about it much here because it's really not about how to parent as much as it is about a logical philosophy (Popper is good place to start, IIRC). What seems more relevant here on mothering is information about how to parent, so I share more ideas in terms of that. It's often hard for people to understand that the criticism they receive from TCS folks is a criticism of their logic and aa challenge to their entrenched theories - more of an academic exercise - than an attack on the person herself...

And I kind of want to know who you're talking about, although I have an idea... we were active in a homeschooling group in your city for a while and still know some of the folks there...

Dar


----------



## mammal_mama

Dar, I pm'd you about who it is.

And I absolutely LOVE Popper! I don't so much need "warmth" with everything I read, and I do see your point about TCS-people challenging entrenched theories. I guess where my entrenched theories intersect with my parenting, though, I can get pretty emotional. Maybe too much of my identity is tied up in being a mother.

I remember on one TCS-site (not THE actual TCS-site itself) someone was kind of critiquing why some of us choose "mommy" user names. LOL, that one kind of hit home for me (I was m_m there just as I am here). I still like being mammal_mama here, though.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
a child is rational unless coerced and that coercion leads to irrationality.

That is interesting.

What about hunger, overfatigue, mental illness....these do not lead to irrationality?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

hunger leads to me feeding my child, then seeing if the "problem" still exists - THEN looking for a mutually agreeable solution.

over fatique leads to me meeting my childs need for rest.

mental illness leads to me treating their mental illnesses, etc.


----------



## sunnmama

Yes, but in the meantime (and it can take a lot of time for some issues) it can make a person irrational, no?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

short term solutions and long term solutions. I find that I need both. I find that adults can be just as 'irrational' as children in extenuating circumstances, and yet both are still able to be brought to a rational place and make self determined decisions.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I find that adults can be just as 'irrational' as children in extenuating circumstances, and yet both are still able to be brought to a rational place and make self determined decisions.


Hmm...that has not been my reality (for children or for adults).


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
That is interesting.

What about hunger, overfatigue, mental illness....these do not lead to irrationality?

No... maybe to unpleasant behaviors, but one could argue that it's very rational to start screaming and kicking something when you feel all icky and don't understand why and it's difficult to concentrate and no one seems to be understanding and helping you out...

Dar


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

well put Dar!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
Hmm...that has not been my reality (for children or for adults).

be thankful you don't have my husband then! When he is hungry or tired or sick I find is NOT the time to look for long term solutions! I wait until his short term needs are met first (rest, health, and food) and then we look for long term solutions









to his defense, I'm the same way. When I am tired, hungry, or sick I am in no mood to problem solve. The only problem I want solved is my hunger, tiredness, or sickness. Once those are solved though, I am good to go! Perhaps some adults though are willing to talk about groceries 2 minutes after they break their arm (and I'm not so sure how rational that would be lol), but so far all I have known are more interested in healing themselves and becoming physically comfortable first


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
No... maybe to unpleasant behaviors, but one could argue that it's very rational to start screaming and kicking something when you feel all icky and don't understand why and it's difficult to concentrate and no one seems to be understanding and helping you out...

Dar

What about when someone is trying to understand and help but the child rejects/fights the very thing he or she needs like sleep or food, especially sleep







. That doesn't seem rational to me.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
be thankful you don't have my husband then! When he is hungry or tired or sick I find is NOT the time to look for long term solutions! I wait until his short term needs are met first (rest, health, and food) and then we look for long term solutions









No, I wasn't clear. I think everyone is the way you describe here. What I am saying is that it has not been my reality that a person thinking irrationally (due to mental illness, for example) can be brought to a rational place to make self-determining decisions. (unless suicide is an acceptable self-determined decision).


----------



## churndash

This thread is very interesting, although a lot of it is way over my head in terms of the intellectual concepts being discussed!

I've already said that my household is a hierarchy, but we are having one particular problem that I would like my youngest to feel more in control of.

We have to move. We rent our house, the owners have sold it to someone else, and we simply can't live here.

My 6yo does not want to move. She has never liked change of any kind. She doesn't even want to have a birthday because it means changing her age!

I have assured her that her room will be exactly the same, that we will have our same furniture, etc. I have every intention of duplicating everything from her old room, furniture placement, wall decor, etc in the new one.

I've also tried to get her involved in the househunting process, if she desired. She doesn't. She doesn't want to go look at houses, she doesn't want to talk about new houses. She says over and over again that she's not moving.

Well, obviously, she's going to have to. Moving day is fast approaching and I don't want her to be miserable.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
What about when someone is trying to understand and help but the child rejects/fights the very thing he or she needs like sleep or food, *especially sleep*







. That doesn't seem rational to me.


!!!!!!

(bold mine)

From *birth* dd fought sleep. Yikes.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *churndash* 
This thread is very interesting, although a lot of it is way over my head in terms of the intellectual concepts being discussed!

I've already said that my household is a hierarchy, but we are having one particular problem that I would like my youngest to feel more in control of.

We have to move. We rent our house, the owners have sold it to someone else, and we simply can't live here.

My 6yo does not want to move. She has never liked change of any kind. She doesn't even want to have a birthday because it means changing her age!

I have assured her that her room will be exactly the same, that we will have our same furniture, etc. I have every intention of duplicating everything from her old room, furniture placement, wall decor, etc in the new one.

I've also tried to get her involved in the househunting process, if she desired. She doesn't. She doesn't want to go look at houses, she doesn't want to talk about new houses. She says over and over again that she's not moving.

Well, obviously, she's going to have to. Moving day is fast approaching and I don't want her to be miserable.

That is tough, churndash. I hope it goes smoothly, and she adjusts well. I am also very intrigued by the example of "must" that your situation presents, with regard to this thread.


----------



## GoBecGo

But how DOES one address a problem like Churndash's in the CL way? I mean, however CL one seeks to be, the fact is EVERYONE has to do things they don't want to sometimes. So if you work all the time to avoid teaching that artificially (by imposing your will on your child, which i do, i am not CL) how do you handle it when the universe pops up and forces something like this on te family?


----------



## spottiew

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
Then I reask my question: how do you apply CL with a child who never compromises, never accepts the options offered, wants what is not offered, doesn't see the fact that she can't have 2 mutually exclusive things, requires/needs down time away from the family but refuses to have that down time?

do you have my child








is the answer that CL is procress-based and not solution-based?
it's a journey all the way?

the sleep is a big one for us... how it's hard to be capable without it, yet hard to agree to that... it is what it is, we can only try


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoBecGo* 
But how DOES one address a problem like Churndash's in the CL way? I mean, however CL one seeks to be, the fact is EVERYONE has to do things they don't want to sometimes. So if you work all the time to avoid teaching that artificially (by imposing your will on your child, which i do, i am not CL) how do you handle it when the universe pops up and forces something like this on te family?

By teaching it when it comes up. Life will inevitably bring you into a situation where you need to do something. Why make things all the more stressful by creating such sinarios?

For that specific problem, I'd probably work on adujsting the chang slowly instead of all at once. Like not calling the new house "The new house". If possible visit regularly and just call it home. I know it's rarely possible, but the first time I remember moving, my dad didn't have everything moved all at once. It was gradually, furniture, smaller things, until we moved to the new house with just us and a few boxes in the car.

Also, give her more control if you want her to feel more incontrol. Taking her house hunting is fine, but that's really not much control over the situation since she likely doesn't have a say in which house she finally moves to. She probably knows that too. Same with the room. Telling her how it will look doesn't offer control over the situation, its just another "this is how it will be".

Though honestly, none of us know churndash's dd, and that means we can only offer suggestions because we don't know what specifically will work.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
What about when someone is trying to understand and help but the child rejects/fights the very thing he or she needs like sleep or food, especially sleep







. That doesn't seem rational to me.

Then I might wonder what kind of coercion that person has experienced in the past that is making him act irrationally in that area....

dar


----------



## riverscout

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
Then I might wonder what kind of coercion that person has experienced in the past that is making him act irrationally in that area....

dar

I had a feeling after I posted the question that I probably shouldn't have asked because I figured that would be the answer. In my case with my kids that couldn't be farther from the truth though.


----------



## GoBecGo

Dr my DD definitely fought sleep from birth (she has less trouble with i now, though she recently told me she doesn't like to go to sleep because she's "not here anymore" - i think that until recently she didn't realise that she would definitely wake up and had real troubles letting go because of that). I didn't coerce her before birth surely? And what if a person IS being irrational because of prior coercion, how do you come to the point that they are rational again?

I seriously cannot imagine how CL could work for me. I suppose at this point i'm not willing to give up my own autonomy to give DD hers while simultaneously having a really hard life because i still have the same responsibilities. How do you handle it if your kid wats to go to the supermarket at bedtime (mine did this evening)? And if, when you're halfway round they decide to open and eat something you may or may not have intended to buy? Or if they then decide they want to go home, immediately, and not go trough the checkout at all, and then freak out because you didn't buy the things they wanted... And so on and so on. Every day DD wants to do or have so many things which are dangerous, unhealthy, unwise, unreasonable. HOw do you "let go" and trust that they're going to be rational when the evidence right in front of you is that they aren't?


----------



## churndash

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
By teaching it when it comes up. Life will inevitably bring you into a situation where you need to do something. Why make things all the more stressful by creating such sinarios?

For that specific problem, I'd probably work on adujsting the chang slowly instead of all at once. Like not calling the new house "The new house". If possible visit regularly and just call it home. I know it's rarely possible, but the first time I remember moving, my dad didn't have everything moved all at once. It was gradually, furniture, smaller things, until we moved to the new house with just us and a few boxes in the car.

Also, give her more control if you want her to feel more incontrol. Taking her house hunting is fine, but that's really not much control over the situation since she likely doesn't have a say in which house she finally moves to. She probably knows that too. Same with the room. Telling her how it will look doesn't offer control over the situation, its just another "this is how it will be".

Though honestly, none of us know churndash's dd, and that means we can only offer suggestions because we don't know what specifically will work.

I do want to give her (and my other two children) a say in where we will live. Obviously there have to be some parameters based on what I can afford, but if there were three houses to choose from in the same price range and size and my daughter preferred one I'd take that one!

So far she has refused to participate even in brainstorming sessions about what we want to look for in a house.

I will stop talking about the "new" house though. I agree she is probably reacting emotionally to that word.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
Then I might wonder what kind of coercion that person has experienced in the past that is making him act irrationally in that area....

dar


But it is the overfatigue itself causing the irrational behavior. The overfatigue feeds irrationally resisting sleep. The sleep problems were from birth forward (while we were certainly attempting only to follow her lead).

That is sort of what my point is; I believe fatigue itself can cause irrational behavior (and mental illness, for sure).


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
By teaching it when it comes up. Life will inevitably bring you into a situation where you need to do something. Why make things all the more stressful by creating such sinarios?


But, again, it isn't about creating scenarios....it is about whether or not there are indeed "musts" in life, and how that interacts with CL. Churndash just presented a real life situation that seems to have an unavoidable must, but I'd like to hear the CL perspective.


----------



## mammal_mama

Also, some of us started our parenting-journeys first, and became CL later -- so we can recognize how previous coercion may be at the root of some of our kids' irrational behavior and unwillingness to brainstorm for mutually-agreeable solutions, but recognizing how it's "all our fault" doesn't always help us with how to get through this current difficult moment.

And guilt tends to negatively-affect my own rationality, anyway.

I do see my past role in creating some of our current difficulties -- but rather than focusing on blame and guilt, I just try not to kick myself too hard when I'm not able to persuade one of my kids to brainstorm with me for other solutions, but don't feel able to just totally do it her way, either. I just try to be as consensual as I can, and try to be proactive about not letting things escalate to that point in the future.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
No, I wasn't clear. I think everyone is the way you describe here. What I am saying is that it has not been my reality that a person thinking irrationally (due to mental illness, for example) can be brought to a rational place to make self-determining decisions. (unless suicide is an acceptable self-determined decision).


I was suicidal. I never really wanted to kill myself. There was an underlying need. If I really wanted to kill myself, there would have been no way for my mom to stop me. I could have self determined to kill myself even though my mother was not the kind to let me be self determining.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way









CL I feel is about both process and solution. I find that to be about life in general. If you are too focused on xyz outcome it prevents you from living in the now. I find when I practice CL I am not going into it with any end solutions in mind.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
But, again, it isn't about creating scenarios....it is about whether or not there are indeed "musts" in life, and how that interacts with CL. Churndash just presented a real life situation that seems to have an unavoidable must, but I'd like to hear the CL perspective.

Except that if you create a 'must' out of what isn't really a 'must' then you are creating senarios. Why not use real musts to teach that sometime you have to just deal with it instead of asking a child to deal with something when you and they both know that what is presented as a must is really just an I'd rather not give you options.

I do feel that one job of mine as a parent is to teach my children to tell the difference between an arbitrary rule with no justification and something that is done for a good reason. We do that by having some rules that are non-negotiable, all of which involve safety, and having the rest of it as debateable.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *churndash* 
.

Well, obviously, she's going to have to. Moving day is fast approaching and I don't want her to be miserable.

I wouldn't think in terms of preventing her from being miserable. I mean, of course as a mother you don't want your child to be miserable, but she's her own person and those are her own feelings, and so not under your sphere of control.

I would sympathize, talk about how much you'll miss the house, talk about how much having to move sucks... just help her grieve. Maybe there are some special good-bye things she'd like to do, like write a secret message to the future somewhere (I recommend the undersides of window sills). Maybe she'd like to take some bits and pieces of the house with her - a snippet of carpet, maybe, or a paint scraping? Maybe pictures of the house, inside and out?

I wouldn't expect her input on the new house, unless she indicates that she wants to contribute to the search. You'll look for a house you think she'll like, and she knows that.

I don't see this as you coercing her... this is something happening to both of you - all of you - and all you can do is be there for her. You can't solve it...

dar


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I was suicidal. I never really wanted to kill myself. There was an underlying need. .

Right, of course. I agree.

I am arguing that it is not always possible to bring the irrational thinker (the overtired child, the suicidal adult) to a place of rational thought (so that they can choose sleep--it might just happen out of sheer exhaustion, or so that they choose life or medication--they might in fact complete the suicide, or continue to live in depression).

And that point is in response to this: "both are still able to be brought to a rational place and make self determined decisions. " --SGM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Calm

*Summary:*

There are no _musts_ and _must nots_.

There are always consensual solutions.

Compromise is a lose-lose option.

All wants can be met all the time.

If you have enough trust and faith in your children, they don't do irrational things or act in selfish ways and impose their will on another.

If you raise your children consensually, they do not do irrational things or act in selfish ways or impose their will on another.

We always have choices.

With accurate information, only the individual is capable of making decisions regarding what is right for him. No one is better at making those decisions than the individual.


----------



## GoBecGo

Compromise goes on every day though. HOw do CL-raised individuals cope when they DO meet those who would impose their will. i.e. a policeman enorcing an arbitrary law (like a parking law when there's actually nothing dangerous about the parking it's just not allowed) or a schoofriend who takes a toy, or a boss who is power-mad but nonetheless in charge of a department?

Do CL kids manage to negotiate in non-CL situations where there IS hierarchy?


----------



## GoBecGo

Can you explain to me how a simple thing might be in CL?

Like two minutes ago i went to get an apple. DD saw it and asked for it. It's the only one, i can't go out for more right this second. I said it was the only one and said we could share and cut it in half. DD cried because she wanted the whole apple but then relented and is now munching happily. In CL who would have gotten the apple?


----------



## Calm

To discuss each point, I'll go in order as best I can.

*There are no musts and must nots.*
One cannot deny the existence of "must" without also denying the existence of "needs". By their very definition, needs are things that must be met. That would be like saying "necessities are not necessary" or "I don't need to meet my needs". If you can afford to not meet them, then they aren't needs to begin with.

So I find it interesting that of all the philosophies, CL is most based in meeting _needs_ yet at the same time the only one denying _must_. In fact, the words need and must are interchangeable. "I need to brush my teeth now" is the same as "I must brush my teeth now".

It sounds a little too much like word aversion more than evidence based opinion. These are contradictions that cannot be remedied with "Well it works for me" responses.

Provisos are recommended for this slippery slope. Something perhaps like:

(proviso 1) *To maintain life*:
You must have access to a food source.
You must eat.
You must drink or eat wet foods.
You must get sunshine.
You must sleep.
You must go to the toilet.
You must be protected from predators and environmental elements.

(proviso 2) *To maintain the barest of health*:
You must have access to _nutrient dense_ food, not just food.
You must have a minimum of social interaction.
(note, an infant's life span is considerably shorter without touch than an adults)
You must move your body.

And so on until you reach the point of choice. And this list is only that which is scientifically proven. There are endless things we must do if we extend that list to include one's own belief system that are not biologically based (ie, areas not so easily proven by science) such as:

you must learn from your mistakes, or risk their repetition;

you must make choices; choosing nothing is still a choice;

you must reap the consequences of your actions or inaction.

Once we have a _choice_ to engage in a behaviour or not, we are free from "must" and "need". Much like Maslow's hierarchy of needs, most of us can live without those things toward the upper end of the pyramid, but it is still debatable as to whether they are needs that must be met. For joy in life, perhaps they become needs that must be met... but to merely survive they are not factors at all.

No such thing as must? Why is there so much fear of that which must be done? Is it based on some kind of childhood deprivation of liberty that we are trying to exact here? How many different ways can we use semantics to avoid saying out loud that something has to get done? "I don't have to eat, I WANT to eat"... I dunno, sounds a bit like denial. I felt a bit like that when I was nine months pregnant... "I WANT to push this baby out... I _want_ to give birth..." when the reality was it doesn't matter what I tell myself, when I'm heavily pregnant, the baby _must_ come out! Is a well meaning CL mama going to tell me that there is no such thing as must in that situation? How do they expect to help me get away with that... stand at my vagina and push the baby back in? More importantly, what are we trying to achieve when we say it?

What does a CL mama tell her daughter if she is pregnant and due any minute and says "but mama, you told me I don't have to do anything I don't want to... well, I don't want to give birth!" I would probably try to avoid saying, "well hon, you don't actually have a choice" but that pretty much sums it up.

Within the above proviso lists, there is room for choice, ie within "you must eat" there are endless choices about _what_ to eat, or about how to feel about the fact that you must eat. But unlike the frustrating car seat example where people respond with "but you don't need to drive, so the seat belt is not necessary", at least in this example, there IS NO CHOICE to not eat. Unless you consider death an option, but I covered that with the provisos.

I shall briefly acknowledge that I didn't overlook the response to the statement "we must breathe" many pages back. If you missed it, the response was "we don't _have_ to breathe, the body breathes for us, if you try to stop breathing, your body will force you to breathe" (the body is not very consensual, is it?







). Interesting take on it, and in some small way, sleeping falls into that category because the body can take over and force - however! you die quicker from lack of sleep than you do from lack of food. Scientific fact.









I get the idealistic premise of "there is no such thing as must or must not", I really do. I also believe that for some people death is a valid choice. I am assuming we are all life affirming and reasonable in this discussion and _that_ "choice" would only be used in desperation, because who is going to teach that to their child? I assume consensual living does NOT expect the ultimate sacrifice is part of anyone's list of options on a given family day.


----------



## Calm

Don't have time to do the others just now. But a quick question... do those of us practicing consensual living in our families also have to embrace or even believe or respect those premises i listed? Are they seen as necessary to being consensual? Can I foster my child's blossoming self determination and autonomy without all of that?


----------



## poiyt

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoBecGo* 
Compromise goes on every day though. HOw do CL-raised individuals cope when they DO meet those who would impose their will. i.e. a policeman enorcing an arbitrary law (like a parking law when there's actually nothing dangerous about the parking it's just not allowed) or a schoofriend who takes a toy, or a boss who is power-mad but nonetheless in charge of a department?

Do CL kids manage to negotiate in non-CL situations where there IS hierarchy?

I think about this issue in two ways. It was never said that CL people never compromise - just that in general, compromise is viewed as a lose-lose situation because both parties (or however many) or forced to give up something they *want*. CL, for me at least, when it comes to compromise is not viewed as me giving up something. Rather, I am just as satisfied, or close to, with the agreed upon solution as I would be with the one I wanted. This is because I am in adult and I am able to chose to be happy with the current situation. Its not a compromise for me, because I was easily able to change my want. For a child, it may be more difficult to do that - which is why we present them with all the information, so that they may make a choice, and see that they can be equally as happy or satisfied with an alternate situation.

Just because *I* chose to live CL doesnt mean that those around me do. I dont make that choice for other people (I beleive SGM said this). For example, my husband isnt fully on board with CL yet, but I still live it with him. I strive to find mutally agreeable solutions with him, I model the behaviour etc etc. I cannot make him live consensually. Same with the rest of the hierarchacal world. I cannot make them live like I do, likewise, they cannot make me bow down to their authority.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoBecGo* 
Can you explain to me how a simple thing might be in CL?

Like two minutes ago i went to get an apple. DD saw it and asked for it. It's the only one, i can't go out for more right this second. I said it was the only one and said we could share and cut it in half. DD cried because she wanted the whole apple but then relented and is now munching happily. In CL who would have gotten the apple?

This is another one of those situations where I dont think it was about the apple at all. DD does this all the time. She simply wants what I am eating - all of it. So there are a few solutions: a) split the apple and then get something else to share as we will both still be hungry. b) get something that we can each have: each get a whole banana c) Cut it into many pieces and put them on a plate, that way no one is getting just half (lose-lose situation as we would both be losing half the apple). But in this case we could chose how many pieces we wanted...there are many solutions...or ideas..

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
"I need to brush my teeth now" is the same as "I must brush my teeth now".

As far as the first example of I need to brush my teeth being the same as I must brush my teeth - I guess I just dont see those two words as interchanable. I need to brush my teeth: they feel dirty, and I can see buildup on them, and I haven't brushed them since this morning: all reasons to need to brush my teeth. BUT must never enters the equation. I can chose to live with the dirty feeling realizing that somepeople never brush their teeth, and can live with that feeling - why cant I? I can wipe the buildup off with my hand if its bugging me. And brushing my teeth only once a day is still a lot better than a lot of people. So I still have a choice- even if I feel I need to do something.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Don't have time to do the others just now. But a quick question... do those of us practicing consensual living in our families also have to embrace or even believe or respect those premises i listed? Are they seen as necessary to being consensual? Can I foster my child's blossoming self determination and autonomy without all of that?


In general, CL, in whatever way your practice it, is fine. there need not be a list of things that one must live by. There need not be labels in order for a happy life. In this thread we are discussing what the label means - but that doesnt mean its necessary....


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
I think the way the question is framed is a good start at an answer... you expect her to compromise and to choose from the options you offer. I don't expect either. When you start from that perspective, I think it's much harder to make this work.

As far as faith... TCS theory, which is more my thing, starts by positing that a child is rational unless coerced and that coercion leads to irrationality. I don't think that's ever been logically disproved, and it seems to work for me... the rest of the theory (non-coercion, mutually agreeable solutions, sharing information) flows from that.

So I take that basic premise on faith, I suppose, but all of the evidence supports it and none disproves it. It's sort of like Euclidean geometry beginning with the premise that 2 points determine a line...

Dar

Sorry, I didn't start from that perspective. I came to that perspective over time from experience. Erica was our 2nd child. As described on this thread, CL is how we interacted with Joy. She was easy to read; easy for us to know what she wanted/needed and give it to her or to suggest an alternative she would equally like (sorry again; I know the words aren't "right" but don't know how else to say it). She participated in it. As she got older, she would posed alternatives of her own. Not Erica. She was a stone face, contrary, argue for the sake of arguing child. There was no reading her. No knowing what she wanted or even needed, even after she started talking. Even if offered what she wanted/needed would not accept it but would demand the opposite simply because.

There was no scooping up a child and having her run after me out of the street to use your experience. Unless she was the child I scooped up. And then she would have been screaming and kicking to be put down the whole time. And if put down when out of the street, would run back into the street into the path of the car. I would have to hold on to her against her will until the car passed and it was safe again to go back into the street.

That is the perspective I'm coming from in this thread. SGM has said that she has a child like that. I simply want to know how it works when the child refused to stay out of the path of the on-coming car. Or in any of the other cases I've posted about. I would like to know so that if Erica's Matilda turns out anything like her mother (so far it's looking good that she isn't. Matilda looks to shaping up to be high needs and spirited; not defiant and strong willed), I'll have better options for Erica. So far, I've not gotten any other ideas other than simply removing the child from the street, by force if needed. Which I already knew.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I remember my mom thinking of me as the difficult, contrary child. It was very hard to grow up with her keeping me in that role.







I always wished she could just see me.


----------



## sewchris2642

Makes life interesting, doesn't it?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Made life painful to be honest. Even during the years after I left home and it "appeared" we had a good relationship I was still very hurt. What I find interesting is even after I have shared things with my mother she can't "hear" what I am trying to tell her because she is still looking at me as that different/contrary child. If instead of my mother thinking of me as argumentative perhaps she could have used a little Byron Katie knowledge and ask herself if maybe she was the argumentative/contrary one. But, what it comes down to is I can't change her, I can only change me. For better or worse, I am who I am today because of her, even if its only because I work so hard not to treat my kids the way she treated me.

With my son, who is much like I was, I sometimes have a lot of healing to do. Raising myself as I raise him. I only hope my son does not grow to feel I have cast him into a negative roll. We try to celebrate his differences, not focus on the fact that other things work for other kids but not him. Not to give up and think it would be impossible to live consensually with him.


----------



## sunnmama

I'm sorry you had a painful childhood, sgm.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I only hope my son does not grow to feel I have cast him into a negative roll. *We try to celebrate his differences, not focus on the fact that other things work for other kids but not him*. Not to give up and think it would be impossible to live consensually with him.


(bold mine)

We don't focus on things that work for other kids (like my ds), but did/do not work for my dd. It helps us and her to recognize and acknowledge the things that don't work for her, but we focus on what _does_ work for her. The relevance to this thread is that, what works for her is very clear boundaries (my pm to you sort of summed up how we came to that conclusion).

Clearly, CL is working for you, and that is great. I've had to put some of my ideals aside to meet the needs of my dd, and that is also ok. Her health and happiness comes before any parenting philosophy.

About celebrating differences...yes! That is a huge thing here. Due to her personality and temperament, some things are difficult for dd. But, due to her personality and temperament, she also has some *amazing* abilities! Dd knows I could not be more amazed by her (and she also knows that, sometimes, I could not be more frustrated by her







). And she certainly knows that I could not love her more


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

yes exactly - living consensually with my son means giving him what he needs even though he is different then my other children whose needs I meet in different ways. I just mean, I talk here and recognize that he is different, but I celebrate that difference even though yes, solutions arent always as smooth with him as it is with my other children. My ideal IS meeting the needs of my children, so I find I never have to put my ideals aside







It sounds like you do the same thing







We recognize that health and happiness ARE ideals. Those are the ideals I am focused on with my family when I choose to live consensually with them









I am only speaking of my experience as a child with my mother, and my experience as a mother to my children. It does not reflect how I feel about how others parent their children. They may do the same things as I do for different reasons, or different things for the same reason. (or same/same, different/different). It's beautiful how different we all are. We are all doing what is right for our families. Sounds like we all have happy healthy children.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

As far as the first example of I need to brush my teeth being the same as I must brush my teeth - I guess I just dont see those two words as interchanable. I need to brush my teeth: they feel dirty, and I can see buildup on them, and I haven't brushed them since this morning: all reasons to need to brush my teeth. BUT must never enters the equation. I can chose to live with the dirty feeling realizing that somepeople never brush their teeth, and can live with that feeling - why cant I? I can wipe the buildup off with my hand if its bugging me. And brushing my teeth only once a day is still a lot better than a lot of people. So I still have a choice- even if I feel I need to do something.
Ok, I'll give you this one.







I do find them interchangeable though, even in this example. If I didn't think brushing my teeth was a need I must meet, I would then prefer to word it taking both must and need out altogether, perhaps, "I should brush my teeth now".

That you (in the case of this hypothetical) felt you had a choice, in my mind means it was never really a need to begin with. Not for you. Sure, your teeth are covered in filth and you may lose them if you keep this up but it's still a choice. For another person, it may not be a choice at all, and they really need to brush their teeth, it is important to them and perhaps they get sore gums if they don't (or something). I think that as soon as you _need_, you _must_.

I have to share though, looking up the def of must, I found it funny the example that was used:

- a necessary or essential thing; "seat belts are an absolute must" wordnet

Those darn seatbelts!!









I also acknowledge that to some people, needs are not actually needs, but just really strong desires or preferences. Need for personal space, need to run each morning... one person's need is another person's nightmare really. Could we say that in CL, need is defined by the individual, not by a collective agreement? If that is the case then largely, many CL parents will not really "need" to have some needs met at least, there is no must involved.

And the silence was deafening.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I definitely think need is defined by the individual









I also know some people who refuse to wear seatbelts even if they will get a ticket because they feel seatbelts are more dangerous for the kind of accident they think they would get in if they were to get in an accident. Personally, Id be dead if I hadn't been wearing a seatbelt when I got in my accident, but I respect that one of my close friends had an accident where they would have been dead if they were wearing one, and that has shaped their opinions of what they need, and they feel they have the right to not wear a seatbelt, even if the law doesn't agree. Some peopel also have a better understanding of statistics then others









I don't get the statement "some parent will not need to have certain needs met" we all need out needs met, our needs are all just different from person to person. So, what would be more accurate is "some parents will have different needs then I do"


----------



## spottiew

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
I had a feeling after I posted the question that I probably shouldn't have asked because I figured that would be the answer. In my case with my kids that couldn't be farther from the truth though.

mine truly hates to be tired... desperately wants NOT to be tired. we encourage rest and give him informatoin as to 'why' but he probably does see it differently, WE are 'mean' because HE feels tired... i just treat it as tired kid is not at his best.


----------



## Calm

SGM, I have a friend like that, won't wear a seatbelt because she was the only survivor of a car accident because she wasn't wearing one. She went through the windshield, and that saved her life. This is irrelevant but I don't like laws like the seatbelt one. I believe most laws are crapola, and an infringement on my human rights. I should be able to make my own decisions on whether to risk my life or not now that I am an adult and understand the consequences of life AND death as best I can. Perhaps society would like a say on whether I risk the life of my kids in a car, and we like to think we are protecting each other from the "idiots out there" (who would never be us, no, never be us).

If needs are defined by the individual, is choice also defined by the individual? If something is an option to me, but not an option to you - even if it _exists_ as an option for you - is that valid? For example, Peter is happy to travel without a seatbelt, but Paul would not consider that. Could we fairly say that when travelling in a moving vehicle, Peter has the option of wearing a seatbelt or not, but Paul only has the option of wearing a seatbelt? Essentially, Paul has less options?

We'll start here. Could we say that would be a fair summation so far?


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Made life painful to be honest. Even during the years after I left home and it "appeared" we had a good relationship I was still very hurt. What I find interesting is even after I have shared things with my mother she can't "hear" what I am trying to tell her because she is still looking at me as that different/contrary child. If instead of my mother thinking of me as argumentative perhaps she could have used a little Byron Katie knowledge and ask herself if maybe she was the argumentative/contrary one. But, what it comes down to is I can't change her, I can only change me. For better or worse, I am who I am today because of her, even if its only because I work so hard not to treat my kids the way she treated me.

With my son, who is much like I was, I sometimes have a lot of healing to do. Raising myself as I raise him. I only hope my son does not grow to feel I have cast him into a negative roll. We try to celebrate his differences, not focus on the fact that other things work for other kids but not him. Not to give up and think it would be impossible to live consensually with him.

I'm sorry that was your experience. That was/is not Erica's or mine. She has been quite vocal about her appreciation of how we raised her. She has said that it was having us has her parents that kept her from suicide as a teen in high school. We have a great relationship to this day. Loving Erica and having a great relationship doesn't blind me from her personality. She was a defiant and strong willed child. As an adult, the need for defiance is under her control. But she is the first to admit to being very strong willed and stubborn. In fact, her so also freely admits to her being very strong willed and stubborn. They've been together for 10 years now.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I wasn't talking about Erica's experience. I was talking about mine.

I would not feel comfortable if my child grew up to think of themselves in that light. I can see him has determined instead of stubborn. I feel this will nourish the quality in apositive way so he can use it as something beeficial when he is older instead of as a personality trait to try to keep at bay.

I also know many children who were beat who have great surface relationships with their parents, and will claim their parents did right by them. That does not convince me to beat my own child. I also know many children (myself included) who tell their parents they did a gret job raising them, thank you, etc - we focus on the good because it would be too painful to accept anything else. So we internalize what our parents projected on us and begin to see ourselves in the same light. Then others see us that way too. This is how I have ended up in many bad relationships. My mom thought we had a great relationship and she did such a great job. It feels good to sometimes say she did, and I am who I am because of her, but more so because I try to avoid what she did, but the reality is she did not directly give me the tools I needed. She just gave me the drive to seek those tools out. I would hope my child would not stay with anyone who uses negative terms to describe their personality. Of course I want my children to think I did right by them (not just say it) but I also want to ACTUALLY do right by them. I don't want them to think it was right just because they trust I love them. I want them to be able to trust I love them, but if I went wrong somewhere along the way be able to admit that, instead of trying to accept it *must* have been right because they know I loved them.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Like two minutes ago i went to get an apple. DD saw it and asked for it. It's the only one, i can't go out for more right this second. I said it was the only one and said we could share and cut it in half. DD cried because she wanted the whole apple but then relented and is now munching happily. In CL who would have gotten the apple?
I'm CL, not bound by those guidelines I listed, but otherwise I am consensually living, so maybe my answer will count. I think this was a consensual solution executed very well. With the very young I find it useful to remind myself that knee jerk reactions in the face of "I want everything and you're not giving it to me" are just that - knee jerk reactions; she experienced one in this situation which is text book typical, so was the way she harnessed her joy fairly quickly thereafter.

I honestly, seriously, earnestly do not think that flapping around trying to appease or avoid the knee jerk reactions of a toddler or very young child when we are being reasonable is beneficial to anyone, including the child. You wanted the apple, but you were willing to share, this is beautiful, precious and rare and she will see it as such only when she is older. What you showed her this day is just one of the many times love and generosity will pour from you to her - it ain't about the apple







it's much more than that. Things like sharing, communing, accepting come to mind.

It may be a moment that is etched in her mind forever, the two of you, sharing the last apple... you never know. Would it be as beautiful an exchange had you handed over the apple? I see an image of you handing over the whole apple and her feeling a bittersweet victory she cannot yet articulate; I see an image of you cutting the apple and handing her half and both of you enjoying the apple and her joy is free and complete, for it is doubled in a way she cannot yet articulate. We cannot hog the joy of giving, our children deserve it too. Pouting cos we can't have "everything" is normal and expected little person behaviour (in our culture).

Like everything in life, compromise is how you look at it. You can choose to see you both lost half the apple, and apparently culturally that is how America is taught to see it (wiki). However, I see you both _gained_ half an apple. Compromise is a win-win to me, not a lose-lose. That's probably why I think compromise is a very acceptable tool in negotiations.

If we look toward anthropology for some answers, we find that well connected/attached kids don't _tend_ to put up fights for more than equality. Wanting more of something - be it power, control, food, etc - than we're offered or than is fair isn't always directly related to a general sense within the child of feeling powerless or less than equal. Sometimes it is useful behaviour for adaptation to their cultural climate. Sometimes it is found in reverse power homes, in fact, you will find some of the most shocking cases of selfish power hungry children in homes where the parents give and give and give. It's like the kid is off his nut on power and confusion, and is completely unhappy in this role and cannot find his center or security. We must also acknowledge that this looks very much like the behaviour of a child with too little autonomy also.

When parents tend to "over parent" (usually the first and only child, it tends to wear off after subsequent kids if for no other reason than less time, less sleep... just so much LESS) it can be out of guilt, in which case there is another issue underlying it even further, but for some it is fear of breaking or damaging their children's emotional health. They really judge themselves harshly at the merest whimper from their child. There are many reasons why a child will react in the way you have described, and in our society it is accepted as normal behaviour - perhaps for them to develop in the cultural climate they instinctively feel they are in it is appropriate.

Children have amazing powers of subconscious awareness of their environment and adapt accordingly - they have to to survive. In another culture, it may not serve them to learn how to demand "more", to learn how to _want_ more, and how to _get_ more, so they don't.

We tend to look on the surface of human behaviour and then look to the parenting and to the home and etc ad nauseum when we are so largely influenced by culture and this is overlooked. It doesn't matter how much a parent doesn't reward selfish behaviour if society rewards it in spades. Society will eventually win. Fitting in to the group is a psychological necessity, and this is already forming in infancy.

If you think society isn't in your home, influencing your children, think again. If you have no tv, you're off to a good start, but there are many other ways culture will ooze through the cracks. Our culture rewards male anger, and punishes female anger. It rewards female sensitivity and punishes male sensitivity. It rewards the loudest, the fastest, the strongest. It tells us "if you want it, go get it".

Take some of the blame and place it firmly at the foot of modern Western society, and try to comfort yourself with the knowledge that kids may need these skills just to survive the culture we've unwittingly created for them. Parents like us at MDC shudder at this thought, we want more than this, and perhaps this is achievable but beyond the scope of this thread. For this example though, to expect consensual mutually satisfying agreement with a modern, western toddler is a good reason to have a plentiful supply of advil in the house and access to parenting forums on which to vent and seek - cos you're in for a disillusioning ride that will make yer skull throb.

The art will lay in working within this framework and producing self determining children who do not answer to society for the large part - _in spite of it_. In my journey to do so, I have had to accept that my children are confronted daily with good reason to behave in ways other than ways I think are befitting non-conformist, culture averted, self determined, self actualised amazing human beings who would take their half of the apple and feed it to the homeless.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I would not feel comfortable if my child grew up to think of themselves in that light. I can see him has determined instead of stubborn. I feel this will nourish the quality in apositive way so he can use it as something beeficial when he is older instead of as a personality trait to try to keep at bay.


I call dd persistent. It is both a strength AND a challenge, as are most personality traits. We acknowledge both. She gets it.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
You wanted the apple, but you were willing to share, this is beautiful, precious and rare and she will see it as such only when she is older. What you showed her this day is just one of the many times love and generosity will pour from you to her - it ain't about the apple







it's much more than that. Things like sharing, communing, accepting come to mind. .

That is lovely, Calm. I completely agree.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
I call dd persistent. It is both a strength AND a challenge, as are most personality traits. We acknowledge both. She gets it.

I like that term as well. I am comfortable looking at personality traits in the light of strength and challenge. I don't see a challenge as a bad thing









I try not to look at it as a personality "flaw" or downfall. I don't think my son has a personality flaw. I think my son's personality is who he is supposed to be, and we can nurture his personality, we can nurture HIM.


----------



## GoBecGo

Thanks for your lovely post Calm!









To be honest i have in the past given her the whole apple/banana/satsuma/whatever and in almost every situation where she gets all of something she returns and offers to share it moments later. So about half the time i DO give her the whole whatever-it-is because it gives HER the opportunity to form the connections of compromise and to feel the fuzzies of magnanimosity and generosity and sharing, which are so hard to get with her peers who are still, like her, all just beginning to practice those things. We are just entering a new interesting phase where she doesn't want things cut in half, so she will share but she has to EAT half and then give the rest back









I definitely feel that compromise is win-win, not lose-lose. It would only be such in a Judgement of Solomon type situation, and in those one always tends to find who had the need and who the want (for example if there was only a little water and DD and i were both dying of thirst i would give it to her, all of it, no question because next to her needs i can make my needs into wants).

With the personality flaw/aspect... I talk too much. Apparently. For as long as i can remember my thoughts have been 10 steps ahead of the conversation and 5 ahead of my mouth, so i talk relentlessly and fast, trying to getit all out. I was reminded daily with "funny" nicknames like motormouth that i talked too much. My mother was very much of the opinion that chattiness (which is how grand thoughts can be interpreted if one is not listening to the words) was very unnattractive in girls and my whole family was apt to make comments on it. Once they went too far, when i was about 9, and i didn't speak for 4 days. Of course they all panicked and learned a lesson which lasted about 3 months, and then back to the mocking. I NEVER tell DD to be quiet. I always answer her questions as best i can. As an adult i am often the ice-breaker, i can and do talk to anyone from the lordly councillor to the bum who has fallen drunk in the street. NOW it is a skill to be able to talk so well, but i wish it had been seen as such when i was a kid. If DD is as verbose as i was i will encourage her to join the debate team and sharpen those skills. My dad told me a few weeks ago she seemed slightly less chatty than me and i though, maybe because someone _listens_ to her!?

Quote:

What you showed her this day is just one of the many times love and generosity will pour from you to her - it ain't about the apple it's much more than that. Things like sharing, communing, accepting come to mind.
It's so funny to read this today. A few hours ago we were waiting for a bus and DD looked into bushes next to the road and said "What's in there Mama?" and i rambled an unthought reply "Oh, caterpillars and spiders and flies and loves and such" and she turned and looked up at me and said "not loves mama, the loves are in you". It was such a sweet moment.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

A few hours ago we were waiting for a bus and DD looked into bushes next to the road and said "What's in there Mama?" and i rambled an unthought reply "Oh, caterpillars and spiders and flies and loves and such" and she turned and looked up at me and said "not loves mama, the loves are in you". It was such a sweet moment.
Oh my God, I live for this stuff.







:


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
*Summary:*

Compromise is a lose-lose option.


I'd like clarification on this. I understand that it was discussed as lose-lose before, but I get the feeling that compromise is a big part of CL--only it must be _consensual_ compromise (not parent enforced).

For instance, cutting apple in half and sharing it would be win-win if the child thought it was a good solution, too.

True? False?

It raises another question for me, though (going back to knee-jerk negative responses)....because, in the end, the child _was_ happy with the solution. I find this with my dc, too...when I use a must, or a "that's just how it is", they can often adjust quickly and find the win-win in what they initially thought was a lose-lose.


----------



## GoBecGo

Quote:

I find this with my dc, too...when I use a must, or a "that's just how it is", they can often adjust quickly and find the win-win in what they initially thought was a lose-lose.
This makes me think of us in another sense too. When something has to be, i tell DD it has to be (of course whether or not it HAS to be because we are not trying to be CL as such, is sometimes my decision, and sometimes a fact of circumstance - i do try to be fair and to always listen and acknowledge her even if i cannot or will not then go on to agree with her) then i generally go on with life. If DD is very upset at the new fact i will stop and take time to talk to her a little, let her voice her emotions and give her the option of a cuddle - sometimes i will say "how can i help sugar?" and she will say "huggle me" or "i want cuddle lamb" (her bedtime soft toy friend) or "read me a story" and i always try to do so. However, once i have acknowledged her distress i tend to move things on, i will attempt distraction or change tone or subject to let her know that new things are happening now.

XP is different. He will basically keep on trying to comfort (which i think is great) or appease (which i really don't like) her for as long as she is upset and i have SEEN that something she'd have gotten over in 2 minutes with me (like the apple) can go on for close to an hour with him. I have seen her upset for so long she has forgotten why she is upset.

Now i'm not made of stone, i do try to temper the response to her emotions to the situation itself - we are still having daily debriefs about Saturday when she learned the terrible lesson that sometimes you drop your ice-cream. She had waied several days to be bought the ice cream and was really enjoying it when she dropped it, and i understand that she was really upset. But i know that something like the apple incident, which happens almost every day and is no big deal (she is alowed to have an apple whenever there are any and she wants one) her upset is definitely a knee-jerk and short-lived. But XP's over-validation seems to make her ham it up for a long time. She is greedy, demanding, cheeky and contrary with him, which she rarely is with me (a few moments in a day, rather than a few days in a week or every day as it can be for him).

From when she wasa tiny baby i have known she reflects my own emotions back at me and i suppose i feel that from her point of view whether or not she gets the apple is less important than whether my vibe tells her everything is ok with the world or not. She always cries more about injuries i'm worried about and yet is covered in grazes, bruises and marks which i didn't see her get and which i can see must have hurt but because i wasn't there to see them and sympathise she never even cried (i'm with her 24/6).

I really wonder if she doesn't mind sharing the apple because she senses from me that i find that to be the best outcome all around?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

its not a compromise if both people are happy. It's a solution. I mean, perhaps technically by definition its a compromise I am not sure, but if we all want and apple, and we are all okay splitting it, then to me that is a solution. A compromise would be "I'm willing to split the apple in half" a solution is "im happy to split the apple in halg. great idea" where you may do something different then initially planned, but you aren't sacraficing your happines with the solution.


----------



## GoBecGo

But that means that selfish people, who are never happy to share their apple, cannot be reasoned with, no? There is no solution then. Because SOMEONE isn't going to get any apple.


----------



## Calm

Compromise can be seen as a middle way between two extremes or it can be seen as both sides making concessions. Depending how generous you're feeling on a given day.

I think when you find need to negotiate (when you _must_ compromise?







) the fact is one or both of you are going to not get completely what you wanted to begin with. You can call it negotiating, a solution, compromise, agreement, alternative... whatever you like. It won't change that the original option has been removed or altered.

"All wants met" is false when there is only one apple and two people who want the whole apple. We can say two people want _some_ apple, and two people got some apple. All wants met, hurray. But if two people want a _whole_ apple, and there is only one apple, then only one person is going to have her desire met, unless one or both _alter_ their desire.

Sure, it is a solution if I decide I'll have a banana instead. But it isn't "all wants met", cos I wanted the apple. I just changed my mind, I compromised. I wonder how you can come to a solution that doesn't involve compromise in a situation such as the apple.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I dont think you *must* compromise.

Sometimes what I want changes, or what my child wants changes, and then all wants are met.

Other times, there is more going on then an apple, and so in that way we can meet everyone's needs/desires.

Again, I don't think there are times where you *must* compromise. There are times where you *can* though.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Sometimes what I want changes, or what my child wants changes, and then all wants are met.
Yes. Sometimes. I agree.


----------



## WuWei

Hey ladies, I'm signing off the thread. I've not been able to keep up for most of a week (some 200 posts).

I wanted to let you all know that my mom passed yesterday morning and it was lovely, actually. I'm so grateful we were (finally) home with our son there and with my with 96-year old grandfather (her father) there. It was so much more spacious and pleasant than the hospital. And more "real" than the artificial (and traumatic) environment of the hospital. The Hospice nurses helped my sister a lot, thankfully. And will continue to follow up with her afterward too.

And mom's best buddy, "K.C. dog" was with us at home. She had missed him greatly while in the hospital for the past two weeks. Both were delighted to be together. He lay at the doorway "guarding" it all the time, except when ds was playing fetch through the front of the house from hospital bed-foyer-family room, and in the big fenced back yard. He is a _loud_ beagle dog. She *knew* he was there all the time. (so did the neighbors, lol)

Our son was so amazing about it all. And my grandfather really struggled, but he only found out she was ill on Saturday. He was there for her last breaths and so was her sister, who stayed for days and days at the hospital with us. Lovely. Perfect passing, all of us together. *sigh*.

You all copy this into your email archives and NEVER let them take me to the hospital!! I might haunt anyone who does. The medicalization of death (and birth) amazes me to this day!! I signed my living will AGAIN while she was in the hospital!! The nurses there were outstanding, provided tons of autonomy and honored mom's need for control. But, lord knows I never want to die there!! EVER. You all can sneak me out and bury me somewhere, OK? Only half-kidding!

So, I'm not going to be available in the short run and don't have the energy to debate CL. I trust everyone can carry on with the academic and practical discussion with the many voices of CL being valid and honored.









Pat


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I remember my mom thinking of me as the difficult, contrary child. It was very hard to grow up with her keeping me in that role.







I always wished she could just see me.

That's where your mom and I differ. The day I came to realize that Erica was a defiant, stubborn, strong willed child was the day that I started to really get to know her. It was the foundation that I could use so that I could parent her the way that her personality demanded. Otherwise I was banging my head against the wall trying to fit her square peg into the round hole of what the "experts" said was the typical child. She required an almost rigid schedule/routine/rhythm to her life. She needed a wall to push against, one that would give slowly as she matured. She needed rules so she could see where the world stood. Rules that she could rail against but rules that held firm so that she could feel in control. It was when she didn't know what was happening next or what was expected that she lost control and had a melt down. She didn't want to negotiate. She wanted to know that there were always going to be 2 choices, even when she didn't want those 2 choices. Too many choices meant chaos to her, not self determination. Meant that no one was in charge. Erica needed her parents to be in control so that she could learn to control herself.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I wasn't talking about Erica's experience. I was talking about mine.

I would not feel comfortable if my child grew up to think of themselves in that light. I can see him has determined instead of stubborn. I feel this will nourish the quality in apositive way so he can use it as something beeficial when he is older instead of as a personality trait to try to keep at bay.

I also know many children who were beat who have great surface relationships with their parents, and will claim their parents did right by them. That does not convince me to beat my own child. I also know many children (myself included) who tell their parents they did a gret job raising them, thank you, etc - we focus on the good because it would be too painful to accept anything else. So we internalize what our parents projected on us and begin to see ourselves in the same light. Then others see us that way too. This is how I have ended up in many bad relationships. My mom thought we had a great relationship and she did such a great job. It feels good to sometimes say she did, and I am who I am because of her, but more so because I try to avoid what she did, but the reality is she did not directly give me the tools I needed. She just gave me the drive to seek those tools out. I would hope my child would not stay with anyone who uses negative terms to describe their personality. Of course I want my children to think I did right by them (not just say it) but I also want to ACTUALLY do right by them. I don't want them to think it was right just because they trust I love them. I want them to be able to trust I love them, but if I went wrong somewhere along the way be able to admit that, instead of trying to accept it *must* have been right because they know I loved them.

But you see, that's just the point. We use the same words to describe a personality. You see those words as negative, both as the child and as the parent. Erica and I, as the child and parent, see those same words as positive. As an adult, that defiant, stubborn, strong willed nature of hers has become an asset.


----------



## sewchris2642

My condolences to you and your family. My thoughts and prayers are with you.


----------



## Calm

We can learn to embrace our labels. But then we risk being limited by them. A shy person may not always be shy, a stubborn person may not always be stubborn... and so on. Sometimes we have no choice but to see the good in our labels because others simply won't let them go and psychologically, it is hard to bear being adversarial to it. We trust those who label us, so it feels incongruent when we don't like those labels. So we accept them. Eventually.

I am known as "irresponsible". Apparently, according to most who have known me long enough, I am the complete definition of the word and concept. During my twenties, I was exhausted by it so I chose to embrace it (only hindsight showed me exhaustion is what it was, at the time, I thought it was empowering choice). It was like a self fulfilling prophecy for me, like I was expected to be late, to not pay bills, to leave the place in a mess, to arrive at a party without anything because I forgot, or didn't have time... and so on.

For a decade or so, it was a joke, I enabled this joke and irresponsible became me. It was a part of who I was. Being irresponsible as a child was almost expected so it was only an apparent problem as I became an adult. At which point, I didn't know how to deal with it, so I embraced it. I used to say things like "if I leave my clothes on the floor long enough, they get washed". These things are because that's actually how it was for me. My family are very "there" for me and each other. But my parents did me a disservice, and I have already talked to them about this issue. I was given a choice, and children _can_ choose the easy way, some of us.

My best friend from way back didn't have a mother like mine. She didn't pick up after her and she didn't give her such choice. She has always been an organised, responsible person compared to me, she stayed in jobs when they got tough, she remembered things,,, etc. She learned how. She didn't have it done for her.

Anyway, however I got to that point only half matters, the other half is, how am I going to get out of this? I don't WANT to be irresponsible. Even that word was rarely used anymore, it was just an undertone of expectation from others about me.

So I got angry at everyone, and told them to back off because I will not be limited by their labels and expectations. I was 30 years old when I started fighting back. Until that point, I really thought I liked the label, or at least wasn't bothered by it. They fought me for a while on it, saying that you don't get a reputation for no reason, if I want to be rid of a label, then I have to show it. I said there are two things wrong with that approach and one is, they won't SEE anything else in me if they are only seeing those things they are comfortable or used to seeing. I could be a model freakin' citizen for a decade but turn up late to an appointment one day and "oh, there she goes, ha ha ha, Janine and her cavalier attitude" (as though it's endearing, to take the sting out, I guess). So I refused to be the only one examining her baggage.

The second thing is, part of the reason I was behaving in such a way is because of all the energy being poured into the perpetuation of it.

Anyway, long story even longer, be careful not to be too quick to assume a person likes their labels. Even they may think they do. But in the end, labels don't help us grow, they keep us trapped in who we _were_, or actions we _did_, not necessarily actions we wish to repeat. If a person labels themselves, then help them see they can be other than that, with a simple choice. I just made a choice, it _was_ that easy.

I am. That's all. That's it. I AM. I may act this way or that, I may act selflessly or selfishly. I may behave irrationally or reasonably. But I don't say "I am reasonable" or "I am irrational". Because I am not those thing, I am more than that. My daughter _does_ anger sometimes, but she is not _angry_. She does stubbornness. But she is not stubborn. Separate the person from the action, I find that helps.


----------



## Calm

Pat, I'm messaging you.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

So well put Calm, I really agree with you on that.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Chris I understand that is what is true to you and was probably true to my mother as well. Perhaps it is true to Erica (only Erica knows without doubt) but it was not true for me. I won't speak for my mom, because I am not her. I understand if you feel comfortable speaking for yourself and your child. I am not speaking for you or your child or my mother. I am only speaking for me. My mom likes to speak for me and my siblings, and for a long time I used to like to agree with her, but it wasn't my truth, and she shouldn't have been speaking for me. Shes not me. She knows me well but no matter how attached one is to another they cannot ultimately be that person, and *know* with certainty if that other person feels the same as they do. Would you be willing to accept if your daughter one day left her SO because she didn't like being labeled that way and looked at in that light? Would you be willing to accept if she said "Mom, actually, those things really hurt me and I feel they are limiting me in life?" If so, then you are worlds away from my mother, who apparently thinks she knows me better then I know myself. To have a good relationship with her I would have to act the way Erica is acting with you. (For me its an act, for Erica it may be sincere - only Erica knows) Had my mom asked me 5 years ago I would have agreed with her, and said it was sincere, so really believe that only self can understand with certainty how they feel or think about a certain thing, and also that with time those thoughts and feelings can change as they finally start to have confidence *in that area* that they didn't have growing up because of their limits. For a long time it was easier to accept my moms labels for me and agree with her. I even convinced myself they were "good" but things changed, and when I let her know she wasn't willing to accept it. I imagine it would be hard for Erica to change her outlook because of what that would mean. Perhaps she truly doesn't need to. I also imagine how hard it must be for a parent to accept when that happens. To boot, my mom would probably say all the things you are saying Erica, even AFTER I have told her I don't feel that way, she would probably tell her "friends" that I agree even if I didn't. Obviously you are not like my mom in many many ways.


----------



## sewchris2642

I get what you are saying. I don't think that the cases are comparable. I always run into this problem when talking about Erica (or any of my kids for that matter but she's the one I end up talking about on parenting message boards). She is Erica, first, second, and last. She will always be Erica. Defiant, stubborn, strong willed, blond, blue eyed, short, smart, creative, helpful, generous, a loving wife, a great friend, a great mother, and a great daughter and sister are all just words to describe her.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Yes. She is Erica. Not Chris. Not Me. Erica. Im not saying the cases are comparable. You must not have understood what I was saying. One day Erica may not like those labels you gave her. Or she may already not like them, but loves you and feels she will be accepted if she agrees with the labels you have given her.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Chris I understand that is what is true to you and was probably true to my mother as well. Perhaps it is true to Erica (only Erica knows without doubt) but it was not true for me. I won't speak for my mom, because I am not her. I understand if you feel comfortable speaking for yourself and your child. I am not speaking for you or your child or my mother. I am only speaking for me. My mom likes to speak for me and my siblings, and for a long time I used to like to agree with her, but it wasn't my truth, and she shouldn't have been speaking for me. Shes not me. She knows me well but no matter how attached one is to another they cannot ultimately be that person, and *know* with certainty if that other person feels the same as they do. Would you be willing to accept if your daughter one day left her SO because she didn't like being labeled that way and looked at in that light? Would you be willing to accept if she said "Mom, actually, those things really hurt me and I feel they are limiting me in life?" If so, then you are worlds away from my mother, who apparently thinks she knows me better then I know myself. To have a good relationship with her I would have to act the way Erica is acting with you. (For me its an act, for Erica it may be sincere - only Erica knows) Had my mom asked me 5 years ago I would have agreed with her, and said it was sincere, so really believe that only self can understand with certainty how they feel or think about a certain thing, and also that with time those thoughts and feelings can change as they finally start to have confidence *in that area* that they didn't have growing up because of their limits. For a long time it was easier to accept my moms labels for me and agree with her. I even convinced myself they were "good" but things changed, and when I let her know she wasn't willing to accept it. I imagine it would be hard for Erica to change her outlook because of what that would mean. Perhaps she truly doesn't need to. I also imagine how hard it must be for a parent to accept when that happens. To boot, my mom would probably say all the things you are saying Erica, even AFTER I have told her I don't feel that way, she would probably tell her "friends" that I agree even if I didn't. Obviously you are not like my mom in many many ways.

I think that we just have to differ as you can't be in on the conversations (the last one yesterday which prompted my posts last night) I have with Erica on her childhood. We do talk about it and she is not shy about airing her feelings and thoughts. We don't have the relationship that you and your mom have, either as the parent/child or now as adult/adult. All of what I have posted about Erica, her childhood, and our relationship comes from talking with her about it and getting her adult perspective on it. I have apologized as needed.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I understand that. I dont think you understand what I am saying. Your relationship with Erica is obviously different then mine with my mom because you are two different people. I don't know Erica better then you do. But there is one person who knows Erica better then you do. Erica. And maybe at this time in her life she feels those terms describe her appropriately. Or maybe not. And maybe one day she wont appreciate those terms. Or maybe not. You sound like the kind of person who would be accepting if one day Erica let you know those terms are hurtful, which is good. At this time its possible (I know because I've been there, so while it may not be true for Erica it is still *possible*) that Erica is keeping connection and protecting herself by going along with you about those words( "defiant" "strong willed" etc.) Me personally, which is the only person *I* feel comfortably speaking for, I know that at one point in adulthood I thought the things my mom said about me was true because I trusted she loved me and I didn't see them negatively. That doesnt mean that those words prevented me from being my personal best. Once I realized this and was able to accept it I grew a lot more as a person. Would it have helped if my mom had freed me of those terms? Yes. You sound like you would be supportive of Erica freeing herself from those terms if one day she decides to do so. Some people never grow to that point though, because keeping the connection with their parent is too important, because admiting to *themselves* that their parents were wrong in some ways is too hard. Sounds like Erica has accepted that in some areas, but it doesnt mean she would be ready to accept them in all areas or ready to confront you in all areas because she confronted you in others. You speak for yourself and Erica. I am only speaking for myself. Sometimes I am very open and honest with my family on how I feel about certain things. In other areas I continue to just agree even if I dont, and perhaps there are even more areas where I am agreeing and believe I agree, but then as I grow more as a person I realize that believing what they say (agreeing) is a hindrance. Perhaps you feel calling a child defiant a good thing. Perhaps you see it as acceptable because your child as an adult verbally agrees with you and so does the person she chose as SO. Perhaps I have read too much on psychology and perhaps I play it too safe with my own children. Personally I would be concerned if my children used terms like that to define themselves. Perhaps my children will grow up to sing my praises to me but not really like what I have done for them. Perhaps the same is true for Erica. I just personally dont feel comfortable with taking your word for it when it comes to another person. I believe you know Erica better then me, but I don't believe you know Erica better then Erica. Sorry







I do believe you know YOURSELF better then anyone else though, so I believe that all you have done is with best intents and all that you believe about your daughter is true to you.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Yes. She is Erica. Not Chris. Not Me. Erica. Im not saying the cases are comparable. You must not have understood what I was saying. One day Erica may not like those labels you gave her. Or she may already not like them, but loves you and feels she will be accepted if she agrees with the labels you have given her.

I understood that. What's not comparable is your relationship with your mother and my relationship with Erica. Erica is not hesitant to tell it like it is. That is also part of her personality. If she felt what you have posted on how you feel about your relationship with your mother and how she raised you, she would have no qualms about telling me in no uncertain terms. There would be no misunderstanding, twisting her words, or ignoring them. She would be very clear. If, in the future, Erica decides that she doesn't want to describe herself in those words, she will say so. And I will stop. I also will apologize for any hurt I've caused her by those words.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I understand that. I would cry if my child told me they though defiance was part of their personality. Im not speaking of you and Erica. I am speaking of me. You know yourself better then anyone else. You know Erica better then I do. But you do not know Erica better then Erica. You know Erica is outspoken and you know everything Erica has ever told you. My mom would tell you the same about me. I am not comparing us, as Ive said it sound like your relationship is very different. I am only saying that My mom is my mom, you are you, I am me, and Erica is Erica. As long as Erica continues to agree with you on this subject, or at least say she does, then you can feel justified. I personally just could not feel comfortable with that. If it were me, which its not, I would get my child out of that "role". children tend to accept roles and bring them with them to adulthood. So what you say does not surprise me and what Erica has told you may be very true to her. I wouldn't brag about it though, Id get my child out of that role. but thats just *me*. you feel comfortable with it and so you feel comfortable thinking and describing her as the defiant contrary strong willed child.


----------



## kalimay

"Had my mom asked me 5 years ago I would have agreed with her, and said it was sincere, so really believe that only self can understand with certainty how they feel or think about a certain thing, and also that with time those thoughts and feelings can change as they finally start to have confidence *in that area* that they didn't have growing up because of their limits."

You chose a different word, one you believe is positive but by labeling your child at all aren't you doing the same thing you feel your mom and sewchris should not do?

"Id get my child out of that role. but thats just *me*."

If the child is self determined and did not want that role they would not accept it thought right?

"She just gave me the drive to seek those tools out. I would hope my child would not stay with anyone who uses negative terms to describe their personality. Of course I want my children to think I did right by them (not just say it) but I also want to ACTUALLY do right by them. I don't want them to think it was right just because they trust I love them. I want them to be able to trust I love them, but if I went wrong somewhere along the way be able to admit that, instead of trying to accept it *must* have been right because they know I loved them."

It is my belief that most parents "ACTUALLY" want to do right by their children. I think is as likely for a child raised by parents practicing CL to question their parents beliefs and methods as it is of other parenting philosophies. What if your child, when they are older, does not agree when you tell them all their wants were met and they were responsible for every decision they ever made from the time they were infants? Some adults do believe in blame and responsibility and they may not agree that a young child is self determining.
I have a friend who was raised by very loving parents who were very hands off in their parenting style. They wanted their children to discover their truths on their own. My friend wishes there had been rules. She got into alot of trouble she feels she could have avoided. She does not think her parents were bad parents but she parents her children differently.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

A child would have to self determine not to be self determining so I guess that doesn't make sense to me.

I don't mind if my children see themselves in a positive light. I wouldnt want them to see themselves as defiant though. If they thought they were anyway, thats up to them, but I will not cast a shadow over my child.


----------



## Calm

The interesting thing about labels is that what is positive to one person isn't necessarily positive to another. Labels are limiting, whether we say we are are "nice people" or "nasty people", we are still _stuck_. We have still been defined.

I have done nice.

I have done nasty.

If a child is called nice, ie, "you ARE nice", that can set them up for problems. The other issue with it is that it takes away choice, esp when we're talking about kids.

When I say "you are argumentative" to my daughter, I am saying she IS that. This takes away her choice to be _other_ than that. I am defining _her_, not her behaviour and this includes what we consider positive ones.

When I say "you are _doing_ argumentative" (as weird as that phrase sounds at first, you get used to it) she can _do_ something else, because it isn't _her_, it isn't something she is "being", it is something she is _doing_.

"I see you are choosing anger, and I'm reacting to that." has come out of my mouth before, several times. This shows her that she has ultimate choice and power over herself. Even at 6 she has learned that she chooses how she feels and behaves, where other kids are still struggling with the idea that it is beyond their control, that thoughts and feelings just "take them away" and they have to "wait them out" or "have circumstances change" before they can feel another way. DD doesn't always harness this power, but she has done, and that's the beginning of the pinnacle of self determination as she will determine how she feels, if she wants to.

We're learning together. She reminds me, and DH (and even the baby







), "why are you choosing frustration?" and sometimes I have to be honest and say, "cos it feels good, and I'm not finished with it yet, OKAY!?"

It's no good to raise a child with the thought of freedom and self determination if I am going to decide what she _is_, if she is good, nice, selfless, helpful, happy... they are decisions I have made based on her behaviour which is changeable.

I think it is step one to remove negative labels, but ultimately, all labels should be removed for ultimate freedom of choice in a child. I wonder how much damage the phrase "you are..." during development of self has done to our people.

Many little girls through time have had that sticky sticky label of "nice" and it has brought nothing but grief. Whatever a "nice girl" doesn't do, they feel an incongruence when they want to do those things - making self determination difficult, as they are making decisions based on definitions of self.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I like that calm. I usually don't use terms one way or another. When trying to stop a child from getting stuck in a role I don't usually use another term.

example: child is being "greedy" I wait until I catch them "sharing" (even if they are "greedy" more often then they are "generous") and I will say "You shared your cookie. Thats what I call generosity" (etc) and let my child determine if they think they are a generous person or not all I am doing is pointing out behavior that *i* think is generous. I don't run around going "thats what I call greedy" though. I focus on the positive.

I liek a lot of what you said though - I liek the "you are choosing ____ and I am reacting that" kind of thinking.


----------



## sacredmama

subbing

This thread is making my brain hurt a little with all the new thoughts and how challenging it might be to change, but I imagine it will get easier with time. Thanks!!









I voted combo


----------



## Calm

SGM, I keep meaning to say this, but you're sig really affected me when you changed it recently. I really like it. I've quoted it several times over the last couple of weeks.









Quote:

So it boils down to 1-2 things:
1) Understanding the definition of self determination
2) Faith that a child is capable fo being rational
Interesting, if it boils down to this. I do have _faith_ that a child is capable of being rational. I don't think adults _or_ children can be rational all the time. I also do not think children should be rational at tender ages much at all, which was my point early in the thread and I even mention it in the OP.

I read the CL mama's challenges in the yahoogroup. And they often say things like "a young child has no concept of "fair"". Some of them are following CL very closely and still come across "regular" child behaviour, and often irrational stuff. Unreasonable situations. Because they're dealing with children. Children do weird stuff







, they don't follow a linear time line nor do they care much for logic. I do see rational behaviour from kids but I also see the opposite. I don't know where that leaves me on the 2 step breakdown.

My children choose reason and they choose irrational. They choose autonomy and they choose to curl in my lap and beg me to take away their decisions. I see the way you worded that was: _capable_ of being (doing) rational. Being capable of it and actually doing rational in every scenario are not the same thing.

I think self determination can and should be fostered in _*all*_ people, regardless of irrationality labels such as certain mental illnesses, ADHD and autism. And I think it is a slippery slope rabbit hole when we start saying, "if it is rational to the person, then it is rational, they have their reasons for kicking and freaking out, maybe they're frustrated at having their rights infringed." because if we are going to endow full use of certain rights to children then we also need to accept that the full responsibility goes with them and there is nothing reasonable in potentially hurting yourself in frustration. Understandable, totally, but reasonable? That's rabbit hole territory. The definition of reasonable and rational both contain elements of intellect, logic and non-extreme. None of which are there in knee jerk emotional outbursts. Reason and emotion coexist best once there has been some life experience.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I agree that neither adults or children are rational at all times. Both have things that will cause them to be irrational. At that time, there is an underlying unmet need that needs to be met before moving forward. So, in my mind, "rationability" does not cause a child to be less capable of safely self determining then an adult. I agree anyone can have their needs met so they can be rational. My son is autistic and capable of being rational.

I agree with what you are saying. Thats why I think some don't find CL practical at times. They aren't ready to wait for he rationality to kick back in. As in the apple example, with my child I could empathize how they really wish there were TWO apples. Once those "extreme" emotions of disappointment pass, then we can find a CL solution. A child who is still upset there is only 1 apple and 2 people want to eat it is not going to agree to splitting the apple. Now for me, an apple isnt so important to me - I would be fine just saying okay have it. I can't see myself wanting an apple THAT bad. Nor do I think it will be my only chance to let my child experience disappointment. Disappointment opportunities will still come. Lets say both children reach for and grab the apple at the same time though - thats the kind of case where I would say "bring them down" so to speak (from those "high emotions" as I call them) and then its easy to be consensual. This is how CL looks in my family.

Reason and emotion can both coexist will good function at any age - I think we evolve over the years to handle more and more. Basically, my newborn doesn't need emotion or reason over eating They just go with the flow. A toddler is another story. They do have some life experience at that point - enough to handle that situation. A teenager may take it even further, and they have even more life experience at that point. For each situation where they choose to "assert" themselves (I am not choosing the best words here I know) they have enough life experience to do so. They feel they are capable of choosing based on their life experience they have. They don't even think to choose other things - I do believe in development of children so I do believe that a child doesn't think "oh maybe mommy is lying" but a teen (if you have a history of tall tales) may think that. So if I said to my toddler "sometimes the sky is green" they may just trust that. If I said to a 7 year old the sky is sometimes green they may questions me "really? I've never seen it green before. I think the sky is always blue. once the sky was purple. but not green." so I feel development plays a roll in that sense, but not in the sense of ability to self determine (by my understanding of the term) I realize some here are interpreting that word differently then I understand it, and by their interpretation I can understand why they feel confused on the issue.

I am appreciating your posts most recently Calm


----------



## GoBecGo

Another lovely post Calm (i am REALLY enjoying this thread!).

It's funny i think my DD has a very strong sense of "fairness", it's just that because she is still far more aware of her own experiences than of those around her (presumably because a selfless baby/toddler would starve to death while it worried whether it's mother was getting enough sleep) she is more aware of fairness _towards her_ than towards anyone else. She knows if i eat the whole apple it's not fair, she's just not so quick to identify that if she eats it all it's not fair, because she's at an age when worrying about fairness to others would still be a pretty dangerous tactic in terms of survival. As far as i can tell, as a person ages they seem to be able to tae into account fairness towards more and more other people - i.e. it's ok to share with a friend, but a group of 3 will often turn into a contention of 2 against 1, then 3 is ok. Some people go on to become brilliant at fairness and arbitrating it, but most do not. Most people have a spectral "them" to whom their sense of justice shouldn't or doesn't apply.

I find a lot of what she wants to do unreasonable, which is why i'm not excited to embrace CL. I don't think she's capable of (or should have to aspire to) behaving unselfishly or thinking of others or even necessarily thinking in terms of consequences to herself. I often talk before making decisions to see if compromise can be reached and sometimes it cannot. She wants to empty the vacuum cannister onto the hall carpet. No, she doesn't care about the dust. No she will not clean up after. No, she won't do it outside. No she wouldn't rather do x instead. She wants to do it right here, right now, no compromise. So i tell her, sorry, no, that is not happening. I don't think she should have to make those decisions for herself. It is her who will end up with the dirt in her teeth and hair and lungs, her who will end up in a huge mess. Her who will no doubt cry because she is 3 and doesn't have anything LIKE the foresight needed to make decisions like this on her own.

I make decisions for her every day. She would not choose the organic local apple, she would choose the big commercially grown pink apple which looks spectacular but tastes of nothing and is nutritionally void by comparison. I don't let her make that mistake. She would not wear tough shoes to play in the garden, given the choice (when i didn't realise she was making any such choice!) she wore no shoes, dropped a brick on her foot and mashed her toenail. 20 minutes later, tears still wet on her cheeks and her toe swollen and hot, she tried to go out barefoot again. I don't think she has a "right" to the pain of her mistakes at such a tender age. I never make decisions with the intention of hurting, restricting, thwarting or demeaning her. I never seek to restrict her freedom to (only her freedom from - injury, hunger, pain, distress etc. etc.). I make decisions because i love her, to me she seems incapable of making those decisions herself and even if she WOULD make such decisions, is too young and inexperienced to be expected to live with her mistakes. There are definitely decisions she IS able to cope with, and a few she is almost able to cope with. I let her handle the former routinely herself, and the latter under supervision, while she sharpens her skills.


----------



## GoBecGo

Quote:

A child who is still upset there is only 1 apple and 2 people want to eat it is not going to agree to splitting the apple. Now for me, an apple isnt so important to me - I would be fine just saying okay have it. I can't see myself wanting an apple THAT bad. Nor do I think it will be my only chance to let my child experience disappointment. Disappointment opportunities will still come. Lets say both children reach for and grab the apple at the same time though - thats the kind of case where I would say "bring them down" so to speak (from those "high emotions" as I call them) and then its easy to be consensual. This is how CL looks in my family.
Do you mean that if you and a child couldn't share you would let the child have the apple but if the 2 kids couldn't share you would wait until they calmed own and get them to share? ("get them to share" is so clumsy, i mean rather, provide them with the opportunity to decide to share - it's late here, nearly midnight!). What if they still couldn't come to an agreement, and both still wanted the apple. Do you then decide? Or how is it resolved?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

It depends... are we talking about an actual apple or is the apple supposed to represent something "more" I am just talking about an apple here and really, child or not, if someone REALLY wanted the apple I personally do not care THAT much about an apple, I'd just say "sure here ya go!"

I find giving information helps. Such as when my 2 year old wants one of my tampons. she doesn't end up "getting" the tampon, but she is able to get to that point on her own without my "putting my foot down" that she can't have it. And if she wants to pretend the tampon is a crayon, I might just feel comfortable with that, but we haven't gotten that far on the issue. I got my unused tampon back, and now keep them where they cant see them.

Another example is I do not eat in front of others what I cannot share. If I'm having an apple I tend to say "Hey lets split an apple!" off the bat. I don't have the starting point "this is my apple" and then decide "okay, you can have my apple" When I have a meal or snack in front of another child or adults its always something I can share or give them their own. If I really have a craving for an apple I dont want to share then I will probably eat it when the kids are napping, in bed, or eating something I know they think is WAY better then an apple. I can totally eat steak around my son because he doesn't like steak - but im willing to share or give him mine or make him his own or get something else he wants if I am eating it in front of him. My son can't eat certain foods (allergies) so I'm not going to eat a slice of pizza in front of him, unless he is happily already eating one of his own gfcf pizzas and if he wants a bite of mine then I let him have a bite, and then in the future I won't eat pizza in front of him either way. I am just being polite with my children, it may sound bizarre to some but to me it's very easy to do this if I just treat my children the same way I would treat a house guest.

As for other children, as I said first I bring them "down" then we problem solve. Problem solving isn't always meeting exactly in the middle "split the apple in half" Here is a long list of options:

Cut the apple in slices
one child has applesauce instead
we walk to the store and get another apple if they want
both children have someting else (this is almost always the case - if I say "how about one of you have a banana, they both end up wanting a banana lol - so I offer something appealing they can both have. if they dont both want it, usually it will appeal to at least one of them and they move from wanting an apple to wanting a banana)
Take turns biting the apple
play catch with the apple instead
Both kids get a paintbrush to paint the apple
Let's go paint instead
Let's go in the pool.
Let's feed the apple to someone else
Let's bury the apple in the backyard
I will slice the apple, we can take turns adding apple into the blender, and make apple sauce to share (my kids love "doing thing" so they choose "activity" over "apple")
Let's make apple soup (haha mom. thats funny.)
If we cut the apple in half a certain way, it will make a star, want to see? You can both get a WHOLE star.
Rolly Polly Apple
Apple paint "stamp" (cut apple in half, put in paint, stamp paper with different colors)
Who wants to see horses? Okay, what can we bring to feed the horse. Horses like apples... but we only have one... should we bring this apple to the horse instead of eating it ourselves?
Apple Soccer
Apple Basketball (possible being thrown into a bucket of water instead of a hoop, because my kids love water)
Hot/Cold apple (hide the apple, take turns with who hides and who finds)
Hot potato apple
Run in circles around the apple ( can you tell I have toddlers lol)

Solutions and ideas will be based on age. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but I dont feel the need to list more. I don't decide for them. I trust their are infinite possibilities, so I know it won't come down to that. Lots of paint examples, because thats what my kids love. I would also look to prevent in the future: always slice apples and put on 'x' number of plates. I can eat off all plates if child(ren) doesnt want apples. When there is only 1 apple left, turn it into applesauce ahead of time, ask "who wants apple sauce" and then split the apple sauce between everyone - do this in the kitchen while kids are in another room so to them they are getting a "whole" bowl of applesauce

CL goes beyond, IMO, the idea of "how can we both get the apple" to a point where its like "how can we all be happy" It's not about "who gets their way" or "what is fair" or "who decides". It's not always about how can we all agree; but sometimes about what we can all agree on. (okay, that kind of can be considered the same thing... but in other words its not about how we can all be happy with half an apple, its just about how we can all be happy including *OR* regardless of the apple.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Thats why I think some don't find CL practical at times. They aren't ready to wait for he rationality to kick back in.


Yep! That is about the size of it! I am willing to own that









2 examples from today:

Ds (2) has meltdown in the doorway of a bouncehouse, too scared to go in, but unwilling to come out. Kids are waiting and plowing by him. Motor is running VERY loudly, making conversation nearly impossible. I am not willing to wait for him to become rational in this situation--I pick him up and move him.

Later, ds refuses to get out of the car when we get home. He wants to stay in his seat. It is peaceful and quiet, and he is sitting happily and sweetly. I send dh and dd in, and spend some quiet time with ds (traumatized by the bounce house experience, lol). After a minute or two, I ask him if he wants to do something I know he likes to do...in the house. He says OK! and gets out on his own.


----------



## poiyt

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
When I say "you are _doing_ argumentative" (as weird as that phrase sounds at first, you get used to it) she can _do_ something else, because it isn't _her_, it isn't something she is "being", it is something she is _doing_.

"I see you are choosing anger, and I'm reacting to that."

We're learning together. She reminds me, and DH (and even the baby







), "why are you choosing frustration?" and sometimes I have to be honest and say, "cos it feels good, and I'm not finished with it yet, OKAY!?"

This is the most fantastic thing I have read in a while...thank you for this insight.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I understand that. I dont think you understand what I am saying. Your relationship with Erica is obviously different then mine with my mom because you are two different people. I don't know Erica better then you do. But there is one person who knows Erica better then you do. Erica. And maybe at this time in her life she feels those terms describe her appropriately. Or maybe not. And maybe one day she wont appreciate those terms. Or maybe not. You sound like the kind of person who would be accepting if one day Erica let you know those terms are hurtful, which is good. At this time its possible (I know because I've been there, so while it may not be true for Erica it is still *possible*) that Erica is keeping connection and protecting herself by going along with you about those words( "defiant" "strong willed" etc.) Me personally, which is the only person *I* feel comfortably speaking for, I know that at one point in adulthood I thought the things my mom said about me was true because I trusted she loved me and I didn't see them negatively. That doesnt mean that those words prevented me from being my personal best. Once I realized this and was able to accept it I grew a lot more as a person. Would it have helped if my mom had freed me of those terms? Yes. You sound like you would be supportive of Erica freeing herself from those terms if one day she decides to do so. Some people never grow to that point though, because keeping the connection with their parent is too important, because admiting to *themselves* that their parents were wrong in some ways is too hard. Sounds like Erica has accepted that in some areas, but it doesnt mean she would be ready to accept them in all areas or ready to confront you in all areas because she confronted you in others. You speak for yourself and Erica. I am only speaking for myself. Sometimes I am very open and honest with my family on how I feel about certain things. In other areas I continue to just agree even if I dont, and perhaps there are even more areas where I am agreeing and believe I agree, but then as I grow more as a person I realize that believing what they say (agreeing) is a hindrance. Perhaps you feel calling a child defiant a good thing. Perhaps you see it as acceptable because your child as an adult verbally agrees with you and so does the person she chose as SO. Perhaps I have read too much on psychology and perhaps I play it too safe with my own children. Personally I would be concerned if my children used terms like that to define themselves. Perhaps my children will grow up to sing my praises to me but not really like what I have done for them. Perhaps the same is true for Erica. I just personally dont feel comfortable with taking your word for it when it comes to another person. I believe you know Erica better then me, but I don't believe you know Erica better then Erica. Sorry







I do believe you know YOURSELF better then anyone else though, so I believe that all you have done is with best intents and all that you believe about your daughter is true to you.

I don't know how to put it any clearer--this isn't my description of Erica. This is how she views herself. And in her own words (spoken this morning as she dropped off her dd on her way to work): "He11 no. I take it as a compliment. Being strong willed and stubborn has been an asset as an adult. Those are traits that have me a strong, independent woman. I'm proud of them." What you don't understand or comprehend is that Erica wouldn't hesitate to tell me differently if she felt differently. Her feelings and emotions have always been heard and validated. Other than Erica becoming a member and telling you herself, I don't know what else I can say.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I understand that. I would cry if my child told me they though defiance was part of their personality. Im not speaking of you and Erica. I am speaking of me. You know yourself better then anyone else. You know Erica better then I do. But you do not know Erica better then Erica. You know Erica is outspoken and you know everything Erica has ever told you. My mom would tell you the same about me. I am not comparing us, as Ive said it sound like your relationship is very different. I am only saying that My mom is my mom, you are you, I am me, and Erica is Erica. As long as Erica continues to agree with you on this subject, or at least say she does, then you can feel justified. I personally just could not feel comfortable with that. If it were me, which its not, I would get my child out of that "role". children tend to accept roles and bring them with them to adulthood. So what you say does not surprise me and what Erica has told you may be very true to her. I wouldn't brag about it though, Id get my child out of that role. but thats just *me*. you feel comfortable with it and so you feel comfortable thinking and describing her as the defiant contrary strong willed child.

No, it not that I'm comfortable thinking and describing her as the defiant contrary strong willed child. That would be like being comfortable with saying that the sky is blue. It is what it is regardless of any level of comfort.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

and you are comfortable with it because you agree with those terms. To you its like someone saying the sky is blue. For me, I would cry if my children viewed themselves that way, because that is not what I am trying to nurture in my chilren. To each their own. To you, thats just the way it is. To me, calling my child defiant would not equate to calling the sky blue. To me, it would be like saying "The sky is a storm" instead of looking at it as the sky sometimes providing rain that we could not survive without.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

thanks for the time calm. I like the way CL works in my family. I don't think its the only family dynamic that is workable. I really liked your posts at the end


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
Other than Erica becoming a member and telling you herself, I don't know what else I can say.

But I would have told you those same things myself 5 years ago! (heck, even 2 years ago) It didn't mean it was healthy for me to see myself that way!! You think it is healthy for Erica to use those words to describe herself. THAT IS FINE!! I RESPECT THAT!! All I am saying is that *I* would not think it was healthy if *MY* kids described themselves that way. It would break my heart. I won't tell them that, because I don't want to them to not feel like they could tell me that, but I will do what I can not to lock them into roles such as "the easy one" or "the defiant one" or "the princess" or "the smart one" etc. I will try to nourish ALL their traits in a POSITIVE way. You think defiant is a positive trait.

Defiance: Intentionally contemptuous behavior or attitude; readiness to contend or resist.

Defiant sounds to me like someone who looks to go against the grain for the sake of it, which is how you describe Erica, but it *may* be because she is playing out the role expected of her. I'm not saying it *is* but I'm saying with anyone who acts in defiance who is described by themselves and family and friends as defiant *may* be playing out a role and so I don't want to put my own children in a situation where that could be the case. Some definitions of defiant also use words like "hostile" its just not how I would choose to describe any child of mine. I would look at how they are very comfortable with standing up for what they believe in no matter who they are standing up against. I just wouldn't choose the word defiant. I wouldn't feel comfortable locking my child into a role. And I was just like Erica from what you have described so far (even if you weren't just like my mom) but the fact was that at one time I would have used those same negative terms to describe myself, but now I see how limiting that was in my life and how it wasn't enabling me to be my best. With my children I look at what gifts they are learning how to use. So really I'm not different then you in that sense. You worked backwards. You went from defiant - how can we make defiant work. I look at it a gift that is being expressed as defiance because the skill hasn't been learned yet. I don't think of my children in what I think are negative terms. You dont think defiant is negative, so we are the same in that we both wouldnt think of our children in negative terms. I would probably say that assertiveness is their strong point, and look for ways to encourage a healthy assertiveness, instead of oh they are just being them, my defiant child. Because yes, they are them, but they are not "the defiant one" they are not "the one no one understand" they are not "the contrary one".

Have you ever done "the work" by Byron Katie?


----------



## sewchris2642

Defiance: Intentionally contemptuous behavior or attitude; readiness to contend or resist. (Super Glue Mommy, post # 877)

No, Erica was not "the defiant one". She was and is Erica. Defiant described her personality and behavior. Once I realized that, I could help her learn to control it. A problem needs to be defined before it can be dealt with. Once I defined the problem/situation, I could change how I reacted to it and help her to deal with it. The solution was to have clear, defined rules of behavior and never, ever get into a debate/arguement with her. Just continue to state the rules. The rules gave her a safe wall to push against.

But I will end this now as it is clear that we are at an impasse with this.


----------



## sewchris2642

Can you be clearer about what you mean by The Work by Byron Katie? I read her website but don't understand the context.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I think you did/are doing what you believe is best for Erica. And I am doing what I believe is best for my children.







I am glad to hear that never getting into "debate" with Erica was useful for you and her and that everyone else in her life also avoided debate with her. Maybe thats where her and I we different. If my mom put up what she thought was a safe wall for me to push against, I was looking for a way to knock the wall down with a crane lol. Demolition time! She thought my behavior defiant, and so I acted out accordingly.

I didn't understand the work at first either. I think I wasnt ready to accept it when I first started looking into it. It's been very helpful to me though.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Can you be clearer about what you mean by The Work by Byron Katie? I read her website but don't understand the context.
*Loving What Is* is her book that explains The Work. It is about awakening, in a nutshell. I don't think it is that we don't accept it, it really can be a bit confusing at first.

Imagine waking up one day with absolutely no memory. Another way of putting it is, imagine if you were a newborn baby. It isn't easy to remove absolutely everything you know but it is a process of discovery you imagine. You look at a cockroach running by and you have no word for it, no concept, no frame of reference. You just see a small brown thing scuttering along the floor. It means nothing. You have no distaste, no fear, because you have no experience or memory of "cockroach".

You look around the room and see stuff. A hair brush catches your eye. You pick it up. You feel the shape, the different parts, you have no idea what it does, what it is. It means as much to you as the cockroach does. A purple one eyed monster with green spots may as well walk in and make you toast, it all means the same to you, for without memory, there is nothing to refer to. We build our experience from that point. We start to build memories and memory triggers based on what happens from this moment forward.

This is called, in certain circles, enlightenment. Of course, enlightenment is much more, it is having no "opinion" but still with memory intact. It is feeling joy where another feels pain, as one is above concepts and duality. Enlightenment is so much more, but it must contain this element. This element of innocence, for want of a better word. What The Work does is strip away all you _believe_. For our beliefs hold us back. You take a situation and you ask certain questions of it, stripping it down to its bare bones and oftentimes when I work this with people, they can have such a shock of an AHA! moment, it changes their life forever. Other times, it just helps. But it rarely does nothing.

I can help you with one to get you started if you like. Online is not very easy, as it is a process that ordinarily happens in the moment, not in the days I've taken with some on forums to go through each question, come back to the computer, answer, come back, etc. Chat windows are better than forums. But I can write an example of one that I've done. First, the questions you ask are:

Is this true?
Can you absolutely know that this is true?
How do you react, what happens, when you believe that thought?
Who would you be without the thought?
- The Turnaround
- Embracing Reality

You fill in a form, judging the situation and saying how you think and feel about it. There are specific ones and there are several but I'll just do one of them.

I am angry at Steve because he doesn't listen to me, he should pay more attention. I never want to experience him doing this to me again.
*He doesn't listen to you; it that true?*
Yes.
*Can you absolutely know that is true? Can you be in his head, can you bet your life and the life of your kids on that being true?*
Well, no.
*He doesn't listen to you, is that true?*
No.
*How do you react when you think the thought "He doesn't listen to me"?*
I feel disappointed; so unloved. Like I'm nothing, like I'm all alone. I feel as though what I have to say is worthless, I feel angry and frustrated.
*Who would you be without the thought, he doesn't listen to me?*
I would be free. I would love Steve more. I would feel loved.
*Steve should pay more attention to you. Is this true?*
It feels true.
*Can you absolutely know this is true, that the world would be a better place if he paid more attention to you? Can you know for sure what he SHOULD do?*
No.
*How do you react when you think that thought?*
I get angry. I feel the same way I do about him not listening.
*That is a lot of negative feeling when you believe something that isn't even true.*
Yes (swallows back tears)
*Our pain is based in believing something that argues with reality. Reality, what IS, is always kinder than our thoughts about it. Our story starts to play in our heads and we manipulate reality, we create, and all too often we create hell, when we can create heaven. What is real? What is true? What do we ever know for sure? Right now, what is real?*
This chair is brown. I hear birds outside. I hear a plane flying over head. I see two people arguing over there.
*That is the power of now. That is all that is real. The rest is an illusion. Made up. fabricated in your head. When you feel pain, ask yourself what is real, and how much of that pain we are creating with our thoughts. Victims of rape, war, torture, they have all done the work, and found a place where they realised what happened to them lasted a short few moments, but they hurt themselves with the thought of it over and over for years.*
_*The turnaround:*_
*Steve doesn't listen to me. Turn it around, find one that fits better than this.*
I don't listen to Steve.
*How does that feel? Could you be so busy in your own head, you are tuning him out?*
Yes.
*Another one?*
I don't listen to me.
**smiles**
*wipes tear*
*Steve should pay more attention to me. Turn it around.*
Steve shouldn't pay more attention to me.
*Let's embrace our reality; let's move past fear. You said you never want to experience Steve doing these things. What are you willing to do now?*
I am willing to experience Steve not listening to me. I am willing to experience Steve not paying enough attention to me.
*Can we embrace it?*
I _look forward_ to experiencing Steve not listening to me. I look forward to experiencing Steve not paying enough attention to me.
*********************************
That's a really simple one. And only doing the process yourself can you find the layers lift. Freeing yourself from the bonds of belief and limited thoughts is something many religions dedicate years of meditation to. Byron Katie has managed to make it accessible in a very simple way. You can take this as deep as you choose, peeling layers off your preconceived ideas, learning just how much you have created your reality, and how much pain has actually been all made up. We're still playing pretend, just like children, which some people say is the reason we are here, in life. But the game can become painful, and we can get trapped in our stories. Getting back to what is real, that's when you can change the story again, and make it more fun.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

For me I was really not able to accept it. Like things with my husband, I didnt want to figure out what I could do to make things better. It was easier to just call him a jerk... thats what I meant by that. I didn't want to ask if I was opposing him - I was adamant that HE was oppositional. I had a revelation when my kids got into something one day though - and I realized that the person I should have been mad at was myself (where I left something, the amount of time I wasn't closely interacting with them, all the while knowing they could get into this) etc


----------



## sewchris2642

I get that. What I don't understand is is why SGM would post that website to me when the website is saying the same thing (basicly that I can't change Erica but I can change the way I react/interact/etc with her) that I was posting to her. I understand that I am the only one I can change or control. I can change my attitude, I can change the way I react, I can change the way I think. When I did that, I could teach Erica the tools she needed to deal/cope/interact with the world successfully and to control herself.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I think you did/are doing what you believe is best for Erica. And I am doing what I believe is best for my children.







I am glad to hear that never getting into "debate" with Erica was useful for you and her and that everyone else in her life also avoided debate with her. Maybe thats where her and I we different. If my mom put up what she thought was a safe wall for me to push against, I was looking for a way to knock the wall down with a crane lol. Demolition time! She thought my behavior defiant, and so I acted out accordingly.

I didn't understand the work at first either. I think I wasnt ready to accept it when I first started looking into it. It's been very helpful to me though.

It seems I do need to clear something up. When I post that I didn't get into a debate with Erica, I mean that I stated my position calmly and mater-of-factly and didn't move from that position in the face of her temper tantrum. She pushed against my position and I didn't budge. Example:

Erica wanted the dining room chair that her sister was sitting in so she pushed her out of the chair. That is not allowed. I state the rule, point out the other 5 chairs that she could sit in. She throws a fit because she doesn't want the other 5 chairs; she wants the one she can't have. I restate the rule. She still wants Joy's chair. She still continued to push Joy out of the chair. In consequence, she was sent to her room until she could control herself, however long that took. There was no set time. She determined how long that was. When she came out, she would insist again that she wanted Joy's chair. I stated the rule. She threw a fit and went back to her room. In the beginning this could go on all afternoon. She was/is a very persistent person. Eventually, she learned to control her temper when she didn't get her way. Once she learned that we could teach her how to negotiate to get what she wanted (she could ask Joy calmly with out losing her temper if she would switch chairs so Erica could have that chair which Joy usually would do. Joy didn't care which chair she sat on. But she wasn't going to be bullied out of it either) or learn to accept 2nd choice (another chair). If this happened late in the afternoon, Erica would usually fall asleep on her bed the first time she went there. The whole episode was because she needed a nap and instead of taking one, picked a fight with her sister so that she would get sent to her room. All because she didn't want to admit that she needed a nap. When she woke up, she would come out and sit in another chair on her own.


----------



## savithny

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
SGM, I keep meaning to say this, but you're sig really affected me when you changed it recently. I really like it. I've quoted it several times over the last couple of weeks.











Interesting, if it boils down to this. I do have _faith_ that a child is capable of being rational. I don't think adults _or_ children can be rational all the time. I also do not think children should be rational at tender ages much at all, which was my point early in the thread and I even mention it in the OP.

I read the CL mama's challenges in the yahoogroup. And they often say things like "a young child has no concept of "fair"". Some of them are following CL very closely and still come across "regular" child behaviour, and often irrational stuff. Unreasonable situations. Because they're dealing with children. Children do weird stuff







, they don't follow a linear time line nor do they care much for logic. I do see rational behaviour from kids but I also see the opposite. I don't know where that leaves me on the 2 step breakdown.

My children choose reason and they choose irrational. They choose autonomy and they choose to curl in my lap and beg me to take away their decisions. I see the way you worded that was: _capable_ of being (doing) rational. Being capable of it and actually doing rational in every scenario are not the same thing.

I've used this example before in discussions of rationality in children.

I think adults discussing CL seem to have definitions of "rational" that are, well, "rational" to an adult. But I also believe that children are capable of rationality only within their developmental frame, and that by claiming that "all people, including children are rational" something is being missed.

My child can make a decision that is perfectly rational *within his world construct.* But it is based on what *to him* is the perfectly rational belief that Thomas the Tank engine is a real being and Sodor is a real place. He can make a decision that is internally rational based on his understanding of gravity, or of conservation of volume. Within his mind, it makes sense. And it is perfectly developmentally appropriate.

Yet in the wider world, I, as a grownup, know that his "rational" desire (*internally* rational to his world) is *not* rational in the context of the greater world, and what he wants is impossible or even unsafe.

I also had the experience of seeing how different the schedules of different children can be at being able to make certain logical leaps. My son had great difficulties in holding two potential actions in his head at once, comparing, and seeing if they were or were not compatible. Like someone else above, he'd demand two things that literally *could not* be done. "I don't want to leave the park! I want to eat ice cream!" He was not developmentally able, under stress, to be rational and to reason out that if he wanted ice cream, we had to leave the park to get it. This was not due to previous coercion, it was due to him not yet being able to grasp an "if-then" situation.

So the argument of rationality always concerns me, when it does not seem to take normal psychological/intellectual/emotional developmental stages into consideration...


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

You've been very clear Chris. No need to clear anything up.


----------



## sewchris2642

Oh, good. I was afraid that I gave the impression that by not arguing with Erica it meant that she always got her way. Which is not the case.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Definitely did not sound that way at all


----------



## GoBecGo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Is this true?
Can you absolutely know that this is true?
How do you react, what happens, when you believe that thought?
Who would you be without the thought?
- The Turnaround
- Embracing Reality

You fill in a form, judging the situation and saying how you think and feel about it. There are specific ones and there are several but I'll just do one of them.

I am angry at Steve because he doesn't listen to me, he should pay more attention. I never want to experience him doing this to me again.
*He doesn't listen to you; it that true?*
Yes.
*Can you absolutely know that is true? Can you be in his head, can you bet your life and the life of your kids on that being true?*
Well, no.
*He doesn't listen to you, is that true?*
No.
*How do you react when you think the thought "He doesn't listen to me"?*
I feel disappointed; so unloved. Like I'm nothing, like I'm all alone. I feel as though what I have to say is worthless, I feel angry and frustrated.
*Who would you be without the thought, he doesn't listen to me?*
I would be free. I would love Steve more. I would feel loved.
*Steve should pay more attention to you. Is this true?*
It feels true.
*Can you absolutely know this is true, that the world would be a better place if he paid more attention to you? Can you know for sure what he SHOULD do?*
No.
*How do you react when you think that thought?*
I get angry. I feel the same way I do about him not listening.
*That is a lot of negative feeling when you believe something that isn't even true.*
Yes (swallows back tears)
*Our pain is based in believing something that argues with reality. Reality, what IS, is always kinder than our thoughts about it. Our story starts to play in our heads and we manipulate reality, we create, and all too often we create hell, when we can create heaven. What is real? What is true? What do we ever know for sure? Right now, what is real?*
This chair is brown. I hear birds outside. I hear a plane flying over head. I see two people arguing over there.
*That is the power of now. That is all that is real. The rest is an illusion. Made up. fabricated in your head. When you feel pain, ask yourself what is real, and how much of that pain we are creating with our thoughts. Victims of rape, war, torture, they have all done the work, and found a place where they realised what happened to them lasted a short few moments, but they hurt themselves with the thought of it over and over for years.*
_*The turnaround:*_
*Steve doesn't listen to me. Turn it around, find one that fits better than this.*
I don't listen to Steve.
*How does that feel? Could you be so busy in your own head, you are tuning him out?*
Yes.
*Another one?*
I don't listen to me.
**smiles**
*wipes tear*
*Steve should pay more attention to me. Turn it around.*
Steve shouldn't pay more attention to me.
*Let's embrace our reality; let's move past fear. You said you never want to experience Steve doing these things. What are you willing to do now?*
I am willing to experience Steve not listening to me. I am willing to experience Steve not paying enough attention to me.
*Can we embrace it?*
I _look forward_ to experiencing Steve not listening to me. I look forward to experiencing Steve not paying enough attention to me.
*********************************
That's a really simple one. And only doing the process yourself can you find the layers lift. Freeing yourself from the bonds of belief and limited thoughts is something many religions dedicate years of meditation to. Byron Katie has managed to make it accessible in a very simple way. You can take this as deep as you choose, peeling layers off your preconceived ideas, learning just how much you have created your reality, and how much pain has actually been all made up. We're still playing pretend, just like children, which some people say is the reason we are here, in life. But the game can become painful, and we can get trapped in our stories. Getting back to what is real, that's when you can change the story again, and make it more fun.

I have issue with this. What if you begin with "Steve is violent and hits me" - the whole thing is entirely sinister. I do think we should take personal responsibility for what is happening in our lives, and be rational about what is actually happening and not just get embroiled in our own perceptions and responses, but the implication that one should be enlightened into feeling negative things positively seems dangerous to me. I have processed the bad things i _cannot change_ into positives. I have to come to a place where i acknowledge enough good has come from my being abused as a child that i would not go back and change it if i had that power. However, i absolutely do NOT allow my abuser to abuse me still.

To me change is often a necessary part of the accepting of reality. Just as you can say "Steve does not listen to me" when it is not true, saying "I look forward to Steve not listening to me" won't make it true either.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoBecGo* 
I have issue with this. What if you begin with "Steve is violent and hits me" - the whole thing is entirely sinister. I do think we should take personal responsibility for what is happening in our lives, and be rational about what is actually happening and not just get embroiled in our own perceptions and responses, but the implication that one should be enlightened into feeling negative things positively seems dangerous to me. I have processed the bad things i _cannot change_ into positives. I have to come to a place where i acknowledge enough good has come from my being abused as a child that i would not go back and change it if i had that power. However, i absolutely do NOT allow my abuser to abuse me still.

To me change is often a necessary part of the accepting of reality. Just as you can say "Steve does not listen to me" when it is not true, saying "I look forward to Steve not listening to me" won't make it true either.

I had the same thoughts when reading that.

Also, this "I look forward to Steve not listening to me" makes no sense to me at all. I can embrace and accept my dp not meeting every one of my needs (and work on meeting those needs on my own--I've been with my partner since I was 17, and navigated my own way through that sort of relationship "work" in my early 20s, well before having my first child)--but why do would I look forward to not being heard?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

it doesn mean you look forward to steve not listening to you, its asking IF that could be true. (for some it can be, for some its not and another turn around might be true) On a deeper level, some people may not realize that they look forwrd to steve not listening to them, but yet they do get some kind fo satisfaction in him not listening (gives them an opportunity to vent... an emotional outlet... something safe to vent about... could be bigger issues. This was why I had a hard time "accepting" this idea at first too.

for "steve if violent and hits me" you could ask if you allow steve to be violent and hit you. is it possible that you really COULD end the relationship. not that it is your fault that steve hits, but that you can find happiness in realizing that YES you CAN leave him.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

So the argument of rationality always concerns me, when it does not seem to take normal psychological/intellectual/emotional developmental stages into consideration...
In my opinion, a lot of CL does not take into account the developmental stages of a child. I have asked and asked, to be sure I'm not just assuming so I certainly cannot be accused of that. But it is true, they actually believe this stuff. They not only believe it, it is written on the guidelines and I take much issue with that for the sake of the children but that just angers people and they ignore me, apparently. Isn't that great? I can't get anything done with this, they see kids in a certain way and that's that.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

As a CL parent, I do believe in the developmental process. I think nothing is set in stone, personalities take a toll, some children are slower in some areas of development and faster in other areas. A lot of things to take into consideration. I don't overwhelm my children with questions. I let them follow my lead for as long as they choose to, then when they choose to start their own path, I work with them. I agree that we see children in a different way though.


----------



## Calm

It's taking me some time to respond at the moment as life is rather full. So I've put a lot of info in this post due to that. sorry for the length, I hope someone somewhere reads it.









Quote:

I have issue with this. What if you begin with "Steve is violent and hits me" - the whole thing is entirely sinister. I do think we should take personal responsibility for what is happening in our lives, and be rational about what is actually happening and not just get embroiled in our own perceptions and responses, but the implication that one should be enlightened into feeling negative things positively seems dangerous to me. I have processed the bad things i cannot change into positives. I have to come to a place where i acknowledge enough good has come from my being abused as a child that i would not go back and change it if i had that power. However, i absolutely do NOT allow my abuser to abuse me still.
This is a FAQ of The Work. I had the same question, amongst many others. I ask lots of questions before I embrace something. Maybe that's been noticed







.

Sometimes, the answer is "Yes, that is true." But we really need to look at it and see that most of the time we believe something because it suits the situation, and we base our whole stories around it. And we suffer. Things such as "Steve hit me", well, that's going to be _yes, that is true_. However, I wouldn't want to do the work on the fact that he hit me first, but instead on why I am still with him, or why I keep hurting myself with the thought.

It is a choice. Stay with him and stop hitting myself over and over (in my thoughts), or leave. If those things are too hard to do, I would do the Work on them. To do the Work on staying with a man that hits me, then I'd start with "Steve hits me", as this will lead me to not abusing myself, and only being abused by Steve (lousy choice, I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just being real). His abuse may be ten minutes of my day but I may repeat that abuse mentally for 10 hours a day, or live in fear of it 24 hours a day.

If I wanted to leave but felt I couldn't, I'd do the work on "I can't leave Steve because....(insert reasons)" and deal with the reality of that. Perhaps I am telling myself a bunch of stories that keep me with him, and removing those stories reveals the bare naked truth that allows me to leave, or to realise that I have chosen to stay for my own reasons.

One thing is certain, trying to change him is not the answer. That is pointless, and it is also none of my business (trying to change him is not my place or business; yes it is my business that I've been hit, just don't confused the two).

Scale that back to "Steve doesn't listen" and it is the same thing. I can't go around thinking I can change other people. That's arrogance of the highest order. "I wish you would just..." or "If only Peggie would XYZ then my life would be ABC". The only person I can change is me. Just because we aren't dealing with violence doesn't mean suddenly we _can_ change Steve now. We are faced with the same choices - how we feel about it, why we feel we must get more from Steve when another might be content with what he gives, why we are staying with him... etc.

To analyse the situation effectively, we must remove the story, the parts that are not real so we can get to reality, for reality is always kinder than our thoughts about it. From that place, we make choices.

We don't suddenly go mentally blank and do nothing with our lives. This is a very common misconception about The Work and enlightenment too. We still make decisions, choices, live life, laugh and cry, remove things from our lives that hold us back, and discuss in our relationships things that can help us both grow. Acceptance has a very negative connotation for some people because they are so used to bashing against everything else trying to organise the planet to suit them just so, instead of working from within themselves.

It is true we can take personal responsibility for our lives. But totally untrue that we can take responsibility for the lives of others. For the example of Steve not listening, it is, to be blunt, none of your business what he does. You have to figure out who's business you are in: your business, someone else's business, or "Gods" business (however you define that).

It isn't viewing negative things positively. It is seeing them as they are. I ask if it is true, and it either is or isn't. I ask how I feel about it, and who I would be without the thoughts I create around the reality. This is to show how much suffering _my thoughts_ are bringing me. Invariably, I am more at peace if I stop insisting reality is something other than what it is.

This is always a harsh example and you either click and get it, or it irritates or confuses even further... Tibetan Buddhists were ousted from Tibet when the Chinese came and took over. Many Buddhists were imprisoned and tortured. Buddhist philosophy had taught them how to live in the now, the truth of how life is an illusion. They have told their stories, and they did not suffer between torturings. Living "now", most of the time they were happy and free of the pain of suffering, for suffering is mostly in our heads.

There were a very select few, maybe only one or two, that actually did not suffer DURING the tortures. Some kind of transcendence that is irrelevant to The Work no doubt. But the way some only suffered when they were _actually_ being hurt - that is The Work at its functioning pinnacle. If they can do that, we can certainly rise above that which we endure mentally over and over in our heads. How much are you hurting yourself?

The turnaround usually freaks people out at first. I know what you're saying. Accepting that which is horrendous seems to make no sense. "I look forward to being raped again" or "I look forward to losing everything and all those I love to war again" are two pretty big ones that others have done. But unless you have BTDT, you can only judge from where you stand. Try it. A few times. It isn't about saying "that's ok", it is about removing fear.

In way, it is like forgiveness. Forgiveness is also confused by most as assuming it is saying what happened is ok. It is not condoning. It is letting go. It is releasing. Releasing is not condoning. To truly forgive is to go beyond fear and suffering over an event. If you simply cannot, will not, are terrified of it, that very thing is going to control you. Removing the fear of something doesn't mean it is going to happen to you, nor is it condoning it.

I feared snakes. I easily said, "I never want to be anywhere near a snake ever in my life no way no how no thanks seeya." I didn't do the work on snakes, I did EFT, but it resulted in the same thing: I knew I had lost my fear when I could say "I am willing to be near a snake. I look forward to being near a snake." I didn't go out and buy one, it's not like it was ever going to happen to me. It was the symbol that the fear was gone. It is mentally getting to a place where I am no longer controlled by fear. Being willing to go through anything would certainly make the slim chance I'd go through most of those fears actually more bearable if they happened. If I just say the words but still shake at the thought (of being raped, holding a snake, being in war, or all of them at once) then I'm not free of it.

I can give an example of one I have done myself about my husband, and how it effected me.
**********
J is always critical of me. (and a bunch of other things I had listed but I won't put them here, cos we'll just go through one) I never want to be on the receiving end of his criticism again.
*J is always critical, is this true?*
No.
*How does it make you feel when you think that thought?*
Not good enough. Stressed. Misunderstood.
*Who would you be without that thought that J is always critical?*
Free. Free to be who I am, to do things the way I wish to do them. Free to love him more deeply. I would love me more. I wouldn't fear when I don't do something the right way.
*Turnaround: J is always critical of me.*
I am always critical of me. I am always critical of J. Both are very very true. Not to mention, most of the time I was probably projecting that he was criticising me when he wasn't, because I was criticising me.
*Removing fear: I never want to experience J's criticism again.*
I am willing to experience J's criticism again. Only by ceasing my argument with what "should" be, ie, he should not criticise me, can I stop suffering. I look forward to it, so I can let it flow through me, and know I have let it go.
*****
I do not know if J still criticises me. I don't even know anymore if he ever did. It certainly must have felt like it because I did the Work on it. Maybe he stopped, maybe my behaviour after The Work was such that something somewhere was triggered and it stopped. Maybe he does still criticise and I accept him warts and all and it just doesn't affect me. I don't know. The important thing is, I do not suffer with this problem anymore. And it was _my_ problem, not his. He didn't suffer with it, no problem for him.









I had tried talking to him about it, I had tried arguing with him about it. I tried changing, being tidier, more "responsible", I tried rebelling completely... I tried everything, nothing worked. I still suffered this problem. Until I did The Work on it. And this has been true of most of the things I have done The Work on, when I really have let it get deep and dirty into my psyche.

Life is really very simple, Buddhism showed me that when I studied it for several years some time ago. The bird is singing; the tap is dripping; the house has clean and dirty clothes all over the place; this cup is cracked; the computer is humming; my feet feel cold.... that's real.

I should put the clothes away; I'm so sick of losing cups and plates to the baby's play; my computer is great; the bird is going to wake the baby; that stupid tap is still broken; I hate winter and the heater needs fixing... that's the part that's _not_ real. That's arguing with reality, that's judgment, opinion, suffering, that's all my story.

Just get up and put the clothes away (choice, decision), fix the darn tap and heater, stop giving the cups to the kids to play with... _whatever_, or do nothing. Doesn't matter, it's my thoughts that lead to suffering, and my _actions_ will not stop the suffering, only in so far that I will allow my _actions_ to affect my _thoughts_.

It doesn't take away my power, it just releases me. I make lists, engage in likes and dislikes for as long as I'm enjoying it, whine for as long as I feel like... but I do all this knowing that I am in control. I do anger or sadness until I don't want to do it anymore. And oddly, I still choose to do them, regularly. Crying feels good.







But now I am not bound by them as though hypnotised.

Sometimes, my story has nothing to do with reality, it is off with the pixies, daydreaming about how life should be, where I should be... suffering along merrily. Sometimes I'm peacefully thinking un-real things, that's ok too... all of it is my choice; as long as I realise that, I'm free to make a different choice.

Put simply, years of Buddhism and a lifetime of religious study didn't get me to where The Work got me almost overnight. The speed of the self realisation is incomparable.

Here is the FAQ page of The Work, although I found her book FAQs had more detail about things I had problems with.


----------



## sunnmama

A lot of that makes total sense to me, and sounds like the process I have gone through in my own head to work through relationship issues I had early in our marriage (although I had different words for my process, it is very similar....and I can definitely relate to not being bothered by something dh does/doesn't do anymore, while he likely has not changed a bit!).

But you lost me right.....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
"I look forward to being raped again"

.....here.


----------



## sacredmama

Thank you Calm. Makes me wanna go do some more of the work. Your work about your partner being critical so resonates with me.

Thanks for taking so much time to write on here, it is appreciated.


----------



## Calm

Sunnmama, it's amazing some people get there, isn't it. Try to remember it isn't inviting it into your life. I don't want to be abused any more than you do. It is about moving past fear. You don't have to look forward to it, but for me I think it is important to at least be "willing to experience...".

The things we fear are the things that hold us back. If we say, "I am willing to experience whatever happens in my life... _except_ xyz" then it's the xyz that we are going to use as our measuring stick in life. So we get specific, and say "I am willing to experience xyz" once we are in a place where we can put xyz into the rest of "life" as potential, where nothing has more priority over any other. It isn't going to change what happens to us, it just frees us so that we come out from behind the shadows. When in the middle of a negative situation, we still have a brain, that hasn't left, so we use it and deal with the good and the bad.

Everyone has their triggers, and usually those things we have already experienced are our biggest triggers. Some, like me, can say I am willing to be abused again (some childhood incidents I won't go into), some simply can't move past it. They get stuck, and even angry at the suggestion that we CAN get to that place; or angry at me for suggesting it, like I don't understand or something. "my pain is so much more dear than anyone else's". I don't know. I've just seen people move past some things that we'd ordinarily assume would cripple a person for life. If one person can do it, anyone can. It isn't easy, but it is worth it.

I've seen the same stumbling blocks with forgiveness. Saying "I forgive so and so for raping and torturing me" is just not something some are willing to do. They see it as condoning, just like they see "I am willing to experience rape and torture again" as inviting it, or as though they _liked_ it. I can't explain how forgiveness is freeing, and how moving past fear by being willing to experience life as it really is (not inviting pain of course!), but I can guarantee that it is freeing. How could it not be? People become very possessive of their suffering, of their maltreatment and pain, and actually like to hold on to it and don't realise that's what they're doing - that is true for some people. They think it has the hold on them when they have the hold on it.

I don't think I am doing this justice. But I do understand what you're saying, I think. I still struggle with it sometimes. I've done some large issues in The Work and they were very confronting and I argued with the whole premise. Only at the time I had no one to argue with because it was before I was going online so it was all in my own head which made it very easy for me to throw my hands up and walk away. And I did. For a long time.

Sacredmama, thank you.


----------



## sunnmama

I can wrap my head around "I am willing to" and "I forgive so and so for". What I don't understand is the jump from "I am willing to" to "I look forward to". I can see the value of truly being willing to experience a bad outcome (because I've struggled with anxiety, and this sort of thought process helps me live and do things like work, get pregnant, take road trips, etc.....all sorts of things that anxiety might stop me from doing if I didn't really examine and confront my mind talk).

But, even though I am willing to be in a car accident.....I do not look forward to a car accident. I just don't understand the value and relevance of that particular jump.

When it comes to less tragic outcomes, like small relationship issues, I can understand looking forward to dh, say, never cleaning up after himself (not an issue we have, but for example). I can view it as an opportunity to care for him, or be reminded of him, or laugh, or...or...or......but to look forward to a car accident that could harm my family? It seems to smack up against my humanity itself.


----------



## GoBecGo

Calm, thanks for your further explanation. I actually don't know why i'm having a problem since in many ways i'm the other side of the aim for The Work for lots of things in life. Maybe i'll type some of it out and see if i become enlightened as to my own reasons for resistance. It is definitely "look forward to" that i take issue/have most troubles with.

For example, i was sexually abused as a child. I forgive my abuser. He is my brother. He too was sexually abused by an adult and he began abusing me as a result. Pain trickles down, i have seen this in many other places, and i accept that it's an aspect of humanity that is normal. Bullied children grow up and bully their families, those kids bully smaller kids at school, those kids bully littler siblings at home - it's not 100% the case, but it's common enough for me to be able to see the whole cycle of abuse and my place in it is merely circumstantial, not personal. He did not abuse _me_ specifically, he abused the closest person to him who was accessible - i'm his younger sibling, i'm confident if i'd been the older sibling it wouldn't have been me. I feel very like a struck-by-lightening person might - the "blame", if there needs to be any, lies so far back along a chain of now-mostly-dead abusers through generations of people it's not worth assigning. This pain is only "mine" if i choose to pick it up and run with it, and i don't. I'm not interested. It is their pain if they want it, but i don't want it, and it's nothing to do with me. I often have a hard time trying to explain to people that however awful it might SOUND, i only had one childhood and since i never experienced THEIR idea of a "good" or "perfect" childhood i have no self-pity about having missed out. I had a fine childhood, it was far later i found out the elements that at the time were uncomfortable or confusing or very very occasionally unpleasant were considered the height of revolting to most of the rest of society. And in fact, a bit of an epiphany for me was realising how much impact that had - far more than being abused, realising how the rest of society feels about child abuse and incest can really leave one feeling revolting and very "poor me" about the whole thing. So it is that i have completely accepted that it happened, how much relevance it happening to me has to my Self (none) and what i can do about it now (nothing, and nothing needs to be done). I don't fear i happening again because it cannot, because i'm not a child anymore, but if it did i suppose i would cope with it, since i have and do already.

But i cannot convince myself that i could ever embrace it happening again. I don't go through life anticipating that i will be victimised, but equally i DO keep my eyes wide open and watch out for signs that it could happen. Though it is perfectly possible, i know, to overcome the hangover of sexual abuse (i was also raped when i was 14 by a boyfriend) it is not no work, effortless. In the scenarios i hae been in where i was raped i would NOT be raped again, i would defend myself more effectively. That's not to say i blame myself or my behaviour for the rapes or abuse in m past, i don't at all, but having been through it once i can see how many things i could have done to prevent it - a victim is almost always complicit in their victimisation and i was no exception. At this point in time i would happily be raped to avoid my DD being raped or either of us being killed. Ideologically i would accept rape as a bargain against the death of me or someone i loved, but i do no REALLY think this is a bargain that is made. I can see that if the choice was watch DD be raped or be raped myself i WOULD look forward to being raped, but that is just not reality. Someone who threatens to kill me either plans to or not and accepting rape will not make any difference to that. Likewise a rapist's word is hardly his bond - he might easily rape me and THEN DD - i would rather not accept that risk.

So, what has all this typing done for me...? I'm not sure. I definitely understand the concept that overcoming fear is freeing, and having been raped by a boyfriend i did have to accept that *might* happen again with every boyfriend thereafter. Obviously it isn't likely, but it's possible. And i embrace that in the sense that i still had boyfriends, and have a very happy relationship right now with my Dear Dear DP. But i do not "look forward" to him raping me. I don't believe that doing so would make it more likely, it doesn't increase my fear factor considering it. I think the only context i can put it where it's kind of true (in a twisted way) is the same as when i feel threatened by the way someone is acting when i have DD with me. I look at whoever it is and i think "just try something, just try it and find out how dangerous it is to attack a lioness when her cub is with her" because i feel powerful and strong in response to fear nowadays. I suppose i could "look foward" to being raped in the context of flexing the defensive muscles i only found during recovery. But in the simple sense of eager anticipation? I don't look forward to suffering, however brief.


----------



## spottiew

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoBecGo* 
I have issue with this. What if you begin with "Steve is violent and hits me" - the whole thing is entirely sinister. I do think we should take personal responsibility for what is happening in our lives, and be rational about what is actually happening and not just get embroiled in our own perceptions and responses, but the implication that one should be enlightened into feeling negative things positively seems dangerous to me. I have processed the bad things i _cannot change_ into positives. I have to come to a place where i acknowledge enough good has come from my being abused as a child that i would not go back and change it if i had that power. However, i absolutely do NOT allow my abuser to abuse me still.

To me change is often a necessary part of the accepting of reality. Just as you can say "Steve does not listen to me" when it is not true, saying "I look forward to Steve not listening to me" won't make it true either.

and what if steve really doesn't listen, and you both know it? even if you have to live and accept it, you can still not like it.


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy*
I agree that we see children in a different way though.

I've wondered what it might be that is the difference. Perhaps I see _potential_ in children to do a certain thing where some CLers (not saying you) see it as a _given_. For instance, you mentioned rational behaviour was one of the two things a CL parent would need to believe children possess. I see rational behaviour as possible and potential behaviour in kids and I see it expressed often in my own children. I do not see it as a given, however. I do not _expect_ them to be one thing or another.

Perhaps this is why I accept all their behaviour as normal childhood behaviour, not something in need of "fixing" or finding underlying needs. I can see how a parent who doesn't see it as normal behaviour would be always on the look out for underlying needs.

By the same token, normal childhood behaviour isn't always safe or appropriate in every given environment or situation. I believe in creating the best environment so there would be no such thing as unsafe or inappropriate behaviour - but I also find the ideal environment isn't always at my fingertips, nor the fingertips of other parents.


----------



## Dar

I believe that children act rationally and that apparent irrationality is a result of coercion or lack of knowledge. For me, calling my child's desires irrational without understanding why would be dismissive of them. If there's no reason behind what my child is doing or wanting, there's no reason for me to engage with her at all and help her - it would be pointless to do so, in fact.

I don't think it's about fixing, but about understanding and supporting my kid.

I guess I don't see how the other way would work within a CL-type framework. Let's say, for example, you've all just finished eating lunch and your child asks for a bowl of oatmeal. You don't especially feel like cooking again and he ate a big lunch so you believe he isn't really hungry, so you decide his request is irrational (and normal) and then what? No oatmeal?

It makes more sense to me to figure that a request for oatmeal is not coming from out of the blue somehow and that there is a rational reason behind it, and to talk more about it and figure out a solution. Anyway, that's what I do.


----------



## Calm

This post was amazing:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoBecGo* 
Calm, thanks for your further explanation. I actually don't know why i'm having a problem since in many ways i'm the other side of the aim for The Work for lots of things in life. Maybe i'll type some of it out and see if i become enlightened as to my own reasons for resistance. It is definitely "look forward to" that i take issue/have most troubles with.

For example, i was sexually abused as a child. I forgive my abuser. He is my brother. He too was sexually abused by an adult and he began abusing me as a result. Pain trickles down, i have seen this in many other places, and i accept that it's an aspect of humanity that is normal. Bullied children grow up and bully their families, those kids bully smaller kids at school, those kids bully littler siblings at home - it's not 100% the case, but it's common enough for me to be able to see the whole cycle of abuse and my place in it is merely circumstantial, not personal. He did not abuse _me_ specifically, he abused the closest person to him who was accessible - i'm his younger sibling, i'm confident if i'd been the older sibling it wouldn't have been me. I feel very like a struck-by-lightening person might - the "blame", if there needs to be any, lies so far back along a chain of now-mostly-dead abusers through generations of people it's not worth assigning. This pain is only "mine" if i choose to pick it up and run with it, and i don't. I'm not interested. It is their pain if they want it, but i don't want it, and it's nothing to do with me. I often have a hard time trying to explain to people that however awful it might SOUND, i only had one childhood and since i never experienced THEIR idea of a "good" or "perfect" childhood i have no self-pity about having missed out. I had a fine childhood, it was far later i found out the elements that at the time were uncomfortable or confusing or very very occasionally unpleasant were considered the height of revolting to most of the rest of society. *And in fact, a bit of an epiphany for me was realising how much impact that had - far more than being abused, realising how the rest of society feels about child abuse and incest can really leave one feeling revolting and very "poor me" about the whole thing.* So it is that i have completely accepted that it happened, how much relevance it happening to me has to my Self (none) and what i can do about it now (nothing, and nothing needs to be done). I don't fear i happening again because it cannot, because i'm not a child anymore, but if it did i suppose i would cope with it, since i have and do already.

But i cannot convince myself that i could ever embrace it happening again. I don't go through life anticipating that i will be victimised, but equally i DO keep my eyes wide open and watch out for signs that it could happen. Though it is perfectly possible, i know, to overcome the hangover of sexual abuse (i was also raped when i was 14 by a boyfriend) it is not no work, effortless. In the scenarios i hae been in where i was raped i would NOT be raped again, i would defend myself more effectively. That's not to say i blame myself or my behaviour for the rapes or abuse in m past, i don't at all, but having been through it once i can see how many things i could have done to prevent it - a victim is almost always complicit in their victimisation and i was no exception. At this point in time i would happily be raped to avoid my DD being raped or either of us being killed. Ideologically i would accept rape as a bargain against the death of me or someone i loved, but i do no REALLY think this is a bargain that is made. I can see that if the choice was watch DD be raped or be raped myself i WOULD look forward to being raped, but that is just not reality. Someone who threatens to kill me either plans to or not and accepting rape will not make any difference to that. Likewise a rapist's word is hardly his bond - he might easily rape me and THEN DD - i would rather not accept that risk.

So, what has all this typing done for me...? I'm not sure. I definitely understand the concept that overcoming fear is freeing, and having been raped by a boyfriend i did have to accept that *might* happen again with every boyfriend thereafter. Obviously it isn't likely, but it's possible. And i embrace that in the sense that i still had boyfriends, and have a very happy relationship right now with my Dear Dear DP. But i do not "look forward" to him raping me. I don't believe that doing so would make it more likely, it doesn't increase my fear factor considering it. I think the only context i can put it where it's kind of true (in a twisted way) is the same as when i feel threatened by the way someone is acting when i have DD with me. I look at whoever it is and i think "just try something, just try it and find out how dangerous it is to attack a lioness when her cub is with her" because i feel powerful and strong in response to fear nowadays. I suppose i could "look foward" to being raped in the context of flexing the defensive muscles i only found during recovery. But in the simple sense of eager anticipation? I don't look forward to suffering, however brief.

What you said in there reminds me very much of something I always find hard to put into words, but I'll try. When I've tried to explain to others how reality just "is", it is our judgment that makes it something good or bad, they invariably mention some horrific thing children go through and say "how can that be anything other than bad?". Much like the seatbelt example for "there is no such thing as must", we go straight for the jugular and see how the responder copes.









Obviously, it is almost impossible to even try to discuss this with someone who hasn't at least a basic foundation on dichotomy, duality, judgment and so on from a philosophy stand point. I don't enter into it at all without that foundation because it always ends up them thinking I think a little girl being gang raped is a great idea.







But your example there is very similar, the bolded part in particular.

Sex between siblings or family in general is not seen as all that bad in some small obscure cultures. The guilt and shame and confusion just doesn't exist in the way it does in our culture if the same issue crops up, and we even have a word that carries much negativity with it to describe it: incest.

Also, in other cultures, sex is just done, no big deal. When they feel like it, they just do it, regardless of what kids or family are around, much like other animals do really. They live naked most of the time, there is no body shame, no sexual shame... etc. "White man" comes along and tells them they should feel shame (because WE do, so everyone should, eh?). Yet that same white man has a culture riddled with sex crimes and psychotherapy because so few people can function healthfully anymore. We start to panic at the thought that a child might see us having sex, or even playfully being with our partner when it isn't the act that is harmful, but the thoughts we give our children about the acts.

What is the problem here, the public nakedness and sex, or the _judgment_ of it? The incest, or the _thoughts_ we grow to have about incest? They are triggering subjects for some people, so before you knee jerk a response about how disgusting it all is, just behave a little like a philosopher for a minute and remove your own personal opinion, or preconceived ideas and just toy with the ideas for a while.

This kind of thing is how a person can get to a place where they _can_ say *there is no such thing as good and evil, it is all an illusion* (ie, a thought, or an opinion, or judgment). A thing either is or it isn't, anything more than that is illusion.

During my Buddhist years, I had a brilliant Rinpoche of Tibetan lineage who used to blow my tiny brain regularly and could sometimes do it just with a well timed sentence. He sat in front of me with a tiny table with his scrolls and cup of tea, which he took such deliberation to organise and pour it was hypnotic to watch. And he often used "cup" in his analogies; I'll never forget that cup!







He'd ask things like, "what is this? We call it cup. What is cup?" and then he'd go into concepts and talk about how if he dropped cup, what would it be then? And how if he blindfolded me and turned me around in many circles, walked me for a long way, turned me more times and then said, "now, go west", what would I do? I said, "well, I don't know where I am, I can't go west without east, where's east?" and he'd just say "exactly" As though that rests his case. And I'd have to sit on that for a week.









I learned that things and concepts only exist in relation to other things. I only know west in relation to east. Without east, west does not exist. Cup is only cup because of everything else that is NOT cup. The cup is only pretty if I _think_ it is. And pretty only exists in relation to un-pretty. When we have nothing in our minds, no memory, cup is not even cup, for there is no word. There is merely that thing, sitting there, and someone tells us it is _cup_, and we call it cup, and now anything that looks like that and unlike anything else, they are then also cup. but it just "is". Without memory or judgment, I cannot call it anything, I cannot say it is pretty, or obnoxious, or irritating. It just IS.

With the foundation of cup (as I like to call it







), it is a tiny step towards understanding how the very enlightened can see something "evil" or "horrendous" as simply "is". Not good or evil, just life. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is inherently anything. It takes a person to make a judgment, until that moment, it is just a concept. Some people might think the cup is beautiful, some might hate it. Some might like to hurt others and see blood, others think that is evil. We all think we are right, and the more of us think _one way_, the closer we get to calling something "fact". When it is all opinion, judgment.

Most people don't like that. If you think the "I am willing to be raped" is bad, I'm sure this one ranks up there with "get this woman a straight jacket".


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I've wondered what it might be that is the difference. Perhaps I see _potential_ in children to do a certain thing where some CLers (not saying you) see it as a _given_. For instance, you mentioned rational behaviour was one of the two things a CL parent would need to believe children possess. I see rational behaviour as possible and potential behaviour in kids and I see it expressed often in my own children. I do not see it as a given, however. I do not _expect_ them to be one thing or another.

Perhaps this is why I accept all their behaviour as normal childhood behaviour, not something in need of "fixing" or finding underlying needs. I can see how a parent who doesn't see it as normal behaviour would be always on the look out for underlying needs.

By the same token, normal childhood behaviour isn't always safe or appropriate in every given environment or situation. I believe in creating the best environment so there would be no such thing as unsafe or inappropriate behaviour - but I also find the ideal environment isn't always at my fingertips, nor the fingertips of other parents.

I wouldnt say I _expect_ certain xyz behavior, but I do _trust_ my child to know what they need and want better then anyone else, and I tune into that station








I also dont see find underlying needs as "fixing" things. It's learning the child and respecting them. When they are tired they are cranky. I observe this. I observe that being cranky isnt enjoyable for them. I help them meet their underlying need for rest. I'm not "fixing" anything. Being tired doesn't mean they are broken.








I know what age appropriate behavior is all about too, and I think its very important to take that into consideration. It helps me know how to approach it. IE: my 11 month old smacking me repetitively in excitement (appropriate for age) is different then my 2 year old smacking me in anger (appropriate for age) Doesn't mean smacking me is a mutually agreeable solution because its "age appropriate". But how we approach helping them during these times in a way that respects everyone involved definitely does need to account for understanding of what is age appropriate. With my 11 month old I can say "wow you are excited! Look, you can bang your hands on this bin!" Laughter and giggles ensue. Perhaps he is equipped with a spoon to make more music. My 2 year old on the other hand may be responded to with a "You must be hurting to want to hurt me. I don't like being hit. Let's go calm down together." I sit with them, I am available from them. I stay close to them only moving to escape the blows and then returning to them, reminding them its okay to be angry, its okay to be sad. When the storm has passed I make a few suggestions (if they dont have any of their own, which my 2 year old doesnt at this point) on what we can do next time. Not just what we can do when mad, but what we can do to solve the problem that made her that mad in the first place. Perhaps the baby took one of her toys and she hit him. This is a real scenario, and my daughter has learned to say "stop baby" and call out to me to redirect the baby. She is good at trading and problem solving with her big brother, but with her little brother she needs me to help.

I agree with keeping the environment as safe as _possible_. There is no 100% though, at least not with 3 children under the age of 4 all with very strong personalities under one roof. But, thats what I'm here for







I know how to protect them all without defending them. I know how to teach them to protect themselves without defending them. I have a larger vocabulary to pass on to them (along with understanding of these words)

I do trust they know their bodies better then I do. However, I know them well enough that I can find out what they need and meet that because of this trust.


----------



## GoBecGo

Calm, thank you fo another wonderful post!









I use "why" to make people re-examine the basis for their opinions of my life. "Oh that must have been terrible?" "Why?" "b-because it IS terrible when that happens to a child!" "why?" "because it IS! Having to live with all that, and your own BROTHER too!" "yes but WHY is it so terrible? Because it IS terrible, or because you just told me it is?". People do not like it, it's true. I think one of the biggest tragedies in our society for those who have been abused is the universal opinion that "You never recover from something like that". You're not allowed to tell stupid people they'll always be stupid or overwieght people they'll always be fat, but abused people, heck yeah, slap a big "VICTIM" sticker on them and begin the endless cycle of hand patting and platitude muttering. People don't actually LIKE it if you've recovered. When i was 11 my brother told my mother a lie about me and she believed him and punished me. That affected me WAY more than the abuse, because at that age and stage i had a clear sense of injustice and it STUNG, in the moment, while it was happening, it was a personal affront. The abuse was completely off the wall to me. Like him wanting to play football (which i also participated in, sometimes, reluctantly, because then we could play a game *I* liked). It makes no sense to view my abuse in a context that makes something that wasn't actually very terrible much worse, so why should i do it? Why should i lay down and "never recover". I think the most difficult people to deal with are those who are still in the pain of initial discovery of their situation. These people might be 14 and just had sex ed for the first time and realised what their abuser does is NOT cool, or they might be 64 and still unwilling to look past the viewpoint society has given them about their experiences. My brother was *physically* sexually abused for 4 years. In terms of living in fear and revulsion he is still being abused now, over 20 years since the real abuse ended. But when i talk to him it is clear that even though he is anxious, depressed, fearful, angry, aggressive and sad, he is far more comfortable wth being that than he is with the idea of putting the abuse aside and seeing who he is without it.

The discussion WRT to rationality is an interesting one. I don't think my DD is irrational if she wants food right after a meal, or if she demands oatmeal, but even if i DID think it was irrational, that, to me is just a desciptive term on the request, not a judgement call. She doesn't always want rational things, but being a little irrational, at any age, is ok, fun even, so long as it's safe. So for me at least, saying i see she isn't rational or that i don't rely on her to be rational in her choices, is not criticism. It just is. If it's a safe request she can go ahead, however irrational it seems. If it's not safe we look for an alternative and if we can't find one (which is so so rare) then i say "no" and it seems for us just now that because i say it rarely she trusts i say it when i have to- that's improving as she gets older. And i do negotiate in situations like the oatmeal one, often times she'll take oats-and-milk (raw) over oatmeal if i explain that i just cooked dinner and don't want to cook again. I tend to make decisions based on greater desire. If i'm totally finished and really need to sit down or have another 15 things to do i might defer oatmeal-cooking until "later" (i always do it if i said later) but if i wasn't doing anything much and don't mind too much i just make it for her. I only say "no" if we're out of oats.


----------



## Calm

GBG, that post even topped your last one! I want to comment, but I am on limited time and I'm going to use it selfishly. SGM, thank you. I also have comments for you too.

I have two things I'm looking for solutions/opinions to. One is retrospective as I am already sure on how to prevent it. I am looking at, given the situation as it WAS, how I would have gone about it consensually. The other is an ongoing problem I'm hoping to get solved soon either naturally or artificially by implementing something; it is in the post following this one.

I'm wondering how a consensual solution could have been found yesterday. There are a bunch of restaurants from which we went to pick up take out the other night and they are scattered around roads in a way that is kind of hard to explain. But they look like footpaths, very wide footpaths. My son doesn't understand roads, let alone these particular ones.

It was just DD, DS and myself. I didn't have my sling (which almost never happens) and without it he is constantly kicking to get down making him really hard to hold so I usually plop him down. I had to order and then wait outside for it. I couldn't contain him, so I was redirecting him all the time. DD was struggling also trying to help. It was not fun. The order seemed to take FOREVER.

So he kept running over to the road, it was really where he wanted to go. Initially, I did the airplane thing to redirect him, "zooooming" him away but he just yelled at me and kicked. Redirection was constant and I couldn't hold him long enough. Obviously, at not one point of this whole situation was it consensual. There was no where else to put him, my daughter couldn't entertain him either as he can do stubborn, focused and intense in a way most babies do not, and he won't be bought out by the jingling of something interesting over here to take his focus from over there. He's very very clever, like his sister I suppose, god help me.

This is the foundation of why I find most toddler/baby CL solutions all but impossible to implement. How can I zoom him away to happy land when he just doesn't buy it? How do I keep him from the roads when he really doesn't understand all the ramifications of them? And I know he doesn't. If he did, he would only step out onto the road when it was clear, but he doesn't, he steps out no matter what is oncoming and luckily, he has only had a near miss with a bicycle.







.

This is the retrospective one, as I know that largely, the sling prevents this, although he has started kicking to get out of that too, now. It is becoming harder to consensually keep him in it.


----------



## Calm

Problem number two.

He has always been a "slung" baby. But he has never really liked it much, he prefers to be held but he accepts it when we are out. We go hiking with him on our back, and he's fine. Shopping and so on... fine. But at home, he won't cop it. Never really has. I think it is because I don't move as much at home, and he gets fussy when the movement slows for too long. (he was a motion junkie as a tiny baby, with some threads here on MDC with me almost insane from it







)

So I had visions of doing dishes and washing and what not slinging my beloved but reality had other plans - which has been the general theme with this child. His whole life, I basically bent to his will in almost all situations as he is a baby, and I believe nature designed it to be a beck and call relationship - they beckon, we respond.

However, it really seems to be dragging on, and my husband is starting to feel hard done by by the state of the house most of the time, the lack of dinners (we eat a lot of take out) and that I spend my time either trying to do things between holds or sitting and staring at a wall as that seems to be what my son wants me to do. If I get up to do something, he literally throws himself at my feet, dramatically letting me know he is discontent. I pick him up, and he's ok, but he gets heavy so I offer the sling. He tolerates that for a very short while and then he's kicking down. I put him down, he throws himself at my feet. I pick him up. I try to sit holding him, he sits and cries between thumbsucking nestling moments on my chest.

He was born feeling disgruntled, I think. It might be birth trauma, and I have tried to support his emotions and not run about like a loon trying to prevent/stop him expressing them. I make sure all needs (I can find) are met and then hold him and reassure him. He is very emotional, expressive. They call it high needs in the circuit, but whatever it is, it has been ROUGH. It is hard to feel your child chooses to do unhappy so often. I console myself with the fact that my daughter was raised by me also, and is not like that, so it probably isn't me.







It's just how he is, or at least, what he is choosing to do at this time.

I'm trying to respect this, but I can't get anything done. It's like he's still a newborn, I have the same complaints as the mother of a newborn has about lack of time and the demands of a baby. My husband has been doing most of the housework, so by the time DS is asleep, I have a few minutes to get online or just sit and meditate.

He wants me to hold him, is _very_ tactile and affectionate, but doesn't seem to want to be in the sling. When I have had to get something done, (yes, my life has some *musts*, accept that my life may be different to yours







) I figure that it is better to sling him crying than leave him crying on the floor at my feet so I have held him, while he intermittently cries in the sling. The whole deal feels like a run of non-consensual solutions but honestly, I feel I have exhausted all consensual ones, I can't find any. It is quite stressful. Like I'm not doing something I should be but I can't figure out what I should be doing. I tell him I have to finish DD's lunch or whatever, but he doesn't care of course. I hope he understands on some level.

He just wants to nurse, or be held, get down, be held again, nurse, get down, be held... he wants to be held, but he wants me to be doing something at the same time. I know it is very Continuum Concept the way he just wants to observe, but the problem is, I don't do enough. Dishes don't make him happy, he wants me to be hiking or "out collecting berries for the tribe" no doubt. He's a jungle baby, like all of them, I guess. He hates us to just sit, he whines about it.

I have tried:

different slings, different brands, different ways of slinging him.

Asking for help. I get help, lots of it. Without it, my daughter would die of starvation or I would so we already have all the help I think I can ask for from both my husband and my extended family, who lives with us.

Helping my daughter be more independent, however, this resulted in our connection starting to break down. I started to nurture her much more this year because although willing and able, her behaviour showed she was not ready for this. Plus, there are more needs to attend to than my daughter, depending on what we define as need.

I've got to rush off, but I'll let you know if there are any other things I've already tried.


----------



## Calm

BTW, I still can't wrap my head around the idea of someone insisting they don't have any "must" or "must not" in their life. How do they pee? Do they really believe they choose when to poop or sleep? Aside from that, what about taking care of needs... how can we say we have needs but we don't need to meet them? That makes no sense!


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
BTW, I still can't wrap my head around the idea of someone insisting they don't have any "must" or "must not" in their life. How do they pee? Do they really believe they choose when to poop or sleep? Aside from that, what about taking care of needs... how can we say we have needs but we don't need to meet them? That makes no sense!


Your 2 problems and the above illustrate some of the reasons why I believe that CL doesn't work for every one, for every age, in every situation. It isn't working for your son (I forget how old he is). I don't think that it would work consistently for most toddlers anyway. They are natural born explorers of their world. It's how they learn. It's up to us the parents to make sure that they are safe while also letting them explore. And unless one wants to live in a child-centered universe (an only child at that), the child is going to be unhappy some of the time. They are born self-centered (it's a survival mechanism) and need to be "civilized" to successfully and fully enter the society they are born into. That's the task of the parents, extended family, and society as a whole. As the child grows and matures, they are given more and more control and responsibility. Ending in the teen years where they have autonomy within the dictates of the law. Even then they are still teens when the law says that they are adults (they can vote and sign contracts at age 18). But some things they still are legally barred from--buying tobacco and drinking (both age 21).


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
BTW, I still can't wrap my head around the idea of someone insisting they don't have any "must" or "must not" in their life. How do they pee? Do they really believe they choose when to poop or sleep? Aside from that, what about taking care of needs... how can we say we have needs but we don't need to meet them? That makes no sense!


I'm still still trying to figure out how to communicate effectively without using must/must not for clarity.

Another example with my 2 yo and his motorcycle...we are preparing to walk to the park, 1+ mile away, and he is sitting on his motorcyle in the living room.

Me: come on, buddy. time to get in the stroller.
him: I gonna ride my motorcycle
(not ok with me...I'll end up carrying it, no question about it. Boy _wants_ to go to the park. Car is not an option.)
Me: how about you have some pretzels in the stroller.
boy: I gonna ride my motorcycle.
Me: would you like to walk or hop in the stroller?
Boy: I gonna ride my motorcycle.
Me: We can't take your motorcycle, buddy. It's too far.
Boy: Oh I _can't_ ride my motorcycle? Ok. I get in the stroller.

see what I mean?


----------



## spottiew

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
I believe that children act rationally and that apparent irrationality is a result of coercion or lack of knowledge. For me, calling my child's desires irrational without understanding why would be dismissive of them. If there's no reason behind what my child is doing or wanting, there's no reason for me to engage with her at all and help her - it would be pointless to do so, in fact.

I don't think it's about fixing, but about understanding and supporting my kid.

I guess I don't see how the other way would work within a CL-type framework. Let's say, for example, you've all just finished eating lunch and your child asks for a bowl of oatmeal. You don't especially feel like cooking again and he ate a big lunch so you believe he isn't really hungry, so you decide his request is irrational (and normal) and then what? No oatmeal?

It makes more sense to me to figure that a request for oatmeal is not coming from out of the blue somehow and that there is a rational reason behind it, and to talk more about it and figure out a solution. Anyway, that's what I do.

in my house, the bowl of oatmeal would be requested not because he is hungry, but because he likes to have us serve him food so he can have the choice to eat it or not- and some goes wasted because not everything makes palatable leftovers. yes, i could try to have HIM make the oatmeal, not me. but i may just not WANT to play that at any time... is he rational? well, he is asking for what he WANTS, does he NEED to 'boss'me?> (no, he can't make it all by himself, he still needs help)

i don't really believe people are always rational, kids or not. im sure there is a 'reason' behind everything, he is just himself, but thought out? sometimes you just feel and live and get what you get. like this eating thing, he is recently saying he is hungrey when he is not and vice versa... why? beats me, we are always flex about him eating what/when he wants. he just cannot understand that it affects how his body feels, and i hate to see him without that understanding. same goes for sleep, but i wanted an example w/o sleep









to extend it out more, my boss (age 50) is a very picky eater, the man eats pizza, bbq chicken, and ummm. that's about it. his choice. he then develops health issues resulting from that, but still, chooses to continue his diet. i get food pickiness, i really do- i am picky too just not that badly, i understand that it's not at all as simple as 'just eat it', i hear him say he wishes he were not picky, but he can't/doesn't change it... but is he rational? understandable, yes, but for an adult to suffer healthwise and not change? if that's called rational, then sure, my kid has a reason for everything, but not all reasons are smart ones... in the case of my boss, if he truly hates fruites/vegis, he COULD just take a multivitamin- i know, not the same, but better than the nothing that he does now. but i don't think he applies reason to the situation at all...

going back to lack of knowledge, mine fights my knowledge, does not want to trust me. i don't think he's been coerced (not that i have not made mistakes, but i see other parents who don't work with their child at all like i try to do), i think he's just that needy 'brick wall' that others have mentioned.


----------



## spottiew

I had the baby also who thought a sling was for walking- briskly! Never in the house, I literally always had him in the crook of an arm, or on the hip. I guess he just liked my hands better. I just gave up the vision of the happily slung baby and mama always doing chores... Did I get things done? Sometimes; somehow. I also only had one kid. I also had p/t child care, giving him another (known) set of hands a few days a week. He was unsettled then, he is far more the grump now- it all seemed to crash down when he stopped nursing and cosleeping (his choice), outgrew the sling, and started preschool (montessori if it matters). that was age 3, he is now 4, and sometimes i think he does like to be unhappy! which makes me unhappy. i don't know how much to intervene sometimes, nor what to do if i could. i wish i understood his needs. i used to be more connected than now. i try to be nice, i think he realizes that, i think life is just hard for him. i think if he lived in a tribe instead of the modern world, he would do better- but i can't give that to him for his life. so all i can say is that i am stumped too, but i don't know that i see it as a CL thing... yes, his needs are trumping mine right now, but that's somewhat my choice- I could distance from it, but I don't wish that.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Problem number two.

He has always been a "slung" baby. But he has never really liked it much, he prefers to be held but he accepts it when we are out. We go hiking with him on our back, and he's fine. Shopping and so on... fine. But at home, he won't cop it. Never really has. I think it is because I don't move as much at home, and he gets fussy when the movement slows for too long. (he was a motion junkie as a tiny baby, with some threads here on MDC with me almost insane from it







)

So I had visions of doing dishes and washing and what not slinging my beloved but reality had other plans - which has been the general theme with this child. His whole life, I basically bent to his will in almost all situations as he is a baby, and I believe nature designed it to be a beck and call relationship - they beckon, we respond.

However, it really seems to be dragging on, and my husband is starting to feel hard done by by the state of the house most of the time, the lack of dinners (we eat a lot of take out) and that I spend my time either trying to do things between holds or sitting and staring at a wall as that seems to be what my son wants me to do. If I get up to do something, he literally throws himself at my feet, dramatically letting me know he is discontent. I pick him up, and he's ok, but he gets heavy so I offer the sling. He tolerates that for a very short while and then he's kicking down. I put him down, he throws himself at my feet. I pick him up. I try to sit holding him, he sits and cries between thumbsucking nestling moments on my chest.

He was born feeling disgruntled, I think. It might be birth trauma, and I have tried to support his emotions and not run about like a loon trying to prevent/stop him expressing them. I make sure all needs (I can find) are met and then hold him and reassure him. He is very emotional, expressive. They call it high needs in the circuit, but whatever it is, it has been ROUGH. It is hard to feel your child chooses to do unhappy so often. I console myself with the fact that my daughter was raised by me also, and is not like that, so it probably isn't me.







It's just how he is, or at least, what he is choosing to do at this time.

I'm trying to respect this, but I can't get anything done. It's like he's still a newborn, I have the same complaints as the mother of a newborn has about lack of time and the demands of a baby. My husband has been doing most of the housework, so by the time DS is asleep, I have a few minutes to get online or just sit and meditate.

He wants me to hold him, is _very_ tactile and affectionate, but doesn't seem to want to be in the sling. When I have had to get something done, (yes, my life has some *musts*, accept that my life may be different to yours







) I figure that it is better to sling him crying than leave him crying on the floor at my feet so I have held him, while he intermittently cries in the sling. The whole deal feels like a run of non-consensual solutions but honestly, I feel I have exhausted all consensual ones, I can't find any. It is quite stressful. Like I'm not doing something I should be but I can't figure out what I should be doing. I tell him I have to finish DD's lunch or whatever, but he doesn't care of course. I hope he understands on some level.

He just wants to nurse, or be held, get down, be held again, nurse, get down, be held... he wants to be held, but he wants me to be doing something at the same time. I know it is very Continuum Concept the way he just wants to observe, but the problem is, I don't do enough. Dishes don't make him happy, he wants me to be hiking or "out collecting berries for the tribe" no doubt. He's a jungle baby, like all of them, I guess. He hates us to just sit, he whines about it.

I have tried:

different slings, different brands, different ways of slinging him.

Asking for help. I get help, lots of it. Without it, my daughter would die of starvation or I would so we already have all the help I think I can ask for from both my husband and my extended family, who lives with us.

Helping my daughter be more independent, however, this resulted in our connection starting to break down. I started to nurture her much more this year because although willing and able, her behaviour showed she was not ready for this. Plus, there are more needs to attend to than my daughter, depending on what we define as need.

I've got to rush off, but I'll let you know if there are any other things I've already tried.


----------



## webjefita

I left this thread about a month ago, when I had a baby







but I wanted to come back and say to *Calm*, I think it was you recommending Hold On To Your Kids, and I am reading it and have to say THANK YOU! It is SO what I needed right now. I had heard of the book and wanted to read it and I thought it was something I would need to read when my kids were teens or preteens, but it has been so insightful and helpful to me at this moment in our lives. Have you started a thread about it? I would love to discuss and ask questions with anyone who's read it. It is such an important book and I feel like it can help me figure out how to be a better parent...


----------



## webjefita

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Problem number two.

He has always been a "slung" baby. But he has never really liked it much, he prefers to be held but he accepts it when we are out. We go hiking with him on our back, and he's fine. Shopping and so on... fine. But at home, he won't cop it. Never really has. I think it is because I don't move as much at home, and he gets fussy when the movement slows for too long. (he was a motion junkie as a tiny baby, with some threads here on MDC with me almost insane from it







)

So I had visions of doing dishes and washing and what not slinging my beloved but reality had other plans - which has been the general theme with this child. His whole life, I basically bent to his will in almost all situations as he is a baby, and I believe nature designed it to be a beck and call relationship - they beckon, we respond.

However, it really seems to be dragging on, and my husband is starting to feel hard done by by the state of the house most of the time, the lack of dinners (we eat a lot of take out) and that I spend my time either trying to do things between holds or sitting and staring at a wall as that seems to be what my son wants me to do. If I get up to do something, he literally throws himself at my feet, dramatically letting me know he is discontent. I pick him up, and he's ok, but he gets heavy so I offer the sling. He tolerates that for a very short while and then he's kicking down. I put him down, he throws himself at my feet. I pick him up. I try to sit holding him, he sits and cries between thumbsucking nestling moments on my chest.

I also have a new baby that is this way, very similar to my firstborn, who was/is very high needs, and very exhausting. My middle child was very laid back and is a happy go lucky guy still, at 3... I totally thought it was birth order or something I had done. I thought the third one would be SO much easier, heck, I'm an expert now. But she's so much like the first. She had no birth trauma, no pregnancy mega stresses, our family is more harmonious now than ever.


----------



## Calm

I've still got stuff to write, but short on time as always. But this post is a quickie to say that I posted those two problems exactly as they are above, in two separate posts on the CL forum. I got no consensual solutions for the one for the restaurant that would have been usable at the time, and little but commiseration about my son's sling problem. There were some suggestions (things like my son helping with cooking) but were unworkable when I tried them, or I had already tried them. There were one or two suggestions as to how to fix the restaurant problem in future (although I said I already know how to fix it in future). There is good reason for this. There isn't any way to be consensual in that situation. Just as there are MANY MANY situations where there are NO consensual solutions.

This "there are always consensual solutions" is based on an extremely loose idea, and there is absolutely no proof that it is true. There is much proof that it is not true however. It puts unnecessary pressure on parents attempting CL, and it isn't even a true statement. I take issue with it, and will until I find proof it is untrue. As proof, I will accept solutions for my own predicaments - yet there have been none. They are all "how to fix a situation in future", which is not how situations work in real life. We are in situations NOW, not in future. We haven't got a second set of keys now, we haven't parked in the shade this time, we haven't brought the sling this time... and so on. Which is my point. Because most CL solutions as I've seen over and over on that message board and on this thread are how to prevent something happening in future. But for a situation that is happening right now, there may indeed be no consensual solution. If there was, surely hundreds of mothers could find just ONE for the many I've witnessed on that forum?

I like them there. They are very lovely people and so helpful. But the promise that I would find something there that I am not finding here is just untrue. There are no more ideas there than there are on MDC even from the strictest, most hierarchical parents on MDC! We are all creative and try to find consensual solutions for our children. And it isn't always a choice that we aren't consensual. Sometimes it is the situation we find ourselves in, but yet we keep being told it is that we aren't willing, or creative enough, or looking hard enough.

_I challenge the fallacy that there are always consensual solutions._ And after all these pages, no evidence is still availabe to counter that challenge.

I also thought about how much some CLers, esp SGM kept making this thread about my intentions. Saying I was rude and whatnot when my approach is the same now as it has always been. I want answers to these statements, I want proof of what they are based on as I believe some mamas deserve relief from their strict nature, so they know they DID do their best, and they aren't completely consensual because they can't be, not always. I was here discussing this, and so many pages in the middle were about "disrespect" and all this nonsense about my intentions and motive. They have not changed. And there is no disrespect. There is genuine questioning here on real situations and the foundation itself, which is done in all philosophies, it isn't unique to CL, and it isn't "disrespectful" to do it to CL but "good thinking" to do it to something else.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I am sorry you feel for your family there are times where there are no consensual solutions when you wish there were. (hugs)

CL works for me and all the families I know who chose to embrace it. I choose to use the consensual solutions that are always available to me.

It is okay to choose a consensual path. It is okay to take another path. Do what you feel is right for your family. We could go back and forth for years over the many possible scenarios and many possible solutions. I trust you have the answers you family needs. I have the answers for mine.

Many things can be proven or disproven. I no longer feel the need to do either though.
You feel you have proven your point to yourself and I hope that has brought you peace on the subject at hand.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
_I challenge the fallacy that there are always consensual solutions._ And after all these pages, no evidence is still availabe to counter that challenge.

Well, there's no way to prove something doesn't exist... one can only prove the positive, not the negative. Just because you haven't found something (yet) doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

If you're looking at this from a more philosophical bent (admittedly something I've found useful) then reading some of Karl Popper's work might be useful.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

CL works for me and all the families I know who chose to embrace it.
But I'm one of those families who choose to embrace it. And it doesn't work ALL the time for us. Soooooo, again you are stating things that aren't correct. You could say most of the families, then that wouldn't include people and families like me. But when you say _all_, then again you are stepping into that territory that demands explanation.

I also know that it works for you, as it is the the response I get, without fail, when a person has run out of consensual suggestions. Which happens. I'm not saying CL doesn't work. I'm saying that statements like "you can always find consensual solutions" and "all wants can be met" are untrue. That is NOT the same as "CL doesn't work" or "I do not use CL".


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I hear your frustration, Calm.

I can only speak of families that I know choose to embrace it.

It's not that one is out of consensual suggestions, but just that I no longer feel a need to prove this philisophy. As I said, we could go back and forth for years. The answers for your family are in your heart. It will work out one way or another Calm. Just take a deep breath and remember you are where you need to be.

The statements are true to us. It is okay if they are not true in your eyes. Really I promise in the long run it doesn't matter. If your family is happy with how your family is operating that is all that matters


----------



## Calm

Sorry, DS pressed post before I was ready.

I get that it works for some people all the time. I have not suggested it doesn't work for some people all the time. I'm saying that it doesn't work for ALL people ALL the time, and you are saying, and CL states that it is just a matter of finding consensual solutions. I gave an example of a situation where you can't find a consensual solution, several of them, and the only responses are how to prevent it in future. But for my son running on the road, I could not keep him away consensually, I demonstrated that clearly. It was not a consensual solution, yet it was the only one even close to a consensual solution. I have proven that there aren't always consensual solutions and yet you still say there are!

I do not understand that. It's like someone saying there is no such thing as a white crow... and if I produce a white crow and they say, "well, I believe there is no such thing as a white crow because science tells me they don't exist." Fine if that works for a person but that's so much denial you must be able to see dapyramids.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Any solution offered to your expired problems will be about how to prevent in the future. There is no solution we can give you that will solve the problem that already took place in the past. You feel you have proven there are not always consensual solutions. I hear you


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
They are all "how to fix a situation in future", which is not how situations work in real life. We are in situations NOW, not in future. We haven't got a second set of keys now, we haven't parked in the shade this time, we haven't brought the sling this time... and so on. Which is my point. Because most CL solutions as I've seen over and over on that message board and on this thread are how to prevent something happening in future. .

Yes. Maybe for a person with true CL-serenity, the approach is "do my best in the moment, and look at it as an opportunity to find a new CL solution (although not nec at this moment....it is all in the process)". Maybe?

To me (not having the CL-zen, lol), it feel more like a series of failures, and pressure to be perfectly proactive and vigilant, trying to avoid these moments.

Is it all in parental personality?

Either way, Calm, I am *sure* that your struggles are not unknown to CL families. I suspect there are more similarities than differences in reality, and the real difference lies in perception and focus.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 

Either way, Calm, I am *sure* that your struggles are not unknown to CL families. I suspect there are more similarities than differences in reality, and the real difference lies in perception and focus.

well put







:


----------



## WuWei

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
Yes. Maybe for a person with true CL-serenity, the approach is "do my best in the moment, and look at it as an opportunity to find a new CL solution (although not nec at this moment....it is all in the process)". Maybe?

To me (not having the CL-zen, lol), it feel more like a series of failures, and pressure to be perfectly proactive and vigilant, trying to avoid these moments.

Is it all in parental personality?

Either way, Calm, I am *sure* that your struggles are not unknown to CL families. I suspect there are more similarities than differences in reality, and the real difference lies in perception and focus.


Exactly! _"What is cup?"







:

Pat
_


----------



## Calm

Sunnmama, yes, I agree. As a CL parent for years, I think I have had my fair share of many scenarios, successes and failure. I know the hiccups and areas that can trip up consensual families. I just don't think it is necessary to believe some of the things I've read on this thread and on the website to be a consensual family. I have spoken to (online at least) many people who were turned off the idea due to those aspects. And no, it isn't about seducing those others, but it is about looking at if those aspects are necessary, why they are there as part of CL, and how many other people might benefit from CL if they weren't turned off it because of those areas. If I know of people who are, there are no doubt many more.

The things I am referencing are here, which are:

Quote:

There are no musts and must nots.

There are always consensual solutions.

Compromise is a lose-lose option.

All wants can be met all the time.

If you have enough trust and faith in your children, they don't do irrational things or act in selfish ways or impose their will on another.

If you raise your children consensually, they do not do irrational things or act in selfish ways or impose their will on another.

We always have choices.

With accurate information, only the individual is capable of making decisions regarding what is right for him. No one is better at making those decisions than the individual.
None of those things are necessary "beliefs" to be a consensual family.

It was during one of the moments where there were simply no consensual solutions to my problem that I realised that it is a disservice to believe such a statement (as "there are always consensual solutions") when in the face of the opposite. The statement is _*false*_, as I said months ago, pages ago, and kept on saying over and over. The responses I got varied from "why does it matter?" (irrelevant) and "well, it works for me" (whatever that means... you always find consensual solutions, is that what that means? It isn't really clear, nor does it negate it's falseness).

I demonstrated, with hypotheticals and real life situations, how it is a false statement. No one could deny it, yet they still stood by the statement (like denying the white crow, even while looking right at one). It's like no one even _cares_ that this statement is false! It is affecting people, it matters!

I was in situations without CL solutions, with years of experience of looking for and finding consensual solutions and going on forums like this one and helping others embrace CL and helping them find consensual solutions and saying all the things I now hear others say to me. This isn't new to me; yet true to the laws of life, I found myself in exactly that position - a situation without a consensual solution. Then I found myself in more of them. I examined the situations, my children, my husband, my beliefs, my style of parenting, the choices I had. "What am I overlooking here? Surely there is something I'm not seeing?" I asked others, ranging from CL parents through to others. Nothing, no help whatsoever. Because the situations I was in _had_ _no consensual solutions_. I was scrabbling around for them but they didn't exist.

Black and white, I was staring at the fact of it, going against my previous belief system. Something had to give.

I hear my everloving favourite "you feel you have proven there are not consensual solutions" which is very much related to my other favourite "I'm sorry you feel that way". both of them are invalidating. I'm not a fool. I know the situations I was in, there were no CL solutions.

You cannot prove there ARE always consensual solutions but you CAN prove there AREN'T always consensual solutions.

If one situation, just once, has no consensual solution then the statement is false.

That's the way hypotheses become theories become facts. It's the way science works. It's one thing to hold dear to a belief in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but quite another to _deny_ evidence to hold dear to a belief.

Proving there isn't a consensual solution is actually quite easy. There are always consensual solutions.... _until there isn't one_. Following? Not to mention, absolutes are not something people other than the piously religious usually bang on with. I actually find it incongruent that one of my favorite anti-establishment heros, Pat, buys into such absolutes. And there are many of them, look at that list I quoted! That's a lot of "always" and "never" in there. That's a lot of belief, verging on _law_.

You can't expect to make absolute statements and not back that up, surely. I mean, just saying *always* backs one into a corner that really is nothing short of fascinating to watch someone try to defend.

So now it appears the tables have turned; I am to believe that yes, sometimes there are no consensual solutions but what we actually _mean_ is, in future you can avoid such situations. Is this right? That's what I'm hearing in the recent posts. Because life is mostly unplanned, esp as a parent. I find myself in more unplanned situations than planned, and I was lead to believe that there are always consensual solutions... but, now there's _not_? There is the _potential_ for always finding consensual solutions but in reality, we may find ourselves in situations where we are ill prepared and _there are no consensual solutions_ in that moment, so let's look at how we _could_ have prepared for that scenario?

Because if that's what you're saying, that's what I've been saying for hundreds of posts.







And if it is what you're saying, then perhaps consider wiping that redundant statement from the CL repertoire, to save these kind of misunderstandings. It isn't necessary to feel we always should or could find a consensus. It just isn't necessary.


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pat*
Exactly! "What is cup?"

I must say, YOU RULE!!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

As you said earlier in this thread, there are many parenting styles that are similar to CL. So people can still benefit from consensual solutions without choosing to be a consensual family. There is no need to change what CL means to the majority of CL families for the benefit of non-CL families to feel like they can call themselves CL too. They can be something else, one of these similar things you talk about. Really, we all ust parent the way we feel best. The label is not important. CL as described on the website describes what CL means to most CL families - they are the ones who didnt fit into one of those similar philosophies you mentioned, so they used this title. The point when we are parents is to do what is right for our family. It's nice if there is a "name" for it, but its not necessary. As with any website or book you can take what you think works and leaves the rest. I don't see a need to turn it into something else so more people can "benefit" they can still choose to benefit in the way you suggest it be changed, without it being changed. I'm probably not explaining this well on little sleep lol For some reason its the most simplest concepts I seem to have a hard time explaining. go figure huh lol


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

there are always consensual solutions. If you don't use them at the time though, then all you have are solutions for the future , that is true, but that does not mean at the time there were no consensual solutions. It doesn't mean no one ever "misses" but that those solutions are always there.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
It's one thing to hold dear to a belief in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but quite another to _deny_ evidence to hold dear to a belief.

Proving there isn't a consensual solution is actually quite easy. There are always consensual solutions.... _until there isn't one_. Following? .

But they believe there is one. They believe that the possibities are infinite--literally infinite--so you can not possibly have tried or examined every possible solution. Any tiny or huge change in the situation could reveal a consensual solution, if the parties have the commitment to seek it. This is where the faith comes it.

When they fall short (fail to find the consensual solution), they attribute that inwardly rather than outwardly.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I wouldn't say "they" since everyone practices CL in their own way and has their own beliefs, but speaking for myself right now, when I "fall short" so to speak, I find its more helpful to say "what did I miss" then "oh, there was nothing I could have done". Not to be confused with blaming myself - perhaps this is where it gets murky for some people because they see themselves as failing or screwing up or something. I don't think poorly of myself. At the same time I don't see myself as helpless. I just say "what else can I do" instead of "oh it as impossible" I find *for me* I can grow and learn more as a person if I am always looking for more solutions instead of just passing everything off as an impossible situation. That, for me, is how the idea infinite solutions plays out.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

there are always consensual solutions. If you don't use them at the time though, then all you have are solutions for the future , that is true, but that does not mean at the time there were no consensual solutions.
This is true for _your_ life. Not mine. Not Jane Doe's. Not anyone else's but _your_ life. You cannot say what is true or not true for my life, why do you continue to do that? CL keeps insisting that what is true for some is true for all - based on what? Assumption - Because it is true for you it therefore must be true for others? Or is it faith - You hope it is always true, and when it isn't it is because you didn't look hard enough?

You say that those of us who had no consensual solutions actually did, but we "didn't use them at the time". You were not there. How do you know that we had consensual solutions we overlooked? When my son keeps going for the road, these are my options:

sit in the car instead of wait outside the restaurant;

let him go onto the road;

take him for a walk;

Do a Macgyver and fashion a sling out of my own pants or weave magic with blade of grass, piece of gum and a hairclip;

Stand there acting the clown and hope to keep his attention for the longer-than-banked-on time for the food to cook;

Sell him to the nearest bidder;

keep pulling him back from the road in a fun and toddler friendly fashion.

Yes. Deceiving isn't it? Such a long list, how could I say I have no options? Here's why:

*sit in the car instead of wait outside the restaurant*: I went to the car when he first got too heavy to hold, and he kept shaking at the door handle in between tears of complaint. That lasted a few minutes before I resigned myself to the fact that it was _not consensual_ (he wasn't happy).

*let him go onto the road*: sometimes I did. But for obvious reasons, I couldn't let him stay on the road for long. It wasn't a busy road, but it also wasn't a quiet one. _Not consensual_ because he didn't like me deciding when he couldn't go on it, he didn't like me thwarting his _self determination_.

*take him for a walk*: the design of the area is such that roads are everywhere. Although I tried this, I was in the same situation, only in motion. _Not consensual_.
*
Do a Macgyver and fashion a sling out of my own pants or weave magic with blade of grass, piece of gum and a hairclip*: I didn't have a piece of gum, and the pants I was wearing were capri - too short to wrap around me. Although I _have_ done this. The other problem is, he has started kicking to get out of the sling, so this is no longer the cure all it used to be.

*Stand there acting the clown and hope to keep his attention for the longer-than-banked-on time for the food to cook*: I did that most of the time. I always try to keep him engaged or content (which isn't always fair to my daughter) but when he wants something, he isn't interested. I get him to pat stray dogs (that owners say are safe) we inspect new and interesting objects, even an interesting wall. Sometimes this works. This wasn't one of those times.

*Sell him to the nearest bidder*: there were no bidders.

*keep pulling him back from the road in a fun and toddler friendly fashion*: this turned out to be the only solution we could stick with and it was _not consensual_. As I mentioned in the problem post itself.

In future, and in the past, it has not been an issue, either because his mood was different or because I had more preparation. The variable - his mood - is the biggest obstacle in finding consensual solutions, but not the only obstacle.

I'm sure that for you, your kid would have been happily zoomed away from the road, and as Pat often uses that suggestion, it must be a cure all for most people. I'm sure your kid, or the average CL kid would have been distracted. Maybe you would have brought your sling. Maybe the average CL parent doesn't even get take out cos they are cooking up a healthy storm in the kitchen 7 nights a week. Maybe a CL mother would trust her child so fiercely they let them go on the road _and_ the baby only goes on it when it is safe. Whatever makes this situation have endless consensual solutions for _you_, that's great. But for me, there were none. Same situations, different results. We allow different limits (eg, I won't allow my son to go on the road, some might), we have different resources, different kids... that all factors into it.

It's not about a label, it's about false advertising. And just in this one scenario (and there are SO many others) there are "must nots" (must not go on the road when a car is coming) there are no consensual solutions, some didn't get what they wanted, there is thwarted self determination due to no other options that keep him safe, and there are a bunch of other laws "broken". I'm sure to satisfy yourself you will say that you're sure there were options I just overlooked, TONS of them, INFINITE options that in that moment would have kept all three of us happy and getting all we want.

I see people get completely invalidated by CL. Some of them are even in the CL group's pdf of examples. Yet they are totally invalidated and no one picked up on it! One is the example of the woman in the car park who's child has the car keys and won't give them back and it is 100 degrees out and the car is cooking. She tries things but she needs them NOW, it is too hot and she is getting fuzzy. So she has to take them from the child. The CL suggestions were all these things to do in _future_ (park in the shade, take a second set of keys... ) there was ONE option suggested for the _actual_ situation and it was to walk to the shade until the child relinquished the keys of their own volition. She explained that it was a ten minute walk to the nearest shade across a hot carpark! That was the end of the suggestions, and the example. And that's supposed to be a prime example of a consensual solution??

That's what makes no sense with all this. People end up shaking their head and moving on with a "whatev" in their mind and all us CLers think we've had another stroke of brilliance. I'm saying we're just invalidating people and fooling ourselves as these people are screaming they have no consensual options at that moment and CL keeps insisting they do, even though they can't find them either, and turn their back on her questions when the going gets too tough.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I'm sorry you are so frustrated. Please do not take what I say to mean all CLers. I only speak for myself. I am sorry if that was unclear do to me not restating that in every paragraph but I felt I had said it enough times that it could be understood that that is the direction I am coming from. I do only speak for myself and what CL means to me. I acknowledge these possibilities for me. I also feel that others can have the same possibilities. I also respect that some people feel/know they don't have those same possibilties.


----------



## karina5

I forgot that I was subscribed to this thread and happened to come upon Calm's post. And yes, Calm, you are absolutely right. As a parent that is trying to be more CL, there are DEFINITELY situations hwere there is just NOT a CL option. That sort of drives me crazy, too. I think it's the use of the word "always." Saying "always" and "never" usually isn't very productive (and you said as much a few posts ago...).

Anyway, I just wanted you to know that you are not the only one who has noticed this.

If someone says, "you know, usually we find a CL solution, and we try to plan ahead, and it works really well in our family, etc etc..." and acknowledged that once in a blue moon there may be that time that there just isn't a CL solution...it would be a lot more real.

But yeah, the more I think about it, it is the use of "always" and "never" is what makes me realize that it just isn't the case.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I find *for me* I can grow and learn more as a person if I am always looking for more solutions instead of just passing everything off as an impossible situation. That, for me, is how the idea infinite solutions plays out.
This is how it is for me too. "Never give up". I liken it to the "give an inch and they'll take a mile" thing, where I will suggest to "never" do something even if there are rare occasions to do it, so the person really thinks twice before doing it.

For me personally though, I don't need to be told that, I figure it out myself; I don't like laws or absolutes that limit me. I still will not give up looking for consensual solutions just because I know the statement is false. And I'm very experimental and creative so I *usually* find consensual solutions. I prefer everyone getting what they want over just consensus, and don't we all? But again, I settle for what is the best workable solution in real life situations with what I have at the time. Consensus will do. Compromise will do. Negotiation will do. But of course, I reach higher than that initially. If I only reach for the tree tops I'll never reach the stars, as they say.

Who else would take off their pants in public to reach a mutually agreeable solution, I ask?









Thanks SGM. I do get lost in these discussions and become unsure who we're speaking for







.

Karina, will you marry me?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Your post reminded me. I read something on the give an inch take a mile thing I forget where, but they said generally this is true of children who are rarely given inches in life. I don't give an inch. They already have miles







Basically, they try to get everything they can while they see the rare opportunity to do so - or even if not a rare opportunity, just having past experience that its "going to run out". My children trust with me they are safe, and that seems to be all they need to know. If they want to have an experience they can have it. No need to take a mile they already have. No need to give them an inch when they have the world.

Calm it is perfectly acceptable for you to feel and think the way you feel on the subject. We don't all have to agree. The truth looks and is different to all of us. I don't feel there is any need to prove or disprove anything. You are right, to you. I am right, to me. There is no "see there I proved it" coming from this end I assure you, nor do I think that means I have "failed" to prove anything - only that "proving it" is irrelevant *to me*. I don't need that. There is nothing wrong if a person does need that though, I'm just saying *I* don't. I believe what you say is your truth and do not dispute that fact.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Your post reminded me. I read something on the give an inch take a mile thing I forget where, but they said generally this is true of children who are rarely given inches in life. I don't give an inch. They already have miles
I'm not sure if you were referring to what I said, but I wasn't talking about children, I was talking about adults. I was referrring to adults not giving inches in case we take a mile (eg saying "always" when it really isn't true). There is nothing in inches here, a CL parent really can't do strict at the same time. I mean, I only just got out of the back seat of my car, for God's sake, and with my pants on.









There are some things that giving unlimited choice about backfire on the child, in the short and long run. There is a good and bad side to any parenting choice, as your children grow, you will see this yourself. That is the only way you will know what I mean by that, it is too hard to articulate.

Quote:

Calm it is perfectly acceptable for you to feel and think the way you feel on the subject. We don't all have to agree. The truth looks and is different to all of us. I don't feel there is any need to prove or disprove anything. You are right, to you. I am right, to me. There is no "see there I proved it" coming from this end I assure you, nor do I think that means I have "failed" to prove anything - only that "proving it" is irrelevant *to me*. I don't need that. There is nothing wrong if a person does need that though, I'm just saying *I* don't. I believe what you say is your truth and do not dispute that fact.
oookay.

If you mean that it is true that there were no consensual solutions for me, but there have always been consensual solutions for you, then yes. But because I know there is no way you can bend to that for some reason, I shall bow out of this. There are other subjects on this thread should I get back to them at some stage.


----------



## GoBecGo

Calm if it is any comfort to you i simply don't believe people who say they are "always" CL. I think they are not necessarily lying to ME, but to themselves. I am aquainted with several families who say they are completely CL and there are always solutions and i have seen all of them impose thei will on their kids and then later dismiss/deny that it happened. And i also think some of the "CL" methods are not CL at all. For example "zooming" a child away from where they were going. They might laugh, they might go again to be "zoomed" again, but it isn't CL. You (the general "you" not any particular "you" on this thread) are thwarting their will, EVEN if you do it in an entertaining and fun way, you are stopping them from doing what they want to do. You can make it ok in your head by saying it's a game, or they don't mind/enjoy it, but it changes nothing about the basics - they wanted to go somewhere and you stopped them. You imposed your will on theirs. How can they "agree" to this in advance? How do you know they feel it is an ok solution? Because they laugh? I find that incredibly sinister - making them go along with your impositon of will rather than giving them the chance to object seems worse to me somehow. It seems very manipulative to me in action (from watching it i mean) - the talking seems to be spin to persuade the child that not only is this next thing happening, but they, the child, are actually happy about it.

Me personally, i don't aim to be CL or kid myself that life can be. Nature gave me a helpless newborn with the ability to need but not meet its needs. I meet its needs, and in doing so i accept that sometimes i'm going to have to thwart its will to do so.


----------



## waiflywaif

Quote:

For example "zooming" a child away from where they were going. They might laugh, they might go again to be "zoomed" again, but it isn't CL. You (the general "you" not any particular "you" on this thread) are thwarting their will, EVEN if you do it in an entertaining and fun way, you are stopping them from doing what they want to do. You can make it ok in your head by saying it's a game, or they don't mind/enjoy it, but it changes nothing about the basics - they wanted to go somewhere and you stopped them. You imposed your will on theirs. How can they "agree" to this in advance? How do you know they feel it is an ok solution? Because they laugh? I find that incredibly sinister - making them go along with your impositon of will rather than giving them the chance to object seems worse to me somehow. It seems very manipulative to me in action (from watching it i mean) - the talking seems to be spin to persuade the child that not only is this next thing happening, but they, the child, are actually happy about it.
EXACTLY.

MOST parents do this kind of playful toddler redirection---it's fun and it works and I have no problem with it. But it is certainly not consensual. (Which I also have no problem with.)


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I'm not sure if you were referring to what I said, but I wasn't talking about children, I was talking about adults. I was referrring to adults not giving inches in case we take a mile (eg saying "always" when it really isn't true). There is nothing in inches here, a CL parent really can't do strict at the same time. I mean, I only just got out of the back seat of my car, for God's sake, and with my pants on.









There are some things that giving unlimited choice about backfire on the child, in the short and long run. There is a good and bad side to any parenting choice, as your children grow, you will see this yourself. That is the only way you will know what I mean by that, it is too hard to articulate.

oookay.

If you mean that it is true that there were no consensual solutions for me, but there have always been consensual solutions for you, then yes. But because I know there is no way you can bend to that for some reason, I shall bow out of this. There are other subjects on this thread should I get back to them at some stage.

I feel my post was misunderstood. I was not debating what you said on the inch/mile thing, it just reminded me o a nifty thing I had read recently. That you don't need to give inches or worry about children taking miles unless they are only used to getting occasional inches (the quote was much more elegant then I'm apparently able to word it lol)

I was not suggesting being strict with the child or giving inches. I was suggesting that our children have always had miles (upon miles endless infinite miles) BUT it's not like they USE it all. They don't need to keep "checking" to find at which point we are going to say "no, I DO own you" (not in those words) They are likely to think - eh, I'm sure we'd find a way for me to do that if I wanted, and sometimes just knowing that is enough.

Example:
Give and Inch Take a Mile:
Child begs to take dance classes.
You can take dance classes.
Can I take gymnastics too?
I give an inch and you take a mile!

versus the child who hasn't been limited to inches in life:
Child has a history of knowing if they want to do something a solution can be reached. They might join a dance class co cop, or learn to dance from videos if they can't afford classes. The child has a history of needs/desires being met - so they might not know how - but they know a solution will be found and don't need to test the limits because there are none.
I want to take dance classes.
You can take dance classes.
Thanks Mom.

NOT saying the same thing can't be achieved in that situation otherwise, but its just an example of something that could turn into a inch/mile situation. This isn't a concern for the child who doesn't feel the need to "get things while they can"

It's much like attachment parenting in that sense. The child who is left to cry becomes more clingy/needy because they want to get that attention before its gone. They are afraid its going to run out, and when it does they are desperate to get it back to know its not gone for good (even though it comes back, children don't understand that in the same way which is the same reason for seperation anxiety). Where as the attached baby knows mama is there. So they go about their way, stop in for quick refills, and then continue on again. There is not feeling of "get it while I can because time is running short"

For me, CL is just a natural extension of attachment parenting the infant. I only wish I had embraced it sooner, as I was too fearful to do so that I would ruin my child somehow. This was always the right path for my family, but I had a lot of the same concerns. However for me it was different because my concerns were more about what others would think, which is not what I think is the reason for other people here's concerns at all. I definitely don't project my previous shortcomings onto anyone here and do trust everyone is doing what is right for them.

As I said earlier the truth can look different to all of us and still be true.

If we stand Me, One, You. Then if I say "One is to the left" and you say "One is to the right" we are both stating what is true to us. My truth is that my circumstance would not change my heart. If I have 3 more children, or 3 different children, or end up in another country or state, or lose a love one, or my "situation" somehow changed to much different then my situation now, I know that would not change my heart and that CL would still be possible and that infinite solutions would still be available to me. This is what is true to me.

I understand about children growing. I've watch 3 of my own do it all the time, they I have to say I have it the hardest the first time around because my oldest has special needs. He has made my other 2 seem easy even though they are highly sensitive and high needs.

I mean that what you say is the truth as you see it and what I say is the truth as I see it. I'm not going to argue with you, and _I_ have no desire to prove a point here.

__________________________________________________ ___________

A child who is zoomed away in a fit of giggles because they (obviously) agree that being zoomed a way is a good alternative is involved in a consensual solution. It only wouldnt be consensual if they DIDNT want to be zoomed away. Zooming a child away is not the only thing CL families do, some families may not do it at all I dont know - and it is not exclusive to CL, many families use playful parenting techniques with their children. Just because some CL solutions are solutions other types of parenting use doesn't mean its the same.

*My* experience is *not* that "everything good about CL is stuff used in other parenting methods and everything exclusive to CL beliefs is bad" if that is the truth to some people here thats ok. It's not true to me.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
The child has a history of needs/desires being met - so they might not know how - but they know a solution will be found and don't need to test the limits because there are none..

No limits? Not even personal ones?

Most of our limits (the ones that get expressly discussed) are personal ones ("Please give me some privacy to get dressed." "Please give me some privacy to use the bathroom." etc.), or safety ("You must wear your helmet on your motorcycle". "You must use a carseat". etc).

Some of our limits are financial. We don't discuss them often, but the limit would likely come up in your example. ("It would be fun to take classes there, but it costs $150/mo. How else can you learn to dance?").

I find the idea of no limits disingenuous. But, like I said above, I understand it is mostly about perspective and focus. To use a political word, its about _spin_. Maybe the spin helps some people to accept limits and find alternatives. For me and my dc, a straightforward approach seems to be more readily accepted.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I think you are misunderstanding the context in which I say that. of course we have personal limits. Such as we are not limited from experiencing dancing, singing, and tumbling. Whether we can afford to take lessons, or whether we find resources to learn for free, or whether we just watch or participate. there are even resources that would allow for physically disabled people to have these experiences. Yes there are person limits. I'm not saying we can walk through brick walls here lol just that a brick wall does not have to stop us to get to where we are going. I dont say "too bad brick wall" (this is my inch, you can't have a mile) I say "there is a brick wall here, how else can we do this?" (unlimited options) So yes, there are limits and that was poor context for that word. In the context though that is not what I meant. I just mean that our limits are different then boundaries. Limits we can work around instead of boundaries we have to stay in. There is no need for my children to test the limits because the limits aren't preventing them from experience, they are just part of the experience. There is no need to "take a mile" when I give an inch because I don't give inches or miles. They are already there, endlessly. Since they know this they don't have to test it. And since they aren't busy testing it we live harmoniously with each other. They choose to stay "close" even though they have the option of going "far" I know they will go far in life though, one day, when they are ready. There is no need to be like "is this okay? how about this? what if I push it further." I don't find that they want to test if I'd let them jump off a roof. They already know if they seek thrill we will find a way to meet that that works for everyone in a safe way. Just knowing that they are more ikely to say "I want to do something EXCITING!" then say "mom, i want to jump off the roof"


----------



## GoBecGo

Quote:

A child who is zoomed away in a fit of giggles because they (obviously) agree that being zoomed a way is a good alternative is involved in a consensual solution. It only wouldnt be consensual if they DIDNT want to be zoomed away. Zooming a child away is not the only thing CL families do, some families may not do it at all I dont know - and it is not exclusive to CL, many families use playful parenting techniques with their children. Just because some CL solutions are solutions other types of parenting use doesn't mean its the same.
I use playful parenting in about 98% of the situations where we are having a difference of opinion SGM, it is my first line of action, but i don't pretend it is consensual. It isn't. I am using my greater social sophistication and foresight to create boundaries which she may or may not be aware of and may or may not be happy about. But they are MY boundaries, not hers, and there is no "agreement" between us. And as a child who NEVER cried or objected during abuse (and sometimes participated perfectly willingly) i cannot see that giggling equals informed consent. I have seen (and loudly objected) my XP make DD laugh by clowning when she is very and justifiably upset about something. He used to do it with me too, and even though i laughed at the time, long-term i hated it, because to me it felt that once i laughed i had no right to my objection or upset. And he CAN make me laugh. So therefore i am unable to express opinion or hurt to him, because he will clown his way out of the situation.

Small children cannot GIVE consent because they aren't capable, they don't grasp the full picture, they are at a constant disadvantage to the adults in their lives who know more and have more power than them, how can anything be truly consensual when the balance of power is already weighted so heavily in the favour of the parent? When a child runs for the road, to see the red car or chase the kitty or for whatever reason they have, and you zoom them away, even if they REALLY liked the zooming you have thwarted what they were doing, imposed your will upon theirs. You might have done so very nicely and in a way that was as painless as possible for them, but it wasn't consensual, they didn't decide anything, YOU did, you decided and acted to have them do/be what/where you wanted.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

okay well when we do it, there is agreement. So maybe its all in the approach. We use a consensual approach to playful parenting. My INFANTS have always been capable of giving consent. They latch on when they want to eat and turn their heads away when they dont. They cry when they are uncomfortable during a diaper change and are calm and happy when they are comfortable with the diaper change. My toddler would cry if I picked him up and moved him when he didnt want to be moved (zooming or not) but laughs when he "accepts" it.

Being consensual doesn't mean you don't make decisions. I decided to zoom them away, it was acceptable to them. If it wasnt acceptable to them, I wouldn't decide to do it that way. I'd do it another way. A way that we are BOTH happy with - a consensual way. I'm not imposing my will on them, I makng a choice and they are joining me in that choice. I am not forcing them. They can protect (cry if they cant talk or say no if they can). I wouldn't hug a child against their will , but I would hugmy children and they hug back. Thats consensual. By your standards that wold mean NO ONE could be consensual unless everything we did in life unless we wrote "let me know if its okay if I talk to you" and lea e it laying around and wait for them to choose to read the note, and then they will let us know its consensual for us to talk to them. Then I suppose they would say "is it okay for me to ask you if you want some water?" (because maybe they dont want to be asked if they want water so that wouldnt be consensual to them) I mean realy, that just doesn't make sense. Of course a child/infant can consent to something. They may not say "yes mother dear, you have my consent to change my diaper" but they will let you know "I am happy you are changing it" (via expression) or I am unhappy (via expression)


----------



## waiflywaif

Quote:

I decided to zoom them away, it was acceptable to them.
It was acceptable to them, but that doesn't mean it was consensual. Consensus means two people agreeing on a course of action. The child did not agree to be "zoomed." And if they cried after the fact, it's too late, right?

Like I said, I redirect. Most parents do. It's gentle, it's playful, 9 times out of 10 the child happily goes along with the redirection. But by definition, redirection cannot be consensual.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
There is no need to be like "is this okay? how about this? what if I push it further."

When this happens around here, it is almost always in regard to personal boundaries.

Ex: my dd always wants to stay in the room and talk to me while I get dressed. She's 8, and doesn't need to be in the same room as me while I get dressed. I really don't want her watching me get dressed (nothing to do with nudity, ftr). So she tries: can I be in the room and cover my eyes? Can I be in the room and turn around? Can I stand in the hall with the door open? Can I....can I....can I.... NO! Please give me some space to get dressed. Out the door. Door closed. No knocking unless someone is bleeding. No talking through the door or passing notes under the door. Just 2.5 minutes of space to get dressed in peace!

I would hope she would do the same if _she_ needed space to do something private, like getting dressed. I hope she wouldn't feel she needed to find a mutually consensual solution in a situation like that.


----------



## GoBecGo

"Do you want a drink?"
"No"

Consensual.

"Here is he delicious water i fixed for you! It is soooo yummy, when you try it it will make your tummy all tingly happy! Look i put it in your favourite cup, and you have a straw and everything! Wow, isn't it fun drinking our yummy water together?"

Not consensual. Or at least it'd be a pretty sophisticated 2 year old who could see through that build-up to the issue of whether or not they were thirsty.

To me consensuality can only be achieved in circumstances where everyone has equal powers, of understanding, of reasoning, and of assertion and communication. Humans manipulate with the way we say things all. the. time. Language sets up not just what we think but how we think it. If arrested in a foreign country (imagine how exciting life would be if we lived out our various example scenarios!







) you would need a translator because the simplest play with language could have you convicted. So much so that the police are required to provide a translator, because it is well-recognised that language and familiarity with social norms make a huge difference in the understanding and control a person has in a given situation.

A newborn might be able to "consent" to you feeding them, but if you didn't have them at the breast 24/7 (which you might indeed have!) then they still only fed, or not, when the opportunity was given BY YOU. They are fed what you offer, be it breast or bottle or fries. They aren't independant, they are completely dependant on you and your will. If your childless friend is holding them and they root for the breast (as my dd did with every female friend and several male friends!) babe will not be fed by them, even if, as her behaviour suggests, it is her desire to feed in their arms.

We all of us manipulate life to be how we want it. We all do it. Nice is a choice. We might have different reasons for making that choice but it is a choice nonetheless. When a child is zoomed from the road it is because the zoomer didn't want them on the road. It has nothing to do with what the zoomee wanted, which was to be on the road. My DD loves to ride the train. We ride the train home from the modern art museum. She doesn't want to leave the museum EVER, but she does want to ride on the train. She isn't really consenting, because she wants to stay AND ride the train and i use the opprtunity to do one to ease the pain of not being able to do the other.

And though your example was a little ridiculous, you are right, i DON'T believe true consensuality is achieveable with small children or even amongst adults unless the levels of intelligence, knowledge and ability to communicate are all equal. Think of the wife who consents to her DH going away on business becaus they need the extra money - would she still consent if she knew his office-floozy was going too and they were really having a romantic mini-break together? Consensuality, TRUE consensuality, is rare.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I do think consent is possible from both infants and adults. Sometimes it is implied consent:

"Consent that is inferred from signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence."

My friend babysits. I go to pay her and she puts up her hand in protest and makes a face as if to say "dont worry about it" She may also say so verbally, or she may not. The verbal is not necessary for her to consent or not consent to my wanting to pay her.

I would say that for most people getting a salary for their job is consensual. It is still the boss who hands over the paycheck though. Just because he writes the check does not mean the employee is not participating in a consensual transaction.

The zooming issue is not an issue for us though. By time my children have wanted to walk they were old enough to say "yes" or "no" either verbally or through physical gestures to "do you want a plane ride to the car?" Often *they* will ask *me* for this. Prior to this age, its not really an issue since my baby doesn't crawl through the parking lot, but on other areas baby LOVES to be in mommies arms and loves zooming around in general. It's fun. Sometimes we do it "just because" and not as a form of redirection. We do it because we ALL think its fun. There body laguage and signals make this clear. They are obviously consenting to these actions.

The truth *for me* is that every child I have and will ever have is capable of being consensual and letting me know "yes" or "no" from birth.

What I hear from you is that there is no such thing as consensual. This is based on your definition. When I go by the definitions provided to me by the English Language and *my* understanding of those definitions I see that consensuality is possible with everyone.

Heck, some people may think orange is not a color and doesn't exist - because to them true orange is impossible to pinpoint and it might really be amber or pumpkin or rust. If that is true to them so be it By that line of thinking, nothing is real and nothing exists. Well, in my mind these things are real and exist and because of that I experience these things as realities in my life.

Again, I have no desire to pursuade you. You want to believe what you believe about consensuality and that is your choice. Simply I am saying that is true to you, but I hold a different truth. There is nothing anyone could say to pursuade you away from what you have already predetermined to defend as fact. They are not facts to me though, and same as I cannot pursuade you because you are happy to believe what you do I also am happy to believe what I do. We have such a peaceful vibe in our family whether its due to consensuality in someone elses eyes or not - to me the truth is it is, and I wouldn't change a thing. There is no need for me to determine who is "wrong" and who is "right". In your eyes you are right. I know what I say is right to my family, and that's who I'm concerned about. Convincing others has no bearing on my family dynamics, its simply not necessary. Fun to discuss sure, but I don't need to "enlighten" you or "prove" anything. I also don't think its possible for anyone to "prove" it to me or convince me I'm wrong because I am living it and I know its real. You can tell me it's not possible for a person to have $20 in their hands but when I'm holding two 10's I know that it is possible. Perhaps someone thinks that its not possible because $20 isnt really $20 because there isn't gold to back it or because it's really just paper representing $20. I don't find it useful to get over technical though, because like I said you can really make anything "impossible" or make everything "not exist" with that mentality. I'm just being realistic - they say that these bills can buy me something with that price tag, and so to me $20 is $20, even if its not worth $20 to someone else technically. I just think the opposite. I am not looking at how when being overly technical things don't exist or are impossible. I am looking at how things do exist and how they are possible.

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It's what I know. Granted, I am open minded - but I find that what changes my mind is usually another person who is more open minded. My mind isn't going to change in the other direction at this point.


----------



## waiflywaif

Quote:

Sometimes we do it "just because" and not as a form of redirection.
That's not the case that I'm talking about, then. Specifically talking about redirection. Kid is running toward the street. I pick him up and zoom him away from the street. He laughs and giggles, we share a loving moment. It was grand, but it was not "consensual."

CL would probably say that he had an underlying need to not get hit by a car, etc. True, I suppose, but I am wary of that "underlying need" thing. Of course you keep your child safe, but in less extreme situations the puzzling out of "secret needs" is still THE PARENT DECIDING what the child "really" needs. Not consensual by any dictionary definition.

If you insisted on paying your babysitter, because you thought she had an underlying need to get paid, and you eventually wore her down and accepted the money, does that prove you right? Does the fact that she gave in make it consensual?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

so its consensual to give a child an airplane ride while they are sitting down playing with a toy car (in effect redirecting away form the toy car) but its not consensual to do the same thing when they run towards the road? Again, this is going into the territory of consensual is a non existent thing. Because ANYTHING can be considered redirection. Just saying "Do you want to go get a bite to eat" I am redirecting my child from whatever thy are doing (even if they are doing "nothing") to hearing me talk to them. Consensual is real to me, I don't get over technical with things until they disappear. I have a full life, not an empty one where everything can be made invalid and non existent.

I just realized I probably need to specify that saying my life is full is not saying someone else's is not. I am only speaking for myself here. I understand the disclaimer is necessary.

I a perceiving that saying "You are right" is not going to be satisfactory for some unless I am willing to say "I am wrong" also. Like there needs to be a winner in this thread or something IDK but since I find myself feeling that negative vibe (not saying anyone is putting it out there, just that *I* am sensing it) and I don't want to accept that negative vibe into my life I'm going to back off again until this thread cheers up a bit. I admit though, part of me almost does want to just "surrender" and say 'You Win!' just for others to feel peace at this point - it's very hard for me to see so many people feeling so frustrated over one word: "consensual" and whether or not the word really exists. I myself have obviously put beyond too much energy into this as it is.

I will say simply: You are right. Please assume I am wrong if that will give you peace. Otherwise, feel free to accept that I think you are right for you and your family, but still think my family is right for my family. I don't really see any way for *me* to go forward in this conversation, but I've already thought that a few times and then things perked up again so we'll see.


----------



## sunnmama

I think the airplane/swooping is better described as a mutually agreeable solution, a term I've also read in CL, I think (although maybe this is more of a TCS term?). Kid wants to run in parking lot; mom not ok with running in parking lot. Both kid and mom ok with airplane swooping through the parking lot: mutually agreeable solution (although not nec mutually preferred).


----------



## waiflywaif

Quote:

so its consensual to give a child an airplane ride while they are sitting down playing with a toy car
No, in fact I don't think that's consensual. Why would you interrupt a child at play to do that?

If a kid and I were having active play and I zoomed him around, that would be totally different.


----------



## waiflywaif

Quote:

I have a full life, not an empty one where everything can be made invalid and non existent.
What does this mean? That anyone who is respectfully debating these points has an "empty" life? I don't quite understand.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

you would interupt what eve rother active play thing you were doing to switch to zooming?
would you interupt your child from being bored to zoom?

it doesnt matter what they are doing (or if they are doing nothing) if you do anything or say anything with your child you are "interupting" something, even if that something is nothing. By those standards there is no such thing as consensuality. By my standards, where there is such thing as consensuality, it is consensual when we do something we all agree to doing.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I use mutually agreeable solution and consensual solution interchangeably, but I'm only going by the basic definitons of those words, no over analysis of them.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *waiflywaif* 
What does this mean? That anyone who is respectfully debating these points has an "empty" life? I don't quite understand.

I edited before you posted this to clarify as I realized a person might choose to insinuate those were my intentions.


----------



## waiflywaif

I never said that there was no such thing as consensuality.

I said that, with very young children, things are mostly parent-led. If I say, "hey let's play with clay!" and the child says "No!" we don't play with clay. However, because I've had lots more experience, I can make the playing with clay sound AMAZINGLY EXCITING. I can neglect to mention that we're going to be playing with clay INSTEAD of that other activity that I don't want the kid to be doing at the moment. I can direct them to clay, which suits my needs at that time (kid sitting down, being quiet, whatever).

Is everyone happy? Yes! Are we gentle, peaceful, getting along? Yes! Was it mutually agreeable? Yes! All I'm saying is that, to my mind, "consensual" is not quite the right word for it. I manipulated my kid into choosing clay because it suited both of our needs. and that is OKAY.


----------



## GoBecGo

I was not attacking you personally (i am terrible for saying "you" when i should use "one"! sorry!) or even CL particularly, obviously you feel it works for you, i was merely defining why the context of life precludes what is true consensuality in my eyes. I am also not trying to persuade you from moving away from a parenting/life style which is clearly making you feel happy, fulfilled and at peace with the world!

My not seeing the world as you do (and beleve me, i don't see it like many others do AT ALL!







) doesn't mean my life is empty. I do try every day to find solutions which allow DD the most will possible while keeping her safe and my sanity intact. It is not as if i think consensuality not being something one can easily achieve is a reason to trample all over her at every opportunity or sit in darkened nihilism feeling that my parenting journey is immaterial in the world. It is simply that i cannot tell myself true consensuality can exist between a parent and a child because the two for me (consensual relationship/parent-child relationship) are mutually exclusive.








I really didn't mean for you to feel attacked. I have autistic traits which often cause me to entirely miss when someone else is likely to feel attacked by my intellectualising of a given topic. I really am sorry if you felt i was deconstructing YOU rather than just the concept as i view it.


----------



## waiflywaif

Quote:

I will say simply: You are right. Please assume I am wrong if that will give you peace. Otherwise, feel free to accept that I think you are right for you and your family, but still think my family is right for my family. I don't really see any way for *me* to go forward in this conversation, but I've already thought that a few times and then things perked up again so we'll see.
One more thing: feel free to bow out, but you are not being attacked. I'm not saying that you're doing anything wrong, or that "I'm right for my family" because we're not even all that far apart on things. I don't know exactly why you like to choose to frame things as attacks on your family, but that is simply not the case. I see a difference of opinion that is mostly linguistic and minor. That's all.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

By your same reasoning though one could conclude there is no such thing as consensuality because everything can be catagorized as "redirection" if you so much as walk past your child. (My son has special needs. If he was playing a game and I walked by to get to the bathroom - him in his room, me walking past through the hallway - it would distract him and he would get upset because he didnt want his attention to be redirected) In this case I wasn't even trying to redirect his attention. Anything you do near your child can be considered redirection. Interacting with your child at all... I dont call this parent leading the child. Its parent leading self and child leading child in response, or vice versa. This does not negate the ability to be consensual by my understanding of the definition of the word.

I don't manipulate my children. I would let them form their own opinions about clay. I might share with them what I like about it, but they may not agree. I am not going to try to convince them they *must* agree. There is no *must* They can feel differently.

Again just speaking of what *I* do and I hope this time no one feels the need to think my world revolves around them. I am only saying what is true for me, it does not mean I think its not true for someone else by default - and I dont understand why that needs to be the default line of thinking.

Really now, I must go







I'll be back though when this threads path changes to one that I start to feel a positive vibe from again.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoBecGo* 
SGM i think this

implies those of us who have a view of consensuality which makes it non-concurrent with parenting have something lacking in our lives, which is a bit harsh! I was not attacking you personally (i am terrible for saying "you" when i should use "one"! sorry!) or even CL particularly, obviously you feel it works for you, i was merely defining why the context of life precludes what is true consensuality in my eyes. I am also not trying to persuade you from moving away from a parenting/life style which is clearly making you feel happy, fulfilled and at peace with the world!

My not seeing the world as you do (and beleve me, i don't see it like many others do AT ALL!







) doesn't mean my life is empty. I do try every day to find solutions which allow DD the most will possible while keeping her safe and my sanity intact. It is not as if i think consensuality not being something one can easily achieve is a reason to trample all over her at every opportunity or sit in darkened nihilism feeling that my parenting journey is immaterial in the world. It is simply that i cannot tell myself true consensuality can exist between a parent and a child because the two for me (consensual relationship/parent-child relationship) are mutually exclusive.








I really didn't mean for you to feel attacked. I have autistic traits which often cause me to entirely miss when someone else is likely to feel attacked by my intellectualising of a given topic. I really am sorry if you felt i was deconstructing YOU rather than just the concept as i view it.

Care to please quote the sentence under that quote? No need to victimize by saying I am implying that when I clearly stated I am only speaking for MYSELF. If I negated things until nothing existed my life would be empty. ME. MY life. NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU OR ANYONE ELSE!!!


----------



## GoBecGo

I'm sorry, you clarified while i was writing my post and i didn't see untl after. All sorted now hopefully.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

you quoted:
"Consensual is real to me, I don't get over technical with things until they disappear. I have a full life, not an empty one where everything can be made invalid and non existent."
and said
"implies those of us who have a view of consensuality which makes it non-concurrent with parenting have something lacking in our lives, which is a bit harsh!"

the sentence right after the sentence you quoted said
"I just realized I probably need to specify that saying my life is full is not saying someone else's is not. I am only speaking for myself here. I understand the disclaimer is necessary."

I was asking if you cared to quote that sentence as well, before telling me what I am implying after I had in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE clarified that thought.


----------



## waiflywaif

I honestly don't understand why it's so heated in here. I'll give up and bow out as well.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I had edited my post at 12:32 and you posted at 12:41 so I see how we could have missed eachother between my clarification and your posting. It is a bit frustrating though that EVERY time I say anything postive about my life people choose to take it as an insult against their own lives. I am well aware that I can go left, then right, then right to get to pearls from my house. I can also go right,, then left then left to get there. Just because I say I went this way and got here, does NOT mean I am saying you cant get there because you didnt go this way. I thinkwith everything I have said it obvious that it the way I think (such as, there may be a brick wall there, but we can still go around it to get where we are going. Or over it. Or knock through it with a bulldozer. You hear me say I think there are infinite possibilites to come to a "happy ending" but every time I share which path I chose to get to my happy ending I am accused of insinuating no one else will have a happy ending. I want to believe these arent attempts for people to victimize themselves... it's hard because of my own personal experience with my toxic mother who would victimize herself for the purpose of making her look "right" and the other person look "wrong"... Which is probably why its heated on my end. Waif once I leave it won't be heated anymore because you all agree with each other lol

GoBecc - you are fine. I have my own nuerological issues which I will leave out of it, but I know my thinking has and always will be very "odd" to everyone else. Your thinking is obviously in the majority in this case. In this case, I am the one who sees he world very differently - as is apparent by the fact I think there are only 2 other people in all this thread who even somewhat share my thinking on the validity of consensuality and the term consensual living and its ability to be practical in practice.


----------



## GoBecGo

SGM i'm really sorry, i have edited. As you can see the thread expanded to a new page and i didn't see your edit of the quoted post until AFTER i'd posted that i didn't get what you meant, because until i put THAT post up the page didn't refresh to show your edit (even MORE confusing!). Apologies for the original misunderstanding, as well as for being slow on the uptake of the clarification. Technology doesn't make these things easier at all!


----------



## waiflywaif

Quote:

It is a bit frustrating though that EVERY time I say anything postive about my life people choose to take it as an insult against their own lives
I can assure you that I (at least) really really don't. I don't even know where you get that from.

In fact, to me it seems a bit like the opposite---if someone says "well what about this" (meaning perhaps a wrinkle in the CL philosophy), you seem to (sometimes) take that as saying that your parenting style is wrong or bad. It doesn't. It probably means that the poster likes the topic and wants to examine it from all angles.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoBecGo* 
SGM i'm really sorry, i have edited. As you can see the thread expanded to a new page and i didn't see your edit of the quoted post until AFTER i'd posted that i didn't get what you meant, because until i put THAT post up the page didn't refresh to show your edit (even MORE confusing!). Apologies for the original misunderstanding, as well as for being slow on the uptake of the clarification. Technology doesn't make these things easier at all!

its okay though no apology was necessary. I see what happened there


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

to my comment of a full life you said

Quote:


Originally Posted by *waiflywaif* 
What does this mean? That anyone who is respectfully debating these points has an "empty" life? I don't quite understand.

to my comment of positive about me people taking to mean negative about people not like me you said

Quote:


Originally Posted by *waiflywaif* 
I can assure you that I (at least) really really don't. I don't even know where you get that from.

to which I say, I got that from the first quote - and you aren't the first to do that in this thread. Not really sure the purpose people have in twisting things that way. As I said I am assuming its not for the same reasons my mother does.

*To your comment of 'just the opposite' when someone says something I /believe is wrong/impossible that is saying something I do/believe is wrong/impossible in their eyes. When I say something I do/believe is right that is not saying something someone else does is wrong. I am only taking it the way its said. That is not the same as people reversing what I say. This is just the way my mind words though - which is why I used to not realize people would take things that way and then when it kept happening in this thread I learned people would take it that way and thats why I added the clarification. Perhaps some people when they say something good about themselves intend to imply something bad about others, and perhaps thats why they felt that is what I was doing. At first, I didn't even think to clarify because I know I don't do that - but when I reflected on the history of this thread I realize people might choose to take it that way, and so I clarified.


----------



## waiflywaif

Well, the fact that you edited it probably means that you knew it could be taken that way. All I can do is react to what you actually write. It seemed like a bit of a huge jump from a respectful debate about what "consensual" means in the context of a parent-child relationship to talk about full and empty lives. That is what I was reacting to. One minute it was a debate and the next minute it was personal.

And to your edit: I don't see where it was said that something you do is wrong.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

yes I know it can be taken that way because no matter how many times I clarify people CHOOSE to take it that way. It was never personal _against_ anyone else. I am speaking of my own *personal* accounts because thats all I can speak of with absolute knowingness


----------



## GoBecGo

Quote:

Your thinking is obviously in the majority in this case. In this case, I am the one who sees he world very differently - as is apparent by the fact I think there are only 2 other people in all this thread who even somewhat share my thinking on the validity of consensuality and the term consensual living and its ability to be practical in practice.
The strangest thing is that it's only in the last page or two that i've been clear on what everyone else actually thought! I know i am very purist about things, but i don't really let that interfere with my life (basically that makes me a hypocrite of sorts, though i am ok with that too!).

I wonder if part of the matter of the disagreement about whether CL is practicable or not is because some of us feel CL is a workable state which takes thought, time and some effort to achieve but is very achieveable, and others of us feel it is an unattainable state which one can only move towards but not ever reach. Because some of the CL solutions you have found do not feel CL to me. That is not to say they aren't CL, just that my idea of it and yours differ. It's a bit like a discussion on religion isn't it? With everyone having their own idea of what "christian" or "muslim" should look like.

You are right about the perspective/emptiness point too, for me at least. But because it is just how i think it doesn't make me feel anything to be able to reduce my life and the merits or lack thereof of what i do in it to a morally void singularity. It is so often said "i need to get some perspective" and i just happen to be the sort of person who can look at the world from the coldness of space or the agony of minutiae. In one sense i can certainly see that zooming (which as discussed has its limitations here but we've all adopted it to discuss around this so i'll go on with it) is FAR more towards consensual than a smack round the head and command to stand still. In terms of practical action in the moment i also think it is not only among the best but also the one i would be most likely to adopt. I just don't think it is consensual in the true (for me) sense.

So that is where i am at with this - we all agree that the implement in question is the best for digging, it's just some of us call it "a spade" and the others "a shovel", yes?

ETA - i thought of a better way to put it - for some CL is TRYING to find consensual solutions and for others CL is FINDING the solutions all the time - one being very achieveable and the other not. One is a journey, the other a destination.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

So funny you said that about religion because I was just thinking its very much like religion. Which not only do I respect that other people find truth in different religions, but that people also find different truths in the same religion!

For me it is about the journey certaintly, but I do enjoy the destination as well. I find both the journey and the destination acheivable.

You are one step ahead of me, this thread still isnt very clear to me lol, but my life is clear and what consensual living means to me is clear, so thats really enough for me!

I appreciate your respect on the issue. That is how I feel. CL looks/feels/is diferent to each of us. I respect some people see CL as 'impossible' but yet the reality is that to me its not impossible. That is their truth and that is mine. I am not saying they are wrong, but I am speaking of what *I* know is right - and only I can know what I know ya know? hehehe


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I just mean that our limits are different then boundaries. Limits we can work around instead of boundaries we have to stay in. There is no need for my children to test the limits because the limits aren't preventing them from experience, they are just part of the experience. There is no need to "take a mile" when I give an inch because I don't give inches or miles. They are already there, endlessly.

I'm still stuck here....so, no personal boundaries for yourself, then?

Is this age dependent? I have personal boundaries for my 2 yo ds, but I help him to meet his need while maintaining my boundary (twirling my hair while nursing, for example...twirling ok; pulling, yanking, ratting not ok).

I expect my 8 yo to deal with simple personal boundary requests without help (giving me privacy to dress, for example). She responds with testing limits, and eventually accepting the limit and coping just fine. I'm curious how giving miles and maintaining personal boundaries mesh as children grow.


----------



## GoBecGo

Don't all children look for boundaries to test? DD relentlessly tests my boundaries and "rules" (like "don't pour your water into the back of the tv").


----------



## poiyt

I think if things are phrased "dont..." or "you cant.." thats whats tested. Because they are seeing if they *can*. they are merely trying to show you that yes mama I can do these things - how come you thought I couldnt. Phrasing things in the positive, or finding something that meets the underlying desire of them wanting to pour water into the back of the TV tends to go over easier (at least in my house). That being said, we dont have a lot of rules...yes pouring water into the tv, if that were an issue, would be something we'd avoid - but there are many rules which many families have that are arbitrary and I dont really understand, so I dont see how I child would.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *poiyt* 
Phrasing things in the positive, or finding something that meets the underlying desire.

Is there not a point in development where it becomes the child's responsibility to cope without the parent exploring for underlying desires? My dd _can_ cope with my dressing alone boundary, but she would prefer to be with me.

Positive phrasing is important and powerful, but by no means 100% effective.


----------



## poiyt

preferences are different than underlying needs though. I think at some point children are capable of exploring their own underlying desires - but I still need help sometimes, because we just get so focussed on what we *want* to do that we arent able to see alternatives. My child gives me alternatives to what I want to do all the time, and these are mutually agreed upon (by my wanting to do it). So I dont think its necessarily an age thing.

No positive phrasing isnt the be all end all, I was just using it as one example.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *poiyt* 
because we just get so focussed on what we *want* to do that we arent able to see alternatives. .

Agreed. What *I* often find, though, is that my dc can see the alternatives on their own once they accept the limit. That is why "must" and "can't" are so useful to me--not as a first line of communication, but as clarification of the limit if they are pressing to do something unacceptable.

My 2 yo often replies with an "Oh...we _can't_!" as if a lightbulb went off, and he then is able to choose an alternative. My 8 yo often needs to know *exactly* where the line is, but can deal well once she knows the line. Not knowing the line makes her anxious, and leads to more neediness and undesirable behavior.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
I'm still stuck here....so, no personal boundaries for yourself, then?

Is this age dependent? I have personal boundaries for my 2 yo ds, but I help him to meet his need while maintaining my boundary (twirling my hair while nursing, for example...twirling ok; pulling, yanking, ratting not ok).

I expect my 8 yo to deal with simple personal boundary requests without help (giving me privacy to dress, for example). She responds with testing limits, and eventually accepting the limit and coping just fine. I'm curious how giving miles and maintaining personal boundaries mesh as children grow.


I don't need personal boundaries if I am trying to do something, because its already something *I* am choosing to do. Of course I have boundaries but not as they relate to my goals, only as they relate to what my goals are.

In those cases what is my childs goal of walking in when I'm in the bathroom. How can we meet that goal and still respect my goal. It has nothing to do with boundaries.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

poiyt you worded that well. I am in agreement.

My children don't need to test what their "limits" are. They know their goals can be meet. They don't need to "test" me or "prove" they CAN do something. I know they can, they know we can, so they don't need to test.


----------



## Calm

Very cool discussion. It is a shame that SGM has to stand in for CL, and I do not think it is because they have stuck their nose in the air about it. I appreciate that SGM is here.

Quote:

there are always consensual solutions. If you don't use them at the time though, then all you have are solutions for the future , that is true, but that does not mean at the time there were no consensual solutions. It doesn't mean no one ever "misses" but that those solutions are always there.
Regarding your sig and what you mentioned earlier, I see posts such as that above, and it is clearly not about you, esp as you chose the word "you", and not "me". And then you say "no one". I know there are times it is very clear you are only talking about your own truth, that there are always consensual solutions for you, and so on. But most of the time, you are saying that in _general_ there are always consensual solutions, as this post above shows also. Basically meaning what Pat means, and that is there are always consensual solutions, for everyone, regardless of the situation or who is involved.


----------



## Calm

BTW, I understand now what you were referring to with the miles/inches thing. Tone is a pain in the butt in these discussions.

Anyway...

Quote:

I was suggesting that our children have always had miles (upon miles endless infinite miles) BUT it's not like they USE it all. They don't need to keep "checking" to find at which point we are going to say "no, I DO own you" (not in those words) They are likely to think - eh, I'm sure we'd find a way for me to do that if I wanted, and sometimes just knowing that is enough.

Quote:

This isn't a concern for the child who doesn't feel the need to "get things while they can"

Quote:

It's much like attachment parenting in that sense. The child who is left to cry becomes more clingy/needy because they want to get that attention before its gone. They are afraid its going to run out, and when it does they are desperate to get it back to know its not gone for good (even though it comes back, children don't understand that in the same way which is the same reason for seperation anxiety). Where as the attached baby knows mama is there. So they go about their way, stop in for quick refills, and then continue on again. There is not feeling of "get it while I can because time is running short"
I know you do not mean this, well, I assume you don't, but these things tend to hit nerves in parents, any parent doing any kind of parenting. We all have issues we are dealing with, and when we are told that a child won't have such issues if they were parented differently it is going to raise shackles and it amazes me when it is dealt with as politely as this thread is in general.

All those things you said that I quoted above sound like the hopeful attachment parent ideals but the reality is, again, just not so predictable. My daughter was raised for almost two years in a mainstream way. Separate room, bottle, controlled comfort, no slings, mechanised comfort items like swings, the whole gamut. My son was raised from CONCEPTION as an extreme AP baby. Once born, 24/7 skin on skin contact for weeks, then 24/7 body contact with the mother, rarely any other, breastfed on demand, cosleeping, the whole gamut.

My daughter doesn't have a clingy bone in her body and never did. My son is SO freakin' needy it almost kills me. As I've illustrated throughout this thread.

My DD was a highly secure baby and is now a very secure child. She is intellectually gifted and very creative and imaginative. She was AP'd from the age of two, but that important foundational time, she wasn't.

The fact is, there are people, including children, out there who will take every last mile you give and still pull for more. There is a positive side to all character traits, and this one would have many. But it is still something that is a possibility no matter how a child is treated. I also used to think I was very clever with my well behaved rule follower who never took more than she needed - I also felt it was because she had no rules that she learned intrinsic discipline. Give her a mile and she'll take an inch. I've watched her give and give and give to everyone around her. She often reaches for the smallest piece of cake and I thought it was because when cake is around it is my usual stance to not cut pieces but put the whole thing on a plate and grab a spoon







:. I really thought it was me. In some areas, it might be.

But really, it's HER. I give the credit back to _HER_. SHE's the special one, not me. It's not how she was raised because I know in my heart of souls that she would be this way if raised by a pack of wild dogs.

I used to also say "they" are this and that and "ap'd kids are..." (insert ideal here) "CL kids are..." (insert ideal here) with very little proof other than what other parents, like yourself, promised me here, and in books I read. The truth turned out to be much more variable.

Therefore, the fact that my son, for instance, is clingy has absolutely nothing to do with how many miles or inches he has. The fact that my daughter is Miss Independent from birth has absolutely nothing to do with how securely or insecurely she was attached at birth. Sure we can speculate about attachment issues, deep psychological damage (and what parent doesn't think about that?) and buried baggage I cannot see. But that would all be an individual thing, not something we can blanket statements about. Again, the whole thing is a generalised fallacy designed to entice an otherwise mainstream mother to become more in tune with her child.

I do not doubt, not for a second, that it is better for the mother and the child to practise natural parenting. I do however, think that all the icing that goes on that cake is bullshit. I don't think it shapes them quite as much as we are promised, as I have seen too many mainstreamed kids at playgroup and in my own family, and AP'd kids in my AP mother group this last 5 years to think it has quite that bearing anymore. I also see too many threads here by mothers with the same issues as mainstream mothers, and vice versa.

It is another piece of "false advertising", based on anthropological factors that we simply cannot emulate satisfactorily, if for no other reason than the fact that WE were not raised that way. That is a HUGE factor, our own prejudices, beliefs, patience, needs and desires all weigh on how we parent.

It is like the way I used to say that organically, non processed, no additive food is the best way to feed children and such children will never be sick and blah blah blah... only to find that that isn't true either. It's as frustrating as the 90 year old chain smoker who breaks all the rules we set for how and when they should get sick and die. Yet I still believe the healthy food will set a child up stronger for life, as I have seen that, I just don't see it as immediately as I used to think I should. One of the only things that has delivered my preconceived idea is vaccination. Most vaccinated children are more sick more often than non vaxed children. Most, not all. But so far, that's the only one delivering on the promise.

And, let's not forget, they are their own people. They will choose to be who they are no matter what life throws at them. One person's tragedy is another person's opportunity.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

And as a child who NEVER cried or objected during abuse (and sometimes participated perfectly willingly) i cannot see that giggling equals informed consent.
*Very important.* I'm leaving this stand on its own so it will be read by more people.


----------



## Calm

Sorry, I don't have the names of who quoted what even though I'm sure who did. I put them on a word doc because of time constraints.

Quote:

Kid is running toward the street. I pick him up and zoom him away from the street. He laughs and giggles, we share a loving moment. It was grand, but it was not "consensual."
It doesn't FEEL consensual either. It feels like coersion. So when I did the zooming thing and DS still got upset, what then? How can anyone still say there are limitless consensual options when the last one I am faced with while standing there with my son is to let him, or not let him. That's IT. To not let him, then I have to choose _how_ to not let him, and hope he is happy with it. When he's not, then what??

My son is given miles, all day. He is held and loved and has a sister who plays with him, a mother who holds him whenever he needs... he does not lack. Yet there are still these moments. Like when he doesn't want to go anywhere but onto the road, it isn't consensual no matter how I manipulate or coerce him or try to distract him. In the end, he had a little cry and grieved for that which he couldn't have and although he shot a few more glances toward the road, he stopped doing it.

And it is this reality, with the underlying need of simply a child who wants to experience "road", that CL seems to deny. Like my son mouthing the toilet, "Oh, that's just a silly example". Hmm, says a lot really, considering it is such a real issue for me I've had to have a round table discussion with the extended family in order to examine possible solutions. Perhaps my life IS just surreal - I really doubt that though, not these days. These days I feel very much the run of the mill mama.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Very cool discussion. It is a shame that SGM has to stand in for CL, and I do not think it is because they have stuck their nose in the air about it. I appreciate that SGM is here.

Regarding your sig and what you mentioned earlier, I see posts such as that above, and it is clearly not about you, esp as you chose the word "you", and not "me". And then you say "no one". I know there are times it is very clear you are only talking about your own truth, that there are always consensual solutions for you, and so on. But most of the time, you are saying that in _general_ there are always consensual solutions, as this post above shows also. Basically meaning what Pat means, and that is there are always consensual solutions, for everyone, regardless of the situation or who is involved.

yes when I say "you" talking about a general you that is obviously not the same thing as me saying I. If you take me saying you as meaning general you then you are reading what I wrote. If you take me saying I to mean that I imply the opposite of you then that is not reading what I wrote. I am glad you can see the difference.

What is true to me, not speaking for Pat, is that I trust anyone who believe there is always consensual solutions will always have consensual solutions available to them. That is what is true to me. Perhaps there are people who believe there are always consensual solutions but then find they often feel like none of those solutions are available to them, and that would be true to them even if it's not true to me. Yes, I do believe there are always consensual solutions if you choose to embrace the idea they are always there. Basically, if what is true to me is also true to you, then there are always consensual solutions. All the quoted statement really say id was "if you are looking at it my way you (generally) see it this way" Of course I still say this generally speaking, but I don't find that imposing in any way to say so. It is no different then me saying "if you believe white and red will make pink (as I do) then when you mix white and red together you will see pink (as I do) *generally speaking*


----------



## Calm

Almost done for the day... YAY I hear you all say. Heh. Shaddup.









Quote:

so its consensual to give a child an airplane ride while they are sitting down playing with a toy car (in effect redirecting away form the toy car) but its not consensual to do the same thing when they run towards the road?
No, that wouldn't be consensual either. I have a rule to leave children while they play where possible unless they ask for help.

But would you do it when they are intent on what they are doing, perhaps they are painting a masterpiece, would you do it then? Of course not, unless you were self absorbed and a CL parent usually isn't. This is exactly how it is for an intent toddler who has honed in on something. They are not painting yet, they are still experiencing the world viscerally, via the body. They grab, run onto, put into, they basically _do stuff_ to the world around them. When you go in and interrupt that focus in a toddler intent on experiencing "road" it is the same thing as picking up a six year old who is intently painting and zooming her around the room. Which is blatantly rude, at the very least, and certainly not consensual, even if she laughs. And of course she laughs. It's fun. But still rude!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Take it up with Dr Sears Calm, he's the one who explained the non-CIO leading to more independent toddlers. I'm not the one who made it up, I just noticed in my experience and the experiences that have been shared with me that there is truth in Dr Sears observation of such. I am not saying "x always equals y" in reference to CIO and clingyness. OBVIOUSLY each child is different and their temperment is theirs. Only that is seems that more often then not x equals y, and that that is my experience and the experiences that have been shared with me. (aside from the people trying to prove something in this thread - im only speaking of people *I* know) I do however know 1 AP person (outside of this thread) whose 15 month old is still pretty clingy, but only at night.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Almost done for the day... YAY I hear you all say. Heh. Shaddup.









No, that wouldn't be consensual either. I have a rule to leave children while they play where possible unless they ask for help.

But would you do it when they are intent on what they are doing, perhaps they are painting a masterpiece, would you do it then? Of course not, unless you were self absorbed and a CL parent usually isn't. This is exactly how it is for an intent toddler who has honed in on something. They are not painting yet, they are still experiencing the world viscerally, via the body. They grab, run onto, put into, they basically _do stuff_ to the world around them. When you go in and interrupt that focus in a toddler intent on experiencing "road" it is the same thing as picking up a six year old who is intently painting and zooming her around the room. Which is blatantly rude, at the very least, and certainly not consensual, even if she laughs. And of course she laughs. It's fun. But still rude!

I alreay adressed this but you didnt get that far in the reading yet


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
The fact is, there are people, including children, out there who will take every last mile you give and still pull for more.

That's my dd! Ap'd from birth; needy as all heck. Eight years old and way needier than my 2 yo. It's like she has a leak, and all the attention just drains out as quickly as I pour it in. She is never filled up


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
*Very important.* I'm leaving this stand on its own so it will be read by more people.

she giggled during abuse, or she just didnt cry during abuse? I admit yes, that would throw me off as a parent if my child was laughing during a painful undesireable experience. but as she said, she participated WILLINGLY. Was the abuse right? no - but she is saying she was a WILLING participant... my husband and I can be pretty kinky in the bedroom and its entirely consensual lol, not the same thing with a child in my opinion of course, but I dont think this is relaly compareable to zooming a child away...

once again though its like "look we can compare CL to abuse" .... the legnths one goes to to prove a point. I really dont see a need to "prove" anything here but those who feel the need tp prove something I hope that brings them peace


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

if they are taking every lat mile you "give" then there is obviously reluctance to give it because its not THERE. and if they have to PULL for more that also shows reluctance. You are still describing a person in a situation who feels there is some kind of brick wall with no way around that they have to find... I see what you say to be true with adults - who were once children who were only given inches and learned how to stretch those inches into miles and became adults who learned how to "pull" more and more miles.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

My children are not given miles. They have miles. I see it as their right, its not something I provide them its something they have. I just don't share the same confusion. Wish I could be more help, but our family dynamic is so different... I don't know that I would end up in those situations. The truth to you is that its because I don't have your children, and the truth to me is simply that its because I am me and I have chosen to take a different path then what you describe, and look at things from another angle entirely, which doesn't lead me to those same situations. It could be either or. I'm not saying its the latter, I'm just saying I can't know that its definitely the former either.

I know if I were in those situation (*me* with *my* children, because of the path *I* have chosen and the way *I* look at things I could find a solution) and really, I am the only one I can speak for.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
if they are taking every lat mile you "give" then there is obviously reluctance to give it because its not THERE. and if they have to PULL for more that also shows reluctance. .

At some point, I honestly have nothing left to give.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I am never in that situation because I'm not giving to them and they arent taking from me. It's just there and they know its there.

It's like If there is a stream of water, and I go and fill up a container and ration it off to my children (or just let them have it either way) then yes, I will run out of water to give. If they have access to the stream though they aren't going to run out of water.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I am never in that situation because I'm not giving to them and they arent taking from me. It's just there and they know its there.

It's like If there is a stream of water, and I go and fill up a container and ration it off to my children (or just let them have it either way) then yes, I will run out of water to give. If they have access to the stream though they aren't going to run out of water.

SGM, you never get touched out? Exhausted? Physically hurt by a child? Want privacy? Because that is what I am talking about.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I get tired, I've been clonked in the head (don't have privacy issues though because that kind of thing isnt a need I have... my son does though so I understand it as a need)

I think you and I were talking about completely different things though, and I thought I had addressed the personal limits before. I can respect my personal limits but still help them reach their "goal"

in other words I am tired but they want to a play a game:
dad plays a game with them
friend who they ADORE comes and plays a game with them
we agree to 1 game before resting, then we play more
we play a game that I can be most resting while we play
I tell them I need to rest and they decide to wait until I have more energy
I drink a cup of coffee
the list goes on, and obviously I cant list infinite options. Generally though, I know when I will be exhausted is because I didnt get enough sleep and so I am more proactive about my day and manage to meet their attention needs in low levels but continuously throughout the day heading off such a situation.

I get physically hurt and we find a mutualy agreeable way to express the emotion. I can move out of the way of a swinging fist. Allowing my children to be the author of their lives does not mean I become solely a character with no book of my own.

Im getting am little dizzy this is all so circular! I accept that you don't see it this way, but as I said before my mind isn't going to change on the issue. I mean, of course someone who is more open minded then me can challenge me to broaden the horizons of my mind (which at this point I don't really even know where that is lol - my mind is WIDE open, but yet Pat and Dar keep managing to inspire me!) but I'm not willing to constrict my mind back from where it is now.


----------



## kalimay

"she giggled during abuse, or she just didnt cry during abuse? I admit yes, that would throw me off as a parent if my child was laughing during a painful undesireable experience. but as she said, she participated WILLINGLY. Was the abuse right? no - but she is saying she was a WILLING participant... my husband and I can be pretty kinky in the bedroom and its entirely consensual lol, not the same thing with a child in my opinion of course, but I dont think this is relaly compareable to zooming a child away.."

I think the reason abuse is brought up is to show that young children will sometimes agree to heinous things because the one person in the world that they know and trust tells them it is good, fun, ok, what they are supposed to do. And even thought the child at the time might consent it is the parents influence that allowed for that.

I think at this point for me I understand that I don't agree with being completely CL because I don't agree with the way I am seeing consent defined by the people who have spoken up about practicing CL on this thread. I do not think zooming a child away from what they are doing is the child giving consent. Yes they have fun being zoomed away but they are not consenting to not go in the road they are consenting to play a fun game with their beloved parent but distraction with something fun does not equal consent.

"so its consensual to give a child an airplane ride while they are sitting down playing with a toy car (in effect redirecting away form the toy car) but its not consensual to do the same thing when they run towards the road?"

SMG,
I would also like to see you address this because I would not give my child an airplane ride while they were sitting down playing with a toy car. It would be IMO disrespectful to do so.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I think you and I were talking about completely different things though, and I thought I had addressed the personal limits before. I can respect my personal limits but still help them reach their "goal".

Very often, what dd wants is *me*. When she was younger, I failed consistently at respecting my personal limits while meeting her goal/need (erring on the side of self-sacrifice). I could give some extreme examples, but really it is just bad memories and I'd rather remember the good stuff.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I have never done it either - bad example - which is why I clarified if they were doing nothing. The point is no matter what they are doing and what you do around them you could "distract" them so by that thinking one could NEVER be consensual. So I don't join those who think that way.

I think the reason abuse is brought up is to show that young children will sometimes agree to heinous things because the one person in the world that they know and trust tells them it is good, fun, ok, what they are supposed to do. And even thought the child at the time might consent it is the parents influence that allowed for that.

I still dont see how it's compareable still. My child doesn't think zooming away is fun because I convinced them it is fun. So how is a child being convinced abuse is okay the same as a child NOT being convinced that zooming away is fun but LOVING it and asking me to do it more often then I ask them?

What I see here is peopel grasping at straws to prove a point that CL is not possible. I am not going to engage in that I have no point to prove my life has shown me what is true to my life.

If my child is doing/not doing something and I suggest something they can still choose to continue what they are doing and not accept my offer. I have one child who sometimes doesnt like being zoomed away. He will tell me "don't catch me" which to him means "dont touch me" and we respect that.

If my child is playing and I cook dinner I put the dinner on the table and I say "dinner is on the table" he sometimes chooses to get up and eat dinner (yay! dinner!!!) and sometimes keeps playing (no thank you mommy. I play.) I dont think its disrespectful to interact with my child when they are doing something else, because they are ALWAYS doing something else, even when they are "doing nothing"... with my son, ESPECIALLY when he doing nothing.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
Very often, what dd wants is *me*. When she was younger, I failed consistently at respecting my personal limits while meeting her goal/need (erring on the side of self-sacrifice). I could give some extreme examples, but really it is just bad memories and I'd rather remember the good stuff.


I figured. Same here. We find ways to keep my needs met while meeting their need for me as well







It wouldnt be consensual if my needs werent being met too







: sorry for your bad memories though







(hugs)


----------



## waiflywaif

Quote:

What I see here is peopel grasping at straws to prove a point that CL is not possible
I can't speak for others, but I don't have an agenda to prove any particular point, and I am certainly not "grasping at straws." I'd enjoy the discussion much more if we could stop framing it in terms of attack/defense. I've been reading a lot of valid and interesting points and to have those characterized as desperate straw-grasping is kind of unhelpful.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I think everyone here needs a hug!

Pick up here if you want it!:


----------



## poiyt

I think, for me, anyways - when you become a parent, its not that you forget about your needs (Im talking absolute needs, not just wants), its that you become genuinely and honestly okay with pushing your needs aside to meet the needs of your child. Im not talking abot feeling resentful about not getting a night out, Im talking about...hmm..let me come back to this thought...

Every parent, whether attached or not, becomes consensual with their children - or, as some would see it, all giving. We feed them and change them when the cry - usually right away. AP parents generally feed on demand - etc etc etc...we model the consensuality in hopes that our children will model it back when they are able. We are free to not meet their needs - but we *choose* to.

Back to my original thought...I have a really hard time explaining this to people....often times we get caught up in the now, and in what we want - and it has to be that. We have to have what we want, and it cant be any other way or its wrong or not right etc. What CL (at least for me) is teaching me is that just because I dont get what I initially want doesnt mean what I am getting/doing isn't just as right or fun or good - and even if it isnt just as good as my initial want - does that really matter? I can chose to be happy and enjoy whatever it is I am doing or getting. So long as I am open and willing to experience the change in a positive way - then it is still consensual - because I was open to it.

I look it at the same way with my kids - though they may not be old enough to grasp the concept yet. If the zooming away from the street makes them just as happy and they are open to experiencing it - then its consensual (or mutually agreeable - as I too use those terms interchangably). I dont think children are fully capable of completely understanding that not getting what they want can be just as good or whatever, and even if its not as good - it can still be fine. Thats why I model the behaviour, explain the situations and go with the flow.

It is easier, and more mutually agreeable because I am at the stage where I grasp the concept, for me to bend my needs to meet the needs of my child. When they are older, I fully expect them to do the same. And its not about giving in - its about recognizing the bigger idea - that getting what we want isnt the be all end all, and life is just as fine/happy/peachy if we chose to live it that way.


----------



## GoBecGo

OoF! I see the issue of abuse has been picked up. I'll try to explain what i meant when i put that in there.

When i was 5 my abuser introduced me to a game i hadn't played before. There was a lot of "talking up" of this game which made it seem exciting and desireable. There was a lot of "Well, you're too little to play this game anyway, and you probably wouldn't do it properly" which of course made me DESPERATE to prove myself as a good game player. I was expecting something like ludo. The game involved me performing sex acts on him. Now, i did not know about sex. I did not know about abuse. At the time i didn't even know the proper words for male or female genitals. After we played "the game" felt terribly guilty for reasons i didn't understand (i believe, having talked to others in a similar posiion, that it is a mechanism of biology trying to prevent incest and protect sexually immature individuals) and as i got older and had the secrecy and danger of exposing the game to others highlighted again and again i began to realise it wasn't "right" to do it, but by then i was convinced that *I* had made *HIM* play it to begin with. "This is your show" he would say "you make the choices" and all the while he was manipulating every thought and action of mine until i was tied in knots. As much as my sense of morality pulled me away from him, my sesne of fairness and "good girl" ness pushed me back towards him - after all i had participated willingly, i couldn't take it back now, right? On the occasions when i participated willingly in abuse i COULD NOT consent truly to what i was doing, because as a 5, 6, 7 year old, i didn't know WHAT i was consenting to. I didn't know WHY he wanted to play that game, i didn't know WHAT it meant, i didn't know HOW to prevent it. He manipulated me completely and thoroughly. Perhaps HE believed i wnted to be abused, i certainly felt i must have for much of my life. He never commanded me to play, he would say "You want to play don't you, i can tell by the way you're moving/looking at me/standing" - basically i was his little mirror and he loved to gaze and see whatever he wanted to see there.

The actual balance of power between him and i was relatively minor - he is my brother and only 4 years older than me. But it was enough. It was enough that by using every trick HIS abuser (our school headmaster) had used to entrap him and have him "consent" to the game he could very very easily do the same to me. Did he even know, at 10, that he was manipulating me and doing "wrong"? I don't know. But at 16 he did, and yet he continued. He grew into his role as i grew into mine.

There is a reason we call sexual acts between adults and children "abuse" and that it is criminal in law - children are not ABLE to give consent. They will agree to all kinds of horrific, deadly or perverse thing to make the person who is manipulating them happy. I loved my brother. I wanted to play catch with him. But he would only play if i played the game first. So i played. That is so so so very VERY different from doing kinky things in the bedroom with my partner. My DP doesn't use manipulation to get me to agree to sexual acts, nor does he invite me for a coffee then say "coffee" is another word for "sex" (another trick of my abuser). I know all about sex, i know about my partners needs and my own, we have a sexual dynamic that both of us came to with full consent because we were both adults who knew exactly what we were getting ourselves into. And in our kinkier moments there is a safe word. There was no safe word with my abuser. In an abusive situation the abused has no power because they don't have full knowledge, or experience, or communicative abilities to REALLY choose. If you present 2 choices any child, even a baby, will choose one. But DD was 3 before she began asking for a choice that wasn't offered, and even now she only asks for the options she knows about. If i say "water or milk" she might say "juice!" but she would never say "gin!" because she doesn't know about gin.

Now, obviously abuse is the most extreme example of this, because usually the situation where power taken from or presented to a toddler or child is loving, or at least benign. My point is only that *for me* children are incapable of consent because they are not as informed as the adults, and if a child cannot consent you therefore cannot live consensually with them. I see that children grow into their consent. At 3 DD IS capable of knowing what she wants to drink from the narrow options she knows about. She is not capable of choosing what is the best thing (she would drink juice night and day and have no teeth if i didn't limit her options) and i don't attempt to gain her consent to withhold juice if i feel it's not the best choice, because she is only concerned with having juice, not slaking thirst or protecting her teeth. When she is 10 i will certainly NOT be limiting her options WRT juice because 10 is old enough to think about one's teeth and body. Equally i won't be throwing "gin" in as an option until she is a good bit older than 10.

I am confident, because i have discussed it with him, that my abuser felt those moments of willingness, of "consent" from me, excused what he was doing, even though he also admits he knew it was wrong, especially latterly. But, he says, he couldn't stop doing it, so he rationalised it however he had to. He told himself i wanted to do it too, and absolved himself, albeit temporarily, ofhis burden of guilt.

So i question "consent" from small children. To me even the CHILD can think they are consenting and fully in agreement and fine with what is happening, and it ca still be the most awful situation in the world. When i consented to abuse, and in action and word i definitely sometimes did, i had no idea what i was really consenting to. I question that any small child is capable of informed consent over a given issue. *FOR ME* is in't true, children cannot give consent because their information and experience is too limited for them to have that ability, thus one (or at least *I*) cannot live consensually with children.

While i am here:

Quote:

Every parent, whether attached or not, becomes consensual with their children - or, as some would see it, all giving. We feed them and change them when the cry - usually right away. AP parents generally feed on demand - etc etc etc...we model the consensuality in hopes that our children will model it back when they are able. We are free to not meet their needs - but we *choose* to
Do we really choose to? When someone's kid is crying it is irritating to me, i want to move away from the noise. When MY baby cries my nerves jangle, my heart races, i get a weird flipflop in my stomach and every fibre of me YELLS "get the baby!" until i do. I have lots of mainstream friends who use CIO and every single one of them felt the same initially, they just persevered long enough that the feelings became numbed. Many of them sat outside the nursery crying as their baby cried inside, convinced that however wrong it felt, they were doing the Right thing. For them it was a trial to overcome the impulse to answer their child's cries. I didn't even try to overcome that impulse. Nature bonded me to my baby. When she cried milk spurted from my breasts, where is the "choice" in that? Biology made me love her. Biology set me up to answer her cries. Attending to her is not a choice for me, it is a need, as much as any of my personal needs (eat, pee, sleep) are. I consented in the sense that i got pregnant and planned as natural a birth as possible to hopefully enhance bonding, but i don't choose in the moment, there is no consent in a let-down brought on by a child's cries or a racing pulse at the sight of them falling off the climbing frame.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I find with consensuality my children are MORE aware their bodies are theirs and no one can touch their bodies if they dont want to. As where my sister who was molested by my grandfather - we dd not grow up consensually - we grew up being treated like we are possessions that adults own. While she knew it was wrong (he promised to make my mom buy her a pet hamster) and she "consented" she gave off a no vibe and he was not being consensual with her and her vibe was not consensual - but additionally, she didnt know HOW to truly be consensual because she hadn't learned that yet. My children have NO problem letting you know when to stop holding them, touching them, or whether or not you can touch them in the first place - even if you are just holding their hand. AND it's respected. So when they say dont touch me we wont touch them. They know their body is theirs. For us being consensual does not open the door for sexual abuse or otherwise. In fact, for us, it has closed the door on situations like what my mom sister and aunt experienced.


----------



## GoBecGo

I'm _definitely_ not saying that being consensual can open the door for abuse, not at all, i am saying, using sexual abuse as an example, that i do not feel a child is CAPABLE of informed consent. I do not think i am CL with my DD but she has known the proper words for genitalia and that she needn't let anyone touch her if she doesn't want since before she was 2. But equally i was always able to persuade her to have her poopy nappy changed, even when she initially refused. I would respect the refusal in the moment, but i would still convince her to have the nappy changed a little while later because her skin skips the red rash and goes from pink-and-perfect to bleeding-sores in one step. Even though i always had her spoken or agreed consent when i changed those poopy nappies (once she was about 17 months and talking well) i *know* i coerced that consent. I did it for her gain and through love and caring, but it was not true consent, it was consent gained by persuasion which is a manipulative tool.

Even bargaining is a manipulative tool. I suppose for me true CL would look like this:

Child makes assertion. Assertion is accepted.

ANY further discussion of the situation, unless the child has the same knowledge, experience and communicative skills as the adult (which they simply do not) is manipulative in some way, because the adult has a clear advantage of being able to see, understand and say more about the situation. (i do think "manipulative" is a bit of a dirty word, and tone is so hard to read, but i just mean it in the purely factual sense - presentation of the situation in such a way that the desires or aggreement of the other person can be affected and/or changed - NOT necessarily for the negative - it is manipulation to persuade a child not to run under a bus, but i am not suggesting running under a bus is a favourable outcome!). And of course MY concept (above) of CL is completely unworkable because what a child wants might NOT be best for them, or the rest of the family, or even possible in some cases (DD wants to fly to the train station later in a 3-inch long helicopter!).

In the example of guarding against potential abuse there are 2 main willpowers and one minor one. My will (which is what led me to TEACH my daughter the names for genitalia and that she needn't play games anyone wants to play involving genitals) is against the potential abuser (who will attempt to persuade her otherwise). Without my initial manipulation of her viewpoint on what is "allowed" with regard to her body and potential abuse she might very well have willingly engaged in abusive scenarios without realising what they were. I did after all. It was not because i thought HE owned me, it was because i hadn't considered that *I* owned me. When (hopefully she'll never have to!) my DD rebuffs a potential abuser she will do so with the knowledge *I* gave her. Not inherant knowledge other parents suppress. Children are, especially in the early years, who we show and tell them they are. You accept your children have the ability to decline to consent to abusive behaviour, would you accept their desire for sexual contact with an adult if they asserted it? Or would you feel the adult must have manipulated them and their desires in some way? Does this make sense? My tone, in case it isn't clear, is very open and gentle - i really feel i am explorig something here. Thank you.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I understand you feel that way. It is not true to me though. What you described is not someting I consider an inability to use informed consent correctly. My child can assert thmselves even when we are discussing solutions. Nothing about the defintion of the word consensual says anything about "person makes decision other person agrees" while this may sometimes be the case, when something is going to have a uge impact on the lives around us, we need to find a solution that is MUTUALLY agreeable. Meaning my children and myself are happy with this. It's not bargaining or compromise. It's searching .Searching for the solution that makes us all happy. Which may somes times be somewhere in the middle or something entirely different or someone just going along with the other person - but this is not reached via unwanted sacrafice. In other words, we only sacrafice when it does not let us feel like we are losing something to do so. Like, I might "sacrafice" taking a shower at 7 and take one at 6:30 instead - but all I cared about was taking a shower and the time was unimportant to me so when I was asked to take a shower a half or earlier it wasn't really a sacrafice just because it was something different then what I originally planned. Some call that a compromise, but I'm not compromising anything. I am just doing something different, and am just as happy for whatever reason regardless of that factor not being exact to my previous idea. A compromise would be if it was important to me to take a shower at 7 and I agreed to 6:30 anyway even though I really felt I needed the shower at 7 and now I feel like "at least I get to take shower". It's when the part I "sacrifice" isn't a compromise just _another way_ of having my meed or desire met.

(part of a long edit just got deleted and im too upset to even repost it all at this point)
I feel that your understanding of the word consensual is very different from my dictionary based definition of the word. You are concerned about a childs ability to be consensual and give false consent, but I don't think being manipulated is the same thing. Your brother manipulated you. My mom manipulated me many times growing up to but she never even pretended to be consensual. If you were TRUELY consentin he wouldnt have needed to manipulate you. It wasn't your inability to consent - you message was clear if he had to manipulate you to get another response - but it was his ability to manipulate you into thinking you were consenting. But you weren't honestly consenting.

Consensual:
My child accepts something because its acceptable to them - not because I manipulated them into saying yes when its obvious they want to say no. (this is the whole purpose of being consensual! to not make them do things against their will!!)
My children know they can self determine their bodies. Not because I said so (though I have) but also because we live that way. I knew adults had veto power over me growing up and so did my sister. We were so used to saying Yes to adults because we had to, that even when we knew no was an option we didnt feel comfortable saying no to protect our bodies. It wasn't true consent, and my grandfather knew this which is why there was a need for manipulation (promise of a pet hamster) Just because someone tricked her into thinking she was consenting she was not consenting. She was only manipulated into THINKING she was. Was she capable of making an informed consent? Yes, however she was manipulated out of doing so. And it was easier to manipulate her out of doing so BECAUSE she grew up her whole life thinking adults had veto power and was used to saying yes to adults. She was on auto pilot. Too nervous and confused and manipulated to remember the skills she was taught she could use in that situation but never actually got a chance to experience before then (being allowed to say no). We all fall of the bike the first few times we ride it whether we are an adult or a child. I rather my child "fall of the bike" using the word no over frivilous things - such as saying yes to pancakes for breakfast and then being like "wait I meant no!" and knowing that is acceptable. Then when they are older they have practice with no and know its okay to say no and know their bodies are theirs to determine - there is no conflicting message that has been sent to them. There is no power other then the power they have over their own lives and bodies.

Again, it wasnt her inability to be informed in her consent it was inability to _feel_ she was able to use her informed consent. If she was truly unable to be informed in her consent then there would be no need for manipulation. I understand you feel that she wouldn't be able to be manipulated if she was capable of informed consent but people of all ages and intelligence are manipulated all the time. (she was 9 when it happened - my mom still manipulates EVERYONE she knows even though some of us are older then her!) Or feel they don't have the option to make the informed choice. What you describe isnt inability of being informed in consent, but more so that a child is easier to manipulate. Which is why in our family it helps being consensual. We send the message that its okay to say no to manipulation







which frees them to give consent they truly feel comfortable and happy with.

And yet, my kids are impossible to manipulate - people try the whole "oh its really awesome you will love it" thing with them in an innocent way and they DO NOT buy it. They try the "you don't know what you are missing. MMMMM this is soooo yummy" etc ... my friends think my kids are "impossible" but they really just know they are capable. Capable of deciding for themselves if something is awesome, or if they even want to try it out to determine if its awesome or not... I know and they know that they are capable of figuring out if it sounds good or is awesome on their own - they don't convincing, and are in fact more hesitant when people are trying to be convincing wondering why the other person would NEED to convince them if it was really so wonderful. I wasn't able to do this as a child, but as I started living consensually with my children I've become capable of this as well. No one can convince me that there is a better way for *me* to live then consensually. They can't manipulate me (intentionally *or* *_unintentionally_*) with ideas of abuse, kids getting hit by cars, etc because I trust myself, I trust my mind, I trust what my eyes have shown me, and I trust my family. I am capable. I don't mind being challenged by someone who is more open minded then me because they already accept where I am at and only show me more things I can choose to embrace. If I feel someone is trying to constrict or control my thinking though it's another story altogether. My children are the same. They are free. Free to add or subtract what they want on THEIR terms - through being shown more possibilities they can accept or weeding out things they have already accepted because its not working *for them* and not because someone else is telling them that its *not possible* when they can see clearly it is or that its *not healthy* when they can see clearly it is or that its *not safe* when they can see clearly it is. This frees them from being manipulated. To say no to manipulation and therefor able to used true consent, not be manipulated into thinking they are being consensual when they are not. My sister and I were not brought up this way. Not saying that is the reason she was manipulated into thinking she was consenting even though my grandfather knew she wasnt. However I do feel if she felt like she could say no to manipulation then she wouldn't have ended up in a situation where someone was TAKING FALSE consent from her. She wasn't GIVING consent though, no. False consent was _manipulated_ out of her. A person manipulated to use false consent is not using true consent. So, we allow the ability to say no to things, including manipulation, so that they are free to use true consent. Manipulation takes place when people put confines on the way you are thinking forcing you to think one way. That is not giving consent, that is having someone force your hand as the saying goes. It;s the difference between someone who holds a gun to their head and pulls the trigger and the person who has someone FORCE them to hold the gun to their head (hand over their hand) and forces them to pull the trigger, and then says "they pulled the trigger" yeah they did - but they weren't REALLY consenting to it, they were forced to do it. Thats not consent. Who knows though - do you think you would have consented to that if he didnt manipulate you by making it sound like the most fun game ever and tricking you into thinking you were making all the decisions but then limiting your mind through manipulation so you were forced to really just be doing what he wanted? Or if he said "will you do this?" and you felt you could say "no" and he would accept "no" would you have said no? can you really even KNOW if you would have said yes or no in that situation, without reliving it? without reliving your whole life and being in a place at that time where you felt you could say no? Or being at a place where if he tried to manipulate you could say no to the manipulation? Children are capable of this if they allowed to remain capable. If there are no limits on what they can say no to when it comes to their own lives and bodies. then it is clear for them when someone is forcing them and when they are truly choosing. and they wont stand by idly when somene tries to force them. That an acceptable answer to pancakes or waffles is "no" instead of "you have to choose those are your only choices" Where you can say "here's your pancakes" and they can say "no" without someone saying "well thats what is for breakfast take it or leave it!" where as their speech improves someone will say "what do you want for breakfast?" and they can say "i want ____" or "im not hungry today". Or where they can be free to make their own breakfast or ask if someone else will make breakfast for them.

I meet a LOT of people who were sexually abused (so far every women in my family has been too). One of my friends was raised consensually, and neither her nor her 2 sisters were sexually abused. They all attended college - because THEY wanted to. They are all in healthy relationships - and they all waited until THEY were ready to become intimate which for 1 was at 16 (she is now married to him its the only guy she has ever been with intimately and they have a wonderful marriage from what we hear) the other two were in college before they made that decision. Of course even people who aren't raised consensually can have lives like that, but that was my first glance firsthand into a truly consensual family, and their family is unlike any other family I have ever met - with most women I know (personally) having had sex in middle school and preschool, being abused sexually - and all mostly through manipulation (I am a victim of a form of date rape, but I wasn't on a date... long story, but I wouldn't have been in that situation if I had been raised consensually - not saying I never would have been raped - but definitely not in that exact situation) None of us REALLY knew ho to say no. All we knew was saying "yes" gained us acceptance. We also didnt know how to say no to manipulation. I can't know for sure what my life would have been life if I felt I could say no - but I can see what my friends life was like and I can see that my children have no problem saying no and canot be manipulated. And many children that age can't be - but their parents EXPECT them to be and as they grow they become susceptible to it. If instead of forcing them (my children) to comply within certain boundaries. They are free to say no. They don't ONLY feel they can say no, but they are ALLOWED to say no. All toddlers feel they can say no - but from what I've witnessed no all toddlers are allowed to ALWAYS say no when they want to, and eventually stop feeling like they can say no. Thats really the whole point of most discipline formed as behavioral modification. Sometimes we don't like what that behavioral modifcations lead to, but most people don't seem able to make the connection.

Honestly I have very strong feelings about the subject of abuse and how that card is being played here. I understand you are trying to explore but I have to bow out of this if its going to continue again (we discussed it a few pages back). *I* feel its really inappropriate and offensive, it makes *me* really uncomfortable and I understand all the people trying to disprove CL will say "I didnt take it that way" blah blah blah (of course they don't because they think its proving their point







) but to someone who DOES practice CL to have some one say it is because they are defining consensual in a way that NO dictionary does, I feel its irrelevant and an attempt to just bring abuse into a conversation that is unwarrented. Take care.


----------



## spottiew

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
My children don't need to test what their "limits" are. They know their goals can be meet. They don't need to "test" me or "prove" they CAN do something. I know they can, they know we can, so they don't need to test.

mine does... and i feel that i give him miles and miles and have very few no's and he takes/needs always more... i feel that i give and give and he feels that it's not enough. it seems to be in his personality to push... like he asks for the few no's that there are (don't hit me). or ask for 5 classes at once, and we end up losing $$ because he doesn't get that he just CAN"T do them all at once... but he WANTS to... i still think he would be happier in the african savannah than modern life, but i am not willing to do that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
alright, I guess this already got covered... but in your game example, the 'i say i am tired, he agrees to wait for me to rest first', wouldn't happen, he just wouldn't agree, and i wouldn't get my rest. about all i can do is suggest something that i prefer, and if that doesn't work, i find myself preferring the game to the fuss that he is generating (how much do i want to fight about not playing wiht my kid and all).

i get tapped out all the time... my kid can talk ALL day, and it always is interactive. why this, what would happen if that, watch me do this, tell me that... sometimes, just sometimes, at the VERY end of the day he has had enough, but it's SO exhausting! he has more energy than 5000 hamsters on wheels! that is why it's 'giving', because i can't DO what he needs ALL the time.


----------



## waiflywaif

Quote:

I understand all the people trying to disprove CL
I'm just going to say this every time: I don't think anyone is trying to do that.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

yes but we can't compare me and my kids to you and your kids because you have raised thm with "giving miles" and we are living with "having miles" So therefor you can't know what your child would say after getting to the point they could trust that there wasn't some kind of "allowance" of miles or that they need to find where the road ends. Maybe they would just keep going and going and going and going until they came full circle, maybe you are right and they would just go so far they would be lost wandering around because you didnt want to follow them and they kept going, but we don't know, because thats not what you do. and thats okay. *You are happy with your life, your children are happy, it works for your family, and it is right for you.*

I am also happy. And my experience with having miles instead of giving them is that my children find their OWN limits. (oh, this is too far from mommy! time to head back) Intead of being so preoccupied with finding the limits, which is where we were at when I was giving miles instead of leaving free have their miles.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *waiflywaif* 
I'm just going to say this every time: I don't think anyone is trying to do that.

so when someone makes a comment against CL and then says "so I think that proves ..." thats not trying to disprove CL?









If I said "see I asked what 2 colors make th color pink and no one could tell me so that proves that there is no way to make the color pink from 2 other colors" that is not someone trying to disprove something via saying "see you didn't prove me wrong so that means you are wrong" isn't trying to disprove? Just because I don't prove someone wrong doesn't mean I'm wrong. I have no desire to prove of disprove, but yes, there is a select few who use the words "proving my point" (which is a point against CL) and so yes that is what I consider trying to disprove it... WHICH IS FINE. I understand why they do it. I just don't feel the need to do the same thats all


----------



## spottiew

ok, i popped over to the CL tribe and there was no one there, so maybe i can ask this here, even tho it's in the middle of another conversation... i'm just looking for 'what's the CL approach to this type of thing', because it happens all the time, and while in the middle of it, i have no ideas.

this past wknd, we were out camping 90 mins from home. well, 90 mins if your car doesn't break, so 7 hours for us. kid is happy through 99% of things, gets tired on the last leg in the car but otherwise OK.

next morning, wants to break camp and go to the nearby wildlife park RIGHT NOW. won't stop yelling- there's a quiet rule, so we spend all our time trying to get him quieter, get packed up, while he's yelling ZOO! NOW! (btw, he's 4). there's a playground in this campsite, he would be happier there, but will not agree to go.

we happened to get free passes to this animal park... it's the kind of thing i would do anyway with him (always asking him first) if the price were less. he finds out that there is a 'bus tram' to the various habitats- only it's hourly, we have a 40 minute wait. all he wants to do it go and wait for it- we really need to use that time for the rest of the park, or else we miss them or be very late home. we keep saying that the animals are on the way to the bus tram (in a way they are), but yells the whole way that he wants nothing but the bus tram (and he is the ONLY loud one there). i give snacks, he got the same amount of sleep as normal, he WONT walk. he's dragging himself all over the ground, climbing and hurting us, just WONT walk.

we say maybe we need to leave, but no one wants that. i don't mention money, but often i would- we paid, we stay. i do say 'we made this choice, we live with it'- but he wants to change his mind. after all that, he got tired of the bus halfway through, then wanted to go hom. he's not the world's best traveler, but was just a horribly unhappy non-consenual thing... other than never go anywhere (which would also drive all of us bonkers, he NEEDS to get out), what to do... leaving is sometimes but not an option. cheering up does sometimes work, but not then. we asked 'what would make you happier here'- no ideas.

i'm not sure that even conveys things accurately... we did enjoy it, but we always have this kid climbing and attacking us, being dramatic and wacky in a very 'in your face' way... let me know what y'all think. maybe i can plan ahead better next time.


----------



## waiflywaif

Quote:

so when someone makes a comment against CL and then says "so I think that proves ..." thats not trying to disprove CL?
I've gone back and searched the last 5 pages and don't see that anywhere. Are you quoting or just stating a general feeling? Because my general feeling is different.

I also don't see anyone being "against CL." It would be MUCH more helpful if the discussion would not be framed this way. I see people questioning how the philosophy works in real life. For goodness' sake, it's not a "gotcha! you're wrong!" type of thing.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

I'll go find a quote for you, if I dont have time right now I'll do it tonight when the kids are in bed.

Relax and dont take it personally! go back a few pages and pick up a hug if you need one


----------



## waiflywaif

Seems like I'm the only one NOT taking it personally!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

sorry for misunderstanding you then. I don't take it personally either (unless someone is addressing what I do, obviously if they address what you do its about what you do). funny how we both felt that way, but both think the other person in! Very insightful, thanks!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I demonstrated, with hypotheticals and real life situations, how it is a false statement. No one could deny it, yet they still stood by the statement (like denying the white crow, even while looking right at one).

This was said in reference to CL statement. Calm is claiming she demonstrated how the statement is false" There were other posts but feel free to find them yourslf. I know this one doesn't use the word "prove", but its saying that she demonstrated that what is true to us is false.

In another post she was taking about how : no one could give her CL solutions to these problems after so many pages which basically just proves her point in itself. And perhaps it did prove a point to someone or to herself - but it didn't prove a point to me and thats okay if she wants to prove a point - again nothing wrong with that - and I know she says she is consensual now (And the beginning she said she was CC but sometimes looked for consensual solutions, then she changed it to CL after saying she was CC like 20 times... so I got a little lost around that point, but maybe she changed her mind, which of course is okay too I'm just saying I don't mind discussing it but *I* don't see it as a need to prove or disprove anything. I don't need to disprove a philosophy or pick a philosophy apart to shreds if I don't agree with it. I don't need to say "well if _you_ can't answer _my_ question then that *must* mean there is *no* answer." There is no need for me to say "that is wrong" for this to be right. We can experience different truths. One an feel they "demonstrated" or "proved" something, while I can feel nothing has been demonstrated or proven to me. I don't say "you proved my point because you couldn't disprove it". I'm not saying another person can't think that way, I'm just saying *I* dont need to think that way. I'm not saying another person can't be confident and still need that, but *I* don't need it because of my confidence and trust in myself and my family.


----------



## poiyt

SPOTTIEW: The hard thing with specific examples (like that) is that no one is your family, and no one knows all the specific details....so with that in mind.

I noticed a lot of Have-to's or musts in that scenario - rather than working on consensual solutions. Some of those: having to pack of the camp first, not being willing to be later getting home, and not being willing to leave (because of the money). It doesn't seem like the whole Zoo situation was consensual - not saying it *has* to be, but you did ask in a consensual forum.

Could you go to the zoo earlier and come back and pack up camp later (a lot of campsights dont really care unless they are full?

Could you have taken him to the Zoo while DH packed up

Could you have waited for the train thing, and gotten off half way through? Or stayed on and just gotten home later?

If he wasn't enjoying the experience, and you werent (because of his behaviour) then why couldnt you leave?

In my mind - anyways - there wasnt a lot of consenuality for anyone in the situation. You and your DH had to suck up a Zoo trip with a child who didnt want to be there, after listening to him be upset at the campsight - and he had to experience the Zoo in a way he didnt want to, and as such didnt enjoy it.


----------



## kalimay

"Honestly I have very strong feelings about the subject of abuse and how that card is being played here. I understand you are trying to explore but I have to bow out of this if its going to continue again (we discussed it a few pages back). *I* feel its really inappropriate and offensive, it makes *me* really uncomfortable and I understand all the people trying to disprove CL will say "I didnt take it that way" blah blah blah (of course they don't because they think its proving their point ) but to someone who DOES practice CL to have some one say it is because they are defining consensual in a way that NO dictionary does, I feel its irrelevant and an attempt to just bring abuse into a conversation that is unwarrented. Take care."

I just wanted to address this because I think I was the person who first brought up the abuse example.
I want to repeat that the example is not in anyway implying, stating or otherwise suggesting that CL leads to abuse.

"I'm definitely not saying that being consensual can open the door for abuse, not at all, i am saying, using sexual abuse as an example, that i do not feel a child is CAPABLE of informed consent."

Thank you for your post GoBecGo. It amazes me you can write about something like that with such understanding and clarity.
I agree with you about a young child not being capable of informed consent. To me consenting means that you know of and understand your options.
My oldest daughter is an easy going child. She is also generally eager to please me and pretty happy go lucky. But to me this does not translate into her consenting to everything.

Here is an example having nothing to do with abuse. We use cloth diapers in our house. My daughter was happy with that. That does not mean to me that she consented to use cloth diapers. Had she know and understood EC or disposibles she may have chosen those over cloth diapers.

So I am not trying to disprove CL I am just uncomfortable with the language and like Calm I think when you put absolutes around something it begs to be questioned.

I think you can encourage a child to listen to their bodies, know their wants and express them but a 3 year old does not have a grasp on all the options out there or the consequences of their actions. To teach them that they are making all of the decisions themselves would feel dishonest to me knowing that they may have chosen different options had they know them. Maybe if parents were completely objective I could see it a little more but we are not.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

so do you feel it is absolute that absolutes begged to be questioned? I might have to question that









what if someone says there is "absolutely nothing else I could have done"? Does that absolute beg to be questioned?









for me it's not that absolutes beg to be challenged, just that we all have our own absolutes that are true, even if someone else's absolute is different then our own that can be true to them and our (different) absolutes true to use at the same time.

Just as I sit with a child on each side and to me I am absolutely in the middle and to my son I am absolutely to his right and to my daughter I am absolutely to her left. My absolute does not bed to be challenged simply because my absolute is different then his or hers. Perhaps a person may beg to challenge an absolute, but I don't think the absolute begs to be challenged.

It is possible that absolutes beg to be challenged but its also possible absolutes don't beg to be challenged. If absolutes "absolutely" beg to be challenged that would be contradictory, so as I see it, it's just as hard to say its true that absolutes don't beg to be challenged as it is that they do beg to be challenged.... I find more truth in that some people feel the need to challenge absolutes, not that absolutes need to be challenged.


----------



## GoBecGo

Quote:

Who knows though - do you think you would have consented to that if he didnt manipulate you by making it sound like the most fun game ever and tricking you into thinking you were making all the decisions but then limiting your mind through manipulation so you were forced to really just be doing what he wanted? Or if he said "will you do this?" and you felt you could say "no" and he would accept "no" would you have said no? can you really even KNOW if you would have said yes or no in that situation, without reliving it? without reliving your whole life and being in a place at that time where you felt you could say no? Or being at a place where if he tried to manipulate you could say no to the manipulation?
I did consent in some instances. That is he asked and i said "yes" or "ok". Initially, yes it was the big-talk about how great the game was that made me consent, but even after i knew the game i would sometimes consent or even initiate to curry favour with him (it didn't take ME long to learn from him how to manipulate). The consent in the sense of me agreeing at the time was there, the consent in the sense of me agreeing to the abusive act, the next act which i would do because i agreed to the first and the years of suffering that followed when i had to come to terms with it all and get through to find normality, was _not_. And how could it have been? I was not informed enough to consent. The FIRST time i came right out and said "no" to him was the last time he ever tried to abuse me. He was never going to go against an outright refusal, just as his abuser didn't, and thus he carefully avoided eliciting one for nearly 6 years.

Quote:

Honestly I have very strong feelings about the subject of abuse and how that card is being played here. I understand you are trying to explore but I have to bow out of this if its going to continue again (we discussed it a few pages back). *I* feel its really inappropriate and offensive, it makes *me* really uncomfortable and I understand all the people trying to disprove CL will say "I didnt take it that way" blah blah blah (of course they don't because they think its proving their point ) but to someone who DOES practice CL to have some one say it is because they are defining consensual in a way that NO dictionary does, I feel its irrelevant and an attempt to just bring abuse into a conversation that is unwarrented. Take care.
It is unfortunate to be felt to be "playing a card" when discussing one's only experience of childhood (i.e. i don't have one without abuse in it i can relate to you all). It is HOW i learned about consent and how i know i DIDN'T know about consent when i was a child. If it's any comfort, on balance i'd rather not have it as a card to play!







Please don't bow out SGM, you are the best (talkative, knowledgeable, open) CLiving poster in the thread, and without you there will be not much of a conversation. Either i can stop posting (and this would be my last post in that case), or you can put me on ignore for this thread?

As to my meaning of "consensual", my dictionary says it is "with mutual consent" and "consent" is "to give assent or approval". It seems informed consent is a different matter indeed. And i suppose if consent doesn't need to be informed to "count" (not very eloquent, sorry!) then of course it would be perfectly possible to live consensually with children. I suppose i have a more narrow view of what consent is. To me if consent is not informed then it is false, or at least unreliable. That doesnt "disprove" anything, it's just that i don't consider consensual living to be truly consensual because i don't consider children capable of true consent. That doesn't change or devalue the way in which you live. You are living in your life and know it IS consensual for all of you, how on earth could anyone disprove that? The spade is a spade to you, no matter how much it is a shovel to me, and it REALLY IS a spade, perhaps it just isn't NOT a shovel?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

We are just looking at it totally different thats all. I agree, I cant be disproven nor can I disprove, nor do I desire either.

I see it this way:

I feel that being manipulated into consent (such as you and my sister were) is not consent.

"Consent is giving permission to someone. There is a difference between consent and true consent. Many individuals can be tricked into giving consent or they may not fully understand what they are agreeing to."
http://www.kmolnar.com/Consent.html

Which I think is what we are both saying. The difference is that I think children are born feeling they can say no, and then moved away from that practice and have to find their way back into it. Where as you think a person can only gain this ability with age.

For you (and my sister) there was manipulation taking place, and to you you think only with age can a person realize manipulation is taking place. I know that adults can easily be manipulated and I also know that children can easily say no to manipulation if they aren't conditioned to say yes to it first.

People of all ages are manipulated into giving consent for all kinds of things. Age does not fix this. Nor does age prevent the ability to say no to manipulation. You were forced into consent. That was no true consent. My sister wasnt forced into consent because she was incapable of informed consent - but because she was misinformed and manipulated into giving false consent. Uninformed consent is not the same thing as being unable to give informed or true consent.


----------



## spottiew

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
yes but we can't compare me and my kids to you and your kids because you have raised thm with "giving miles" and we are living with "having miles" So therefor you can't know what your child would say after getting to the point they could trust that there wasn't some kind of "allowance" of miles or that they need to find where the road ends. Maybe they would just keep going and going and going and going until they came full circle, maybe you are right and they would just go so far they would be lost wandering around because you didnt want to follow them and they kept going, but we don't know, because thats not what you do. and thats okay. *You are happy with your life, your children are happy, it works for your family, and it is right for you.*


how do you change over... my kid seems to expect me to say 'no', always hear one even when it's not intended or go looking for one... i am always working to say it less, but at what point will he trust that i really don't say it all the time?


----------



## spottiew

I could have done many of those *if he agreed*... he was not in any mood to do that. He has moods where things work and moods where it's not happening. He is known to agree to things in advance, then go back on them, sometimes causing hassles for other people. If I were at home where we have a membership- sure, leave. But too many times we have paid for things only to leave, but that brings me back to opting out of doing things so that doesn't happen only to then wish you had those things to do and it's harder with never doing them. Maybe you go to do that for a while to appreciate them more.

There are some things I am picky about. I am not a miser, but I do budget money- he can't just spend our funds right and left. I feel that if he gets to do some of what he wants, I also should get to do some of what I want (laundry, buying cat food, eating a snack). I do watch our time- NO ONE would be happy if we got home extra late. I think we are in a big power struggle a lot of the time over who gets their 'way'... sometimes, he's willing to come to the peace table and work it out, and sometimes he's just not. That's what's hard, I can see everyone's needs, they conflict, and often kiddo is not willing/able to work out a solution (he's 4).

My life *does* have a lot of 'have to's' compared to some... he HAS to go to school because I HAVE to go to work. He might choose for me not to work, but that's a choice about MY life that I don't let him make, though I do adjust for him quite a bit. I do not have any family/friends to take him instead. And he likes school, but it's the whole issue of HAVING to do things, I know if adds up for him.

I really would like to totally get into a new dynamic... he and I are so alike, stubborn to a fault. I let go so much of what I want for time with him, I don't know how to meet his needs, we both are lost. We end up just running aronud like crazed monkies. That is why this discussion is interesting to me... I wonder if CL would help us, but I get bogged down in how to make it work.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *poiyt* 
SPOTTIEW: The hard thing with specific examples (like that) is that no one is your family, and no one knows all the specific details....so with that in mind.

I noticed a lot of Have-to's or musts in that scenario - rather than working on consensual solutions. Some of those: having to pack of the camp first, not being willing to be later getting home, and not being willing to leave (because of the money). It doesn't seem like the whole Zoo situation was consensual - not saying it *has* to be, but you did ask in a consensual forum.

Could you go to the zoo earlier and come back and pack up camp later (a lot of campsights dont really care unless they are full?

Could you have taken him to the Zoo while DH packed up

Could you have waited for the train thing, and gotten off half way through? Or stayed on and just gotten home later?

If he wasn't enjoying the experience, and you werent (because of his behaviour) then why couldnt you leave?

In my mind - anyways - there wasnt a lot of consenuality for anyone in the situation. You and your DH had to suck up a Zoo trip with a child who didnt want to be there, after listening to him be upset at the campsight - and he had to experience the Zoo in a way he didnt want to, and as such didnt enjoy it.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy

My whole post just got deleted... again... but I spoke to my uncle (lawyer) and the gist of it is there are all kind of legal forms of consent, and age does play a factor in those, however he said legal consent as it applies to sexual situations isn't even in the same ball park as day to day consent - legally or otherwise. The law does limit a childs ALLOWANCE to consent, but it does not mean a child's ABILITY to consent is limited. However, the reason for this is due to the law's opinion of a child's comprehension skills, but thats when you get into the cases of one philosophy versus another. I am not asking my child to be able to comprehend whether or not something is sexual abuse, nor am I raising my child in a way that even when no is an okay answer they still don't know it is. Nor am I using manipulation in trying to get my child's consent. The two are two far from related to be comparable - but according to my uncle thats pretty much the only thing I was right about when it comes to laws on consent.


----------



## Kidzaplenty

:


----------



## GoBecGo

Quote:

My whole post just got deleted... again... but I spoke to my uncle (lawyer) and the gist of it is there are all kind of legal forms of consent, and age does play a factor in those, however he said legal consent as it applies to sexual situations isn't even in the same ball park as day to day consent - legally or otherwise. The law does limit a childs ALLOWANCE to consent, but it does not mean a child's ABILITY to consent is limited. However, the reason for this is due to the law's opinion of a child's comprehension skills, but thats when you get into the cases of one philosophy versus another. I am not asking my child to be able to comprehend whether or not something is sexual abuse, nor am I raising my child in a way that even when no is an okay answer they still don't know it is. Nor am I using manipulation in trying to get my child's consent. The two are two far from related to be comparable - but according to my uncle thats pretty much the only thing I was right about when it comes to laws on consent.
See that's another big factor SGM, i do not believe at this point in time (though i definitely work constantly on being self aware) that i am able to RELY on my not being manipulative with my kids. I use manipulation all the time. I had a very manipulative mother and she used it mainly for good (i.e. was a counsellor for parents of children with ADD/ADHD and was capable of completely turning around the way someone looked at themself so they were freed to take steps to really change their lives - she wasn't a magician but i have letters written since her death by some people who paint her as such because she made such a difference to their lives) though sometimes for bad (which oddly was never as effective - you can convince someone something good about themself forever, but unless they are very damaged it generally takes a lot of work to convince someone something bad about themself). I manipulate. I know i do it. Most of the people i a close to keep me around BECAUSE i do it (i.e. i know i am not toxic, but that my ability to give people a new viewpoint on their lives is appreciated, my DP will consistently think and believe the worst of himself and of the opinions others might hold of him, and is always pleased to have me smash it all away and show him the reality, it is IS reality i show him, i don't lie and tell him he's great when he isn't). I manipulate DD. I know i do it.

It is such a massive part of who i am, i couldn't be without it. It is subtle, not a major thing anyone would see, but i do it without thinking. When i see diamonds i say so, and i say it in such a way that those looking in the mud for years before, suddenly see the diamonds too.

So perhaps my conclusion from this discussion is that because of my own personality, coupled with my (as we have definitely established now) narrow view of the meaning of "consent", CL is not a possibility FOR ME or for my family. Which of course, as also established, says nothing about the idea or possbility of it, for you and yours, in general.

And in fact i doubt we live very differently in terms of actual "acts" of parenting and family life, it's just that you can concretely know you are CL, and i cannot fee that about myself.

And SGM thankyou, truly, for discussing this with me even when the topics became very challenging for you. I really appreciate your patience.


----------



## Calm

I have to read the last page but if I have any chance of keeping up, I'll post what I have now.

Quote:

My children are not given miles. They have miles
Semantics.

There are different personality traits, even within CL, whoodathunkit! People won't always fall into our preconceived ideas, some people raised in a CL way still "pull" on the universe, the abundant, fullness of Her who gives infinitely. I know this because I read the CL yahoo group, amongst other CL resources, and the kids are just like ... kids! Sometimes a mother goes in there reefing her own hair out because her kids are taking and taking and she has raised them consensually from birth. It happens. So what. They're kids.

Your kids have miles and don't ask for more because they have all they need... I hear you. I'm saying that it isn't the case for others, even in a CL construct.

Which leads me to the direct question: given my situation (and yes, I know you'd never find yourself in that situation... think outside your square for a sec, wear another's shoes, just for a moment...) what would you do?

I'm committed to it for the long haul and I still found myself in situations without consensual solutions. Which negates your idea that all it takes is commitment to finding consensual solutions. I'm not alone in this either. There are many like me. They are just conveniently forgotten, and the only ones put to memory are those who *claim* to be 100% consensual ALL the time and never found themselves without a mutually agreeable solution - or at least, never found themselves in a _situation_ without a mutually agreeable solution. I can only name two such people, Anne and Pat.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

The point is no matter what they are doing and what you do around them you could "distract" them so by that thinking one could NEVER be consensual.
I don't think pushing someone over is the same as someone accidentally tripping on your foot. One has intent, one does not. Intent is everything. My child notes I am around, and may be distracted by something I'm doing.

That is not the same as intentionally organising circumstances so that I impart my will upon her.

For instance, there is a choice, a clear cut choice when a child is about to walk into the road. You let them. Or you don't let them. Those are your choices. Next time you'll organise things so they aren't (and you aren't) faced with that choice. But for now, you are. And those are your choices. If you fall into the "don't let them" category, you then have to find a way to consensually impart your preference upon your child and make them want it also.

If they are of reasoning age, you can engage them in a kind of negotiation, and reach some kind of mutual agreement. If they are not, then you do not even have that choice. No matter HOW you do it, IF your _*intention*_ is to interfere in their plan, _then you have imposed your will upon them_.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

so when someone makes a comment against CL and then says "so I think that proves ..." thats not trying to disprove CL?
No. It proves there is faulty logic in some of the guidelines. It doesn't disprove "CL". I live in a consensual home, I just don't need all those laws I listed earlier and it is those laws I take issue with. Do you think CL dissolves if one or all of those statements are proven false? I can prove it doesn't because I still consider myself consensually living even though I know they are false. I don't need those statements to work CL in my life. And I will tell anyone who is listening that they too can be a CL family and not buy into those statements also.

I guess it depends on how far you want to take it. 100% consensually living with a toddler may end up with a dead toddler, let's be frank. I have thought about all the logistics and this is the fact of it. In certain situations you decide for the universe and for your child that you know best, that your child _should_ live, and you take their tongue out of the power point, zoom them away from the road, stay parked when they are sitting on the roof of the car shouting "go go go!", or about to flush your 2000 dollar camera down the toilet (could be considered life and death if daddy found out







)... and so on.


----------



## spottiew

im replying again just cause im still thinking on this







i know i'm talking to myself, but it helps me, so...

the other thing i am 'picky' about is driving- we commute too much as it is, and it has a negative effect, so we try to be careful about not having extra car time, backtracking, etc. it would have added an hour or more to the day to go back to packup later, and when he already had 7 hours in the car the day prior, he would have been unhappy the whole way home... even if i had suggested it and he agreed, he would more than likely either changed his mind and said we couldn't do it that way after all (after he already got what he wanted, we lose out), or been unhappy- while maybe even saying he was fine, but crying and moaning, etc. he is just not a kid who can 'get home later', when he is tired, he is a crab-sometimes for days.

i offered... him clean up camp, him play, him use the water facuet that he loved the night prior, one of us go to playground- i asked him his idea, he wanted 'no breakfast for anyone'- while the stove was already on. he likes to control everyone, and always has to know WHY... 'we are eating' isn't good enough becuase 'well i am not, and i want YOU to play with ME'...

i am not good at finding my way out of things, so i often chalk it up to 'bad day' and try to plan ahead more the next time... i came up with- hubby and i don't make hot bkfst, eat granola cars in the car'. not what we really want, but better than his being a big stinker while we frantically gulp cocoa and try to shush him.

really, that's what set a lot of it offf... he likes to get up and go, but he also hates being told he's loud. well they had quiet hours... he's usually OK about other ppl having rules, but doesn't like being told to be quiet (which is rare, but he is a big gabber).

the 'don't want to walk' thing is new, he does not LIKE that he is too big now







usually, it means time to leave, but i don't like that ALWAYS being the answer... that means he often gets as far in as he can, then we have to pack him out.

oh well. i keep trying







that's MY reality of CL- it's always 'trying'. for those who are living it, you are able to do something that so far, eludes me. i really would like to handle better what to do when he isn't in any mood/ability to find an agreeable solutioon... i know, he has needs, but i can't always meet them?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *poiyt* 
SPOTTIEW: The hard thing with specific examples (like that) is that no one is your family, and no one knows all the specific details....so with that in mind.

I noticed a lot of Have-to's or musts in that scenario - rather than working on consensual solutions. Some of those: having to pack of the camp first, not being willing to be later getting home, and not being willing to leave (because of the money). It doesn't seem like the whole Zoo situation was consensual - not saying it *has* to be, but you did ask in a consensual forum.

Could you go to the zoo earlier and come back and pack up camp later (a lot of campsights dont really care unless they are full?

Could you have taken him to the Zoo while DH packed up

Could you have waited for the train thing, and gotten off half way through? Or stayed on and just gotten home later?

If he wasn't enjoying the experience, and you werent (because of his behaviour) then why couldnt you leave?

In my mind - anyways - there wasnt a lot of consenuality for anyone in the situation. You and your DH had to suck up a Zoo trip with a child who didnt want to be there, after listening to him be upset at the campsight - and he had to experience the Zoo in a way he didnt want to, and as such didnt enjoy it.


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *spottiew* 
ok, i popped over to the CL tribe and there was no one there, so maybe i can ask this here, even tho it's in the middle of another conversation... i'm just looking for 'what's the CL approach to this type of thing', because it happens all the time, and while in the middle of it, i have no ideas.

this past wknd, we were out camping 90 mins from home. well, 90 mins if your car doesn't break, so 7 hours for us. kid is happy through 99% of things, gets tired on the last leg in the car but otherwise OK.

next morning, wants to break camp and go to the nearby wildlife park RIGHT NOW. won't stop yelling- there's a quiet rule, so we spend all our time trying to get him quieter, get packed up, while he's yelling ZOO! NOW! (btw, he's 4). there's a playground in this campsite, he would be happier there, but will not agree to go.

we happened to get free passes to this animal park... it's the kind of thing i would do anyway with him (always asking him first) if the price were less. he finds out that there is a 'bus tram' to the various habitats- only it's hourly, we have a 40 minute wait. all he wants to do it go and wait for it- we really need to use that time for the rest of the park, or else we miss them or be very late home. we keep saying that the animals are on the way to the bus tram (in a way they are), but yells the whole way that he wants nothing but the bus tram (and he is the ONLY loud one there). i give snacks, he got the same amount of sleep as normal, he WONT walk. he's dragging himself all over the ground, climbing and hurting us, just WONT walk.

we say maybe we need to leave, but no one wants that. i don't mention money, but often i would- we paid, we stay. i do say 'we made this choice, we live with it'- but he wants to change his mind. after all that, he got tired of the bus halfway through, then wanted to go hom. he's not the world's best traveler, but was just a horribly unhappy non-consenual thing... other than never go anywhere (which would also drive all of us bonkers, he NEEDS to get out), what to do... leaving is sometimes but not an option. cheering up does sometimes work, but not then. we asked 'what would make you happier here'- no ideas.

i'm not sure that even conveys things accurately... we did enjoy it, but we always have this kid climbing and attacking us, being dramatic and wacky in a very 'in your face' way... let me know what y'all think. maybe i can plan ahead better next time.

Firstly, let me validate you: that sounded like a ROUGH time, and if you go through that regularly, you are a saint and deserving of all those precious mama hours that will one day be yours again!









I hear in what you wrote that you really did try to give him what he wants, that he seemed to negate every opportunity presented to him to be agreeable. I read a response from another post that said it didn't look like the situation was very consensual, I see it differently. I see that you are being constantly torn in all directions because he seems to want the most difficult option. You didn't say that much, but I like to read between the lines. I know desperation when I see it. In a further post I notice you say he likes to control.

My first thought is to wipe off plans to go anywhere with a "quiet rule" for quite some time. Save yourselves the headache of that, because then you can have half a chance of honoring his desire to be other than that. I have a screecher, so I don't say that offhandedly. It can be painfully overwhelming, all on its own with no other childhood behavioural quirks.

However, like myself, you find yourself in situations _as they are_, not as you will prepare for them to be in future. This is personal preference, but I say screw the rooolz, man. When in a situation that demands "quiet", unless there is an escape (such as a cinema) or someone's life depends on it, then people have to deal with the fact that they share this planet with children. Day AND night. I give my share of respect by not going to fancy adult restaurants with little children, not going to the cinema, .... and so on. I give those who have done their child raising a break, and those who choose not to raise children their space. But by the same token, we do share some spaces on this planet, such as malls, parks, planes, campsites, zoos, toilets... and if I still cannot escape then it's every one for their dayyyyyym self, yo.

It was during my first child's toddlerhood that I learned to release my "people pleasing" tendencies regarding my children's noise and not far behind that went my "random unnecessary rule following" tendencies.









Regarding his desire to stay and wait for the tram, it sounds like the very human tendency to hope that something other that which we have might make us feel better. His mood might have been low, for some personal reason, and he could have been searching for something to fix it. A larger scale of this is "retail therapy" or even larger would be addiction or an extra marital affair - that kind of thing. Sometimes you need to know that it isn't your parenting or the choices you've given but just how he feels right now. And that only he can lift his spirits. How was the mood between you and whomever was there? You did what he wanted, you waited for the tram and it wasn't all he hoped... it also sounds like he had a problem with something in his environment.

My daughter has a fear of dogs. I will admit to forgetting this as an option when her behaviour goes off. She is seven now and it is still an issue. She will suddenly get aggressive and surly and there is absolutely nothing we can do to appease her or even help. Years of trial and error and I found that it was the threat of a dog, or the sound of a dog barking. Just the threat of a dog will trigger it. There were times when there was no clear sign of why she was off. For instance, walking past a house where she knows there once was a dog will set her off, even if there is no dog there now.

Something to consider, esp as you were in a zoo. Animals have powerful energy, and zoos are a haven of miserable frequencies. I am against circuses and zoos because of the misery within. Jailed animals will set kids off, esp sensitive kids, every time. I find it interesting that your son protested when you suggested that there were animals on the way to the tram.

Regarding his controlling tendencies, is he in kindy? Does he have a sibling, or in any way involved with other children who could be thwarting his autonomy? This is another issue we went through with my daughter. She started becoming very controlling and demanding when she started school. It was a little evident but totally controllable when she was in kindy. If I opened the door, she screamed that she wanted to open it and wouldn't settle until I actually _closed_ the door again for her to open it. Yet another day if I waited for her to open the door, she freaked and demanded that I open the door! Confusing times.







I sorted this issue, at least for the car, by removing the door as an option altogether and said that if she wants to get out of the car she has to climb out of the window. She loved that option, and still to this day sometimes winds it down to get out







. She was about the age of 3 or 4







. It's an awkward, confusing age, hang in there. It gets worse.

JOKE!!

Sort of.










Anyway, back to the autonomy thwarting... I found that she felt a little powerless at kindy. This is not an easy find in that age bracket as what you see and what they say is not all there is. She was only there a couple of times a week because she said she liked it, but her behaviour started going off and we had to help her find her groove. Then at school it got uncontrollable. I pinned that one, correctly, on our connection. Although your son isn't in school, your connection may need some work. Hold On To Your Kids is invaluable for that, all the tips and nuances involved in maintaining the connection.

Your son seems to be grasping for control which can be a sign of a loose connection or thwarted autonomy or a sense of being out of control. A recent death can give a child (or adult) a sense of having no control also. So please don't think that you are creating it, but at the same time, don't overlook yourself as a participant if it resonates.

He "needs to get out", I see you have written. Why do you say this? Does his behaviour change to more serene if you are out? Do you prefer it? Again, I used to think my daughter needed many toys and for us to get out but it was really me that needed that. I found, paradoxically, that the less stimulation my child had the more serene she was. My son is the same, only we started out with less for him. DS gets bored and whiney unlike DD when she was little, but we Zen out the house and let him go nuts. I recommend trying that, if you haven't already. Let me know if it really does seem to be a big need to get out and about and you have tested the theory by giving him about two weeks worth of low lighting, low noise, low low lowness and he still busts to get out.

Running out of steam and time. I know there were few or no consensual solutions in there for your problems, but I do not believe there are always consensual solutions, remember.







I believe there are myriad situations for growth. It is obvious to me that the situations you found yourself in had limited or no consensual options for you, or your son. You were probably not going to find consensus with him on any matter in that situation. If you could do the day over, what would you do differently?


----------



## Calm

I have a new theory. I'll see how it goes if anyone is keen on a brief discussion on it.

*Children are the only ones who are capable of real consensus with children.*

I'd like to make a request: _This is just a discussion. This theory is also for the heck of it, I am not "doing" anything with it, and it may even be wrong. So relax, and enjoy some philosophical debate/talk or just watch. I can't tell you to not be here, but I can suggest that if this discussion feels like you are defending your faith, then it may suit you best to just watch. Or get yourself banned or something. Whatever works. I'm not suggesting CL doesn't work and I'm not trying to "manipulate" you to the dark side (cue twilight zone theme) or equating CL with abuse and for all you know I don't even believe half the things I'm writing. Debate is like that, we need to be able to take either side and work it. If you find you can only take one side, you could be too emotionally invested and perhaps that is another reason you could consider leaving the discussion._

ok... children are the only ones capable of consensus with children. Whaddaya reckon?

As GBG and some others have touched on, how can an imbalance of power lead to a true consensus? Which then means touching on the finer points of "power", esp if you are a CL family like myself. I've had to examine my relationship with power and with force and the difference between the two. I may be in denial if I think I do not have power as the adult, and inadvertantly use this, even with the best of intentions.

For instance, two children are more likely to NOT try to find consensus on the reasons why they shouldn't cross the road. Or if they did, they would fight it on a level playing field, like kids. Or they would just double dare each other. I can see my daughter, for instance, saying "no way I'm doing that. I don't think you should either. You're crazy, you'll get hit by a bloody car." Honesty, her intentions very clear and no attempt to involve negotiations or do anything other than give her opinion.


----------



## Calm

PS is anyone else sick of posts in threads that pull the victim card on analogies that use negatives such as abuse? It's like, if the word is even mentioned, you are suddenly saying _they_ are abusive. Of course pulling a child away from the road is not the same as abuse - Good Lord! But accepting giggling from a child as consent needs deeper analysis. I get it it, to me it is very clear even though it isn't my analogy. I understand even Einstein would be triggered by something if it was an emotional hot button... and I guess that's just what that is.

Which interestingly demonstrates one of my points from earlier in the thread that a child cannot be expected to separate her emotions from her logic and make a rational decision based on the facts presented to them. If adults often can't separate the two, how can we expect a child to? They trust in us, we are their filter the world passes through and this is hardwired into them. They have "nurture cues" that trigger us to protect and provide and this has been shown to cross species. The babies of another mammal can trigger that in us just as human babies can trigger it in other mammals.

When I hear someone working on being totally level (_more_ than equality) to a child, and I mean TOTALLY, there is no hierarchy whatsoever to speak of and they are shooting for "friend" and 100% level playing field
a ) I wonder if that is even possible without serious effort (natural things usually take little effort) and
b ) what the effect of that might be on the continuum of a species that relies on a different kind of parent/child relationship.
And finally my question needs to be: WHY?
What is the point of shooting for such a goal? Are there some kind of results humanity has found or in other cultures that show this is a worthy goal or is this experimental? If it is the latter then I'm hip to that, too. I'm not against the idea, and I like ingenuity. However, it does concern me, mildly... enough to start a discussion on the merits of it at any rate.


----------



## sacredmama

I've been following along. I attempted to live consensually with my child up until very recently. He was stressed out. Once I started to make some decisions for him he relaxed, became more confident, and we now have the best relationship we've had yet. Funny story: his dad and I were having a talk about how he has been able to eat whatever he wants whenever he wants. We were talking about just giving him to eat what I make for dinner. No more choices, we said. And immediately DS started repeating "no more choices". So now when he tells me he's hungry and I start giving him choices, he says "no more choices". It makes me crack up, he remembers better than I do. He knows what food we have, we go to the store together, and he can go in the fridge and look. He just tells me what he wants now. Ahhhhhhh.... relief....


----------



## spottiew

I feel that I am the one who makes the effort to be consensual, and he often does not/can not do the same. Hey, he's 4, but it puts me in the place of the one having to compromise to make him happy (ok, that's a choice not 'have to') more than he does the same. Some of the ideas that others have had were not agreeable to me- I don't want to drive an extra hour or get home late, so that makes them not mutally ok, and he doesn't want the ones that I see as my way of making peace- like one of us at the playground, one clean up camp. What I really wanted at the zoo was to find a way to have him be happy since we were already there so we all could stay and get something out of it- I don't think he even wanted to leave exactly, he just didn't know how to change his mood. (ps. it's a wild animal park zoo, no cages. that's why the bus-tram, the animals have fres range. the 'need to get out' comes from he will hit etc. inside, but be happier outside- seems that going out is a need- he is very on the go, needs to move his body or it moves itself). He's desperately feeling that no control thing, but I don't get why? HE goes to Montessori school, has choice of activities, I pretty much accommodate him in the afternoon outside my chores, and don't say 'no' to him unless he's pushing for it... he's not happy just doing what he wants, he wants ME to do it too.. we did use to be more connected, then age 3 hit- that's likely part of it, he's not secure and at peace with himself. i have always thought something is 'bugging' him inside, just don't know what/what to do...
In the future? I would probably only say once to be quiet- he knows. I would skip sit-down breakfast- not worth it. Not sure about the zoo...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I hear in what you wrote that you really did try to give him what he wants, that he seemed to negate every opportunity presented to him to be agreeable. I read a response from another post that said it didn't look like the situation was very consensual, I see it differently. I see that you are being constantly torn in all directions because he seems to want the most difficult option. You didn't say that much, but I like to read between the lines. I know desperation when I see it. In a further post I notice you say he likes to control.

However, like myself, you find yourself in situations _as they are_, not as you will prepare for them to be in future. This is personal preference, but I say screw the rooolz, man. When in a situation that demands "quiet", unless there is an escape (such as a cinema) or someone's life depends on it, then people have to deal with the fact that they share this planet with children. Day AND night. I give my share of respect by not going to fancy adult restaurants with little children, not going to the cinema, .... and so on. I give those who have done their child raising a break, and those who choose not to raise children their space. But by the same token, we do share some spaces on this planet, such as malls, parks, planes, campsites, zoos, toilets... and if I still cannot escape then it's every one for their dayyyyyym self, yo.

It was during my first child's toddlerhood that I learned to release my "people pleasing" tendencies regarding my children's noise and not far behind that went my "random unnecessary rule following" tendencies.









Regarding his desire to stay and wait for the tram, it sounds like the very human tendency to hope that something other that which we have might make us feel better. His mood might have been low, for some personal reason, and he could have been searching for something to fix it. A larger scale of this is "retail therapy" or even larger would be addiction or an extra marital affair - that kind of thing. Sometimes you need to know that it isn't your parenting or the choices you've given but just how he feels right now. And that only he can lift his spirits. How was the mood between you and whomever was there? You did what he wanted, you waited for the tram and it wasn't all he hoped... it also sounds like he had a problem with something in his environment.

Regarding his controlling tendencies, is he in kindy? Does he have a sibling, or in any way involved with other children who could be thwarting his autonomy? This is another issue we went through with my daughter. She started becoming very controlling and demanding when she started school. It was a little evident but totally controllable when she was in kindy. If I opened the door, she screamed that she wanted to open it and wouldn't settle until I actually _closed_ the door again for her to open it. Yet another day if I waited for her to open the door, she freaked and demanded that I open the door! Confusing times.







I sorted this issue, at least for the car, by removing the door as an option altogether and said that if she wants to get out of the car she has to climb out of the window. She loved that option, and still to this day sometimes winds it down to get out







. She was about the age of 3 or 4







. It's an awkward, confusing age, hang in there. It gets worse.

Anyway, back to the autonomy thwarting... I found that she felt a little powerless at kindy. This is not an easy find in that age bracket as what you see and what they say is not all there is. She was only there a couple of times a week because she said she liked it, but her behaviour started going off and we had to help her find her groove. Then at school it got uncontrollable. I pinned that one, correctly, on our connection. Although your son isn't in school, your connection may need some work. Hold On To Your Kids is invaluable for that, all the tips and nuances involved in maintaining the connection.

He "needs to get out", I see you have written. Why do you say this? Does his behaviour change to more serene if you are out? Do you prefer it? Again, I used to think my daughter needed many toys and for us to get out but it was really me that needed that. I found, paradoxically, that the less stimulation my child had the more serene she was. My son is the same, only we started out with less for him. DS gets bored and whiney unlike DD when she was little, but we Zen out the house and let him go nuts. I recommend trying that, if you haven't already. Let me know if it really does seem to be a big need to get out and about and you have tested the theory by giving him about two weeks worth of low lighting, low noise, low low lowness and he still busts to get out.


----------



## spottiew

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sacredmama* 
I've been following along. I attempted to live consensually with my child up until very recently. He was stressed out. Once I started to make some decisions for him he relaxed, became more confident, and we now have the best relationship we've had yet. Funny story: his dad and I were having a talk about how he has been able to eat whatever he wants whenever he wants. We were talking about just giving him to eat what I make for dinner. No more choices, we said. And immediately DS started repeating "no more choices". So now when he tells me he's hungry and I start giving him choices, he says "no more choices". It makes me crack up, he remembers better than I do. He knows what food we have, we go to the store together, and he can go in the fridge and look. He just tells me what he wants now. Ahhhhhhh.... relief....

i've wondered if there are kids like that. sometimes i am not sure my kid does well with freedom, that he wants direction- if only to rebel against it! i guses i try to make it pretty benign direction...
calm, i think the '100% equal/friend' idea breaks down because one person (you) has so much more information than the other... you can't help but be a mentor. i once heard it described as an ambassador to a less developed culture... such that you then become the one having to make peace, i guess, rather than expect the same.


----------



## sewchris2642

Quote:


Originally Posted by *spottiew* 
i've wondered if there are kids like that. sometimes i am not sure my kid does well with freedom, that he wants direction- if only to rebel against it! i guses i try to make it pretty benign direction...
calm, i think the '100% equal/friend' idea breaks down because one person (you) has so much more information than the other... you can't help but be a mentor. i once heard it described as an ambassador to a less developed culture... such that you then become the one having to make peace, i guess, rather than expect the same.

Erica was/is such a person. As I have tried to convey here repeatedly. She needed an external set of rules/guidelines to her life or all she saw was chaos, not choices. It was my job as her parent to provide those rules/guidelines and to give her clear, limited choices that she could handle. And to tell her "no, that's not one of the choices" when necessary.

It is my belief (backed up by child development experts and other experienced parents) that parents are not to be 100% equal/friends to their underage children. That comes when the children reach maturity.


----------



## GoBecGo

Quote:

PS is anyone else sick of posts in threads that pull the victim card on analogies that use negatives such as abuse? It's like, if the word is even mentioned, you are suddenly saying they are abusive. Of course pulling a child away from the road is not the same as abuse - Good Lord! But accepting giggling from a child as consent needs deeper analysis. I get it it, to me it is very clear even though it isn't my analogy. I understand even Einstein would be triggered by something if it was an emotional hot button... and I guess that's just what that is.
I find it incredibly hard to circumnavigate these emotional outbursts in what is to me an intellectual conversation, yes. If Einstein was indeed, as suspected by some, asperger's, i doubt very much he would react like this to "emotional hot buttons" or even realise that people were thinking in that way. I often miss it when people are actually factually trying to imply emotionally wired things about me in a mean way, particularly if we were having an intellectual discussion first. What usually happens is that i eventually realise that people are really kicking off and i have to read back/rewind the conversation in my head to figure out why. On the other hand i do see that when people have felt or been under attack for a long time on a given subject they DO begin to be hypersensitive when they sense (rightly or wrongly) another assault approaching.

I would say that yes, i agree that children can only really be consensual with certain peers, and are only capable of THAT for short periods of time. Some kids are very poor at being consensual, however "equal" they and their peers are.

I was a little leader as a kid, but i was scared by too many choices, and liked my parents telling me what to do. When i was 14 i dated a 20yo man and remained angry at my parents for 5 years for not forbidding it! If they had forbidden it i would have stopped dating him, but my mum, believing i would rebel given any opportunity (when i had NEVER been rebellious) decided to let me ake my own decisions. It was i suppose a valuable learning period, but i was beaten and raped by him and was NOT safe to be making decisions like that, and it took me properly growing up to realise that and to forgive them for not making a rule to protect me from my own stupidity.

Chris i was born 2 months after your Erica and i too found chaos in choice. And more than that, felt that chaos crept in to get me if there weren't guidelines, rules, given things i could rely on solidly. Perhaps it is my slightly autistic self - i really like rigidity and rules. I like to break them too, but i am miserable without them. I need another person, even now, to push against (for me, DP is this person, and he is also a bit autistic, so we seem to gel well and are able to push against one another's rigidity and have fun with it). I think it might just be who i am.


----------



## spottiew

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
Erica was/is such a person. As I have tried to convey here repeatedly. She needed an external set of rules/guidelines to her life or all she saw was chaos, not choices. It was my job as her parent to provide those rules/guidelines and to give her clear, limited choices that she could handle. And to tell her "no, that's not one of the choices" when necessary.

It is my belief (backed up by child development experts and other experienced parents) that parents are not to be 100% equal/friends to their underage children. That comes when the children reach maturity.

from what i've read mine sounds like he is quite a lot like your erica at times... of course today, his friend's mama called him mellow- HA. I try to have a 'flow' for days which would help, but he fights it- then messes up MY rhythm and then isn't happy and we aren't either! i so remember being a kid like him... you want some 'rules' and structure but then you still want to fight and be you... without rules would seem odd and lost, so either alternative has it's downsides! i actually think it comes from a disconnect and lack of community








just this idea that having a 'tribe' would moderate by child...


----------



## Qalliope

I want to pop in with an alternative to the grab and swoop maneuver for a child running into the road. I feel that it is more effective and more consensual for me to intercept. I run several feet ahead of the child, turn and face, crouch down with arms open for an embrace. Now I am providing him with a new choice instead of stopping him outright. If the road is clear I may even go into the road to allow him to experience "road" if that is his goal, as you say, Calm. He can keep running straight into my arms. He can stop and engage in conversation if verbal. He can turn and run the opposite direction if he wants to run away from me. Lots of choices that don't end up with him running loose in the road with oncoming cars. Plus I think "grab and swoop" becomes a game where they run towards the road more frequently. I can always do that as a last resort, if he tries to do an end run around me.

You could still look at it as me imposing my will, I guess. But I look at it as engaging a toddler in a form of finding consensus. My _intent_ is to say with my actions, "Whoa, I'm not comfortable with this, here are a lot of other options," in a concise, physical way that a toddler understands. After all, most of our communication is not verbal even as adults. Taking the ability to use speech as the primary form of gaining consensus out of the equation really can be a helpful teacher in learning to be very clear and honest in your communication with your facial expressions and body language and aura, if you believe in that sort of thing. I realize that all this is a slippery slope with regard to intent and inferring consent where it may not be authentic, especially with people (children) who seem to be born with a higher need for approval and acceptance. I just say I do the best I can. I don't find that this conflicts with the ideal that "There are always consensual solutions."

I would say that is true, but that it is impossible to find a consensual solution every time for a variety of reasons. No one is totally honest with themselves or others about their needs and wants. We often have conflicting wants or needs within ourselves. No one can be aware of all the options available to them all the time. Full informed consent or true consensus would require that we all know everything and never feel conflicted within ourselves. I don't think that's a necessary or desirable step. I like what we have. And I need/want something to call it. Consensual living is as close as I can get.

Also Calm, I believe the toddler running into the road was your dilemma, and you said you didn't get any responses for what you could have done on the spot. I would suspect that is because preventing it in the future would be considered a more practical route, because next time it will be a totally different situation you have to deal with, with totally different circumstances, and any suggestions I give you might not be applicable. In fact, I'll give you a whole list of what I might've tried, but I wasn't there, so there might have been reasons why they wouldn't have worked, or why they weren't acceptable to you or your son. Likewise I might have seen other solutions if I were in the moment. Either way it isn't helpful to say, "you missed this or that," or "you could have been more creative/playful/flexible/whatever." I don't want to say or imply that you somehow did it wrong; I don't even know that I would have found these answers in the heat of the moment. In retrospect, I think I would have:

gotten in the back seat of the car and let my son sit in the front and pretend to drive
gone somewhere else to kill time, either on foot or in the car
gone into the restaurant and play cave/house/peekaboo under the table
gotten dessert first, since dinner was delayed - ice cream anyone?
turned around and gone back home to pick up my sling
gone back to the house and come back without the kids or sent someone else to pick up the food
canceled the order and gotten food elsewhere with an easier environment
But you might have a lot of reasons why those things wouldn't have worked for you in your situation.

Your ongoing sling problem is something I faced as well when ds was too big and active to comfortably ride, but not quite mature enough to keep himself safe. I tied mine around my waist and made it a game to have him run circles around me and wind me up in it. Then he would tug and I would spin madly to unwind. It kept him close during a very difficult time period when he might have otherwise been prone to running off.


----------



## Qalliope

I also wanted to say that I think it is possible to have a child who wants to challenge something and will search for some kind of rule or limitation to fight against even if they are very hard to find. Some people explore social connections through conflict and some need to be challenged in order to feel fulfilled. I also think it is possible to still live consensually with them, if that is your goal, if you put the challenge or contest on the outside of the relationship and point them toward it. I have done that with ds occasionally. A set of rules and a task to achieve or overcome using those rules can be a helpful tool, if that is the need. Or we can argue for the sake of arguing once in a while, if he seems to be expressing that he needs that outlet. Our arguments get pretty ridiculous though, and usually dissolve into laughter quickly, so I don't meet that need very thoroughly. I will point him at dh because they can get heated with their discussion and it actually is therapeutic for both of them. I don't understand the need to feel anger or fight or debate, but clearly they both do, so I am thankful they have each other, and I can bow out.

Living consensually doesn't mean that everybody involved is happy all the time. Or at least it doesn't mean that for us. Sometimes we want to feel other stuff too.


----------



## spottiew

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Qalliope* 
I also wanted to say that I think it is possible to have a child who wants to challenge something and will search for some kind of rule or limitation to fight against even if they are very hard to find. Some people explore social connections through conflict and some need to be challenged in order to feel fulfilled. I also think it is possible to still live consensually with them, if that is your goal, if you put the challenge or contest on the outside of the relationship and point them toward it. I have done that with ds occasionally.

Living consensually doesn't mean that everybody involved is happy all the time. Or at least it doesn't mean that for us. Sometimes we want to feel other stuff too.

this sounds like where i am at. it's hard to see him sad tho, and feel that i should 'do' something, it's hard to believe he is making the choice to be sad... maybe because i see how we are alike and i am sad and can't find my way out.


----------



## AngelBee

So much to chew on in this thread.








:


----------

