# Is counting bad?



## Pattyla (Apr 18, 2004)

My dd is not quite two. She is a typical toddler which includes sometimes listening and sometimes doing her own thing. When it is important that she listen and do what I am asking in a timely manner I usually will ask and then count to 3. At the end of three I will help her to comply if she hasn't already done it on her own. I see the counting as giving her space to respond to my request and also it seems to help to focus her on my waiting for her. I will also use it when she is doing something she shouldn't (like climb on the table) to give her an opportunity to follow the rules before I redirect her to something else. It works pretty well for us.

I have read some things about counting being like a threat. We don't punish in our home. I haven't seen a need for punishments although I am still on the fence about it philosophically. Hopefully we will be able to address everything w/o punishments and I won't ever have to make up my mind about it.







I can see that the counting could be a type of threat but it also gives her the time to change what she is doing herself instead of expecting it right when I ask or my asking repeatedly. I ask once and then follow it with a count to three (slower or faster depending on how rushed for time I am and how much she needs to disengage and change her behavior) If she doesn't do what I am asking I will say something like do you need help. Sometimes she says yes and sometimes no but if she still won't comply I will tell her I am helping her and then do it. Usually it involves her going somewhere or not going somewhere so I pick her up at this point and bring her with me where I need her to go.

I just don't want my dd to hear that counting as a threat and so I'm analizing it to see if it is (and wondering what else I could do to give her that space to change instead).


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Quote:

I see the counting as giving her space to respond to my request and also it seems to help to focus her on my waiting for her. I will also use it when she is doing something she shouldn't (like climb on the table) to give her an opportunity to follow the rules before I redirect her to something else. It works pretty well for us.

I have read some things about counting being like a threat. We don't punish in our home. I haven't seen a need for punishments although I am still on the fence about it philosophically.
If your parenting paradigm is that the parent is in charge and you do not parent in a way that avoids coercion, I think what you are describing is respectful, kind and firm.
















Personally, the action point between my words and follow up was usually more quick, but I had 3 closely spaced kids and a daycare. Your approach seems like a gentler verision of my GOYBP:

http://joanneaz_2.tripod.com/positiv...nter/id23.html

I didn't use "punishment" for my kids when they were 2. I began using related, logical consequences when they approached school age. If you break a window, you pay for it. If you talk to me inappopriately, one of us leaves. If you waste the food you prepare, you wait until the next meal.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

The "threat" is that you are going to enforce compliance. Basically, using your physical might to justify making her do something she doesn't want to do. This is coercion. So, if you are comfortable having a relationship with your child based upon using force to get your way and believe that you philosophically want to model the relationship dynamic of using force to get your way, counting allows her to have a (false) opportunity to comply willingly, imo. But, I am of the non-coercive, find a mutually agreeable alternative *which meets both people's needs* without using might to make me right, practice of relating with people.









And some people are comfortable using coercion to enforce safety compliance, with or without discussion and provision of information first. However, we haven't needed coercion to enforce safety compliance either. We have a consensual relationship based upon sharing information (which includes safety) and I share my authentic concerns and our son has not endangered himself. He has no need to rebelliously do things in spite of my information; so he generally considers it and chooses his actions based upon his best judgement. And I support him practicing using his judgement. I believe the most effective means of developing one's judgement is through practice using it when there is a 'safety net' of my support and presence. (This also nurtures a portable skill (his judgement rather than rules) that my son can use to protect himself when I am not present to enforce safety.)

I do believe that one can "state and wait" until a child is ready to move on to the next activity without pleading or threatening. But, without a (stated or unstated) threat of enforcement if a refusal to "obey" occurs. Obedience is the act of complying to another's judgement, without acting on one's own judgement. I would not like our child to learn to obey anyone except his own mind and his own judgement. This does not imply that other's *input* and *information* are not provided, nor that they will be ignored or disregarded. Our son has no reason (ie. enforced compulsion) to ignore or disregard information unless it contradicts his own mind and his own judgement.

Could you find something else to climb on that meets her need to climb? More physical outlets and opportunities to master this skill? Put whatever she is seeking out of sight, or within reach? (snacks, juice, toys, etc.) Is she seeking your engagement with this 'climbing game'? Are you occupied elsewhere and she could participate in some more useful, practical and constructive manner (measuring cups, stirring, other engagement while you are busy)?

As far as "listening", are you modeling listening to her body language that what she is currently doing is important to her. If my son ignored that I was on the computer and just handed me my coat and said "I need you to go with me now" without my agreement, I wouldn't much like it. Could what she is doing come along? Could you provide an explanation of what might be interesting that she is going *to* do? Are these transition frustrations (of yours) occuring when she is tired or hungry and less abled to tolerate changes and more demands placed on her? Are her needs for quiet, uninterrupted play being considered and met (according to her non-verbals)? Could you provide a snack or toy to redirect her attention to something portable and fun? Could more time be provided to allow for 'toddling' along, instead of hurrying at an adult's pace and schedule?

Sure, it is easier to just expect compliance and "listening" and use coercion though.

Pat


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Edited upon request.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I don't see how the use of enforced compliance can be euphemistically called anything other than force, imo. And I do not believe that there is anything "gentle" about using might (or threatening to use one's physical strength) to enforce compliance. I don't believe my representation of the approach of parenting by force to be inaccurate.

Pat


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Obedience is the act of complying to another's judgement, without acting on one's own judgement. I would not like our child to learn to obey anyone except his own mind and his own judgement.
Pat


Why not? Just wondering...don't you have to obey people/rules in your life?


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

edited upon request.


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
So, if you are comfortable having a relationship with your child based upon using force to get your way and believe that you philosophically want to model the relationship dynamic of using force to get your way, counting allows her to have a (false) opportunity to comply willingly, imo. But, I am of the non-coercive, find a mutually agreeable alternative *which meets both people's needs* without using might to make me right, practice of relating with people.









You know - this sounded good to me, too, and I'm all about Alfie Kohn (Unconditional Parenting, Punished by Rewards), Jesper Juul (Your Competent Child), Neufeld and Mate (Hold on to Your Kids) and Rosenbergs Non-violent communication. I'm even on the NVC parenting listserv. But there is a gap between my knowledge and my implementation. Sometimes I simply LOSE IT and start yelling. I've now decided that the counting will give me the space I need when I'm short on time, patience or just sleep to feel like I'm still moving toward my goal (getting out of the house, getting lunch, getting to work on-time) without completely losing my temper. I've decided that's a trick I need in my tool box right now before my own anger seeps out. I agree with all of the above about it being coercive but I seem to need some alternatives before the yelling eeks out.

In a way, I feel like those kids who got abstinence-only sex education. My reading of the reports indicates that it works to delay sex - they seem to lose their virginity later, but once they lose it, they don't take protection. All of my uncoercive parenting reading hasn't left me with any tools for when I'm low on patience or ideas, so I wind up yelling. I'm instituting the 1-2-3 approach for when I'm short on other ideas.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Actually, you don't have do do anything you don't want to in life. Suprisingly, that is completely true. You can eat what you like, dress how you like, go where you like, tell your boss to F- off if you like, speed if you like, even kill someone if you like (I am not condoning it).... Why people don't do all these things is for a few reasons. O)ne, is a code of "good" morals. Two, and probably bigger, is the fear of the known consequence of doing something that probably wouldn't be a wise choice, like telling your boss to F-off. You know if you do that, then you will likely be fired, and you need money to enjoy things you aren't willing to live without, such as a roof over your head.

In theory though, you could very well tell him/her to f-off, at the top of your lungs even, if you didn't want or need the reference, if you had another, better paying job lined up, if you had just won the lottery, or married someone willing to support you financially, or whatever.

We follow the rules because either we care about the feelings of the person we may be hurting if we don't ... or because we know the consequences of what would happen if we didn't. We certainly don't do anything because we "have" to.

There have been a few times on here where I wanted to curse someone out. I mean, I got so angry with a couple of people I wanted to tell them just what I thought of them. I totally could have, I don't "have" to follow any of the rules here, but because I want to be a member of the community here, it was not as important to tell someone off than it was to remain a member here, so I held my tongue or phrased my upset better.

I want my child to do things out of an inner sense of wanting to do the right thing, wanting to do the loving thing, the peaceful thing, the reasonable thing, the smart thing, the thing that most benefits her and her fellow (wo)man. I don't want her to just blindly comply because "sometimes we have to obey." What happens when someone in power is doing something wrong?

Anyway, back to the OP... I don't care for counting as a means of getting the child to do what you want them to do. I agree with what scubamama said basically. If you are going to make your child do something without a choice, just let that be known to her. Be honest. "I know you don't want to go to the store, but I need milk and there is no one to watch you." .. but I think it is really unfair to phrase something like a choice, when clearly the outcome will be the same-- which is you forcing her to do something she doesn't want to do.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommyMine*
Why not? Just wondering...don't you have to obey people/rules in your life?

No, I have a choice. Don't you?

Pat


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

cc and pat-
you are talking logical consequence? I personally use logical consequence as my form of discipline in my home but I have often had a "consequence" painted by others as a "punishment" or in fact "forcing" for example if my son is screaming at me in a nasty way and I enforce him being in a different space from me because I don't choose to be around someone who screams. I do that by putting him in his crib or in his room and closing the door- he is forced to obey. He wouldn't just leave if I told him too...he would start screaming that he didn't want a time out. He is after all two.

I do feel I have things I have to obey to be a member of society. I hope for my children that they too become functioning members of society.

I have to pay taxes and obey laws.

I have to obey my boss or teachers.

My husband and I have rules we have agreed on that we both have to obey (such as not cheating).

I suppose that each of these are in fact "choices" but other than agreements with my husband you really can't be a functioning member of society without obeying these rules. And you can't be a functioning member of a partnership if you won't obey any of the partnership's mutually agreed to rules.

But that is just my thinking...maybe you agree and are just talking semantics?


----------



## rockinmama (Jan 7, 2005)

Hi~
My 2 cents worth:

-When I ask dd to do something i first make sure it's something that needs to be done not just me imposing my agenda on my child. If i do so and she dosn't respond to me, i will get down to her level and tell her why i really need "x" to happen and that i would really like her to understand that it is important to me that it is done.
-When i hear someone doing the counting thing it really makes my skin crawl. It seems like an unnessecary assertion of control. Your child is aware of the passage of time, why the need to count it out? If anyone did that to me i would be seriously peeved.
-I HATE the word obey!!!








Isis


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

You are "obeying" these things though, because you choose to, not because you have to. There is nothing philosophical or metaphorical about it. You don't cheat on your husband because you don't want him to divorce you. You don't want to hurt him, you don't desire another man...whatever... but not because you "have" to be faithful. You are making a choice.

It is not my goal for my daughter to be a "functional member of society" ...shit, George Bush is the president and I wouldn't even call him functional in any sense of the word. My goal is for my daughter to be content with who she sees in the mirror every day. My goal is for my daughter to get a peaceful night sleep at the end of the day without tossing or turning or wondering, or crying, or doubting her choices.

Chances are, as most of us, my daughter will learn that there is a certain "code" of behaviors she should probably adhere to unless she wants to be shunned, or jailed, or whatever...and I trust that she will decide for herself whether certain principles she holds or doesn't hold will be worth fighting for or not.

We all must choose our battles.

I don't have to pay taxes or be faithful to my husband. I could screw another guy while evading my taxes. I don't do these things, but not because I am "obeying" anyone. The only person I am obeying is my own conscience, in not cheating on my husband, and with taxes, I choose my battles... right now I don't want the hassle that goes along with fighting the system on that instance. Many people though, have successfully argued against paying income tax and don't have to pay it.

Life is a choice. When you accept that you are the master of your own fate in almost all life's decisions...that is when we are truly empowered.


----------



## babybugmama (Apr 7, 2003)

The original question was is counting bad. Not theoretical issues associated with choice and law, etc. An excellent topic to discuss, but not what was originally intended.

My thoughts on the OP's question. I think it depends on how it's used. I have used it in two ways.

One that I no longer do as I didn't feel comfortable with it, it didn't work, and I feel it was too punitive. The whole if you don't do x, I'm going to start counting. It comes out as more punitive. Then I get compliance based on more of a fear response than a cooperation or respect response. The only reason dd would comply is because she did not want me to help or give some consequence. Instead now, I will state my request simply and make sure she heard me. Then if she does not comply, depending on what it is, I may ask if she needs help. If she says no, then I respond well I need you to do X, please do that or I can help you. This is not said in a punitive voice, but in a matter of fact we gotta get this done type voice. I only use this in truly, I need you to do this type situations. Caveat: Please any gentle discipline guru's (mamaduck, piglet68) I would welcome your thoughts on this, I am not 100% confident of this as a gentle discipline strategy.

Okay the second way I use counting. When we are preparing to leave something or do something. I don't use it as a "or else" kind of thing, but more a way to prepare dd to let her know we are leaving. And usually I do a 10 count and count super slow so that she is ready by the time I get to counting.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

If a parenting practice advocated gentle spanking, or a controlled physical discipline I would call it hitting.







Just like the parenting practice advocating enforced compliance is coercive use of force, imnsho. The issue is "gentle" force is still force. The (positive or negative) connotation that anyone attaches to coercive force appears to vary widely. James Dobson, John Rosemond, The Pearls, etc. all are quite comfortable advocating the use of coercion and force in parenting without any perceived negative connotation.

However, I am advocating consensual, non-coercive gentle parenting practices. And "permissiveness" connotations (positive or negative







) attached to it vary widely also. Also, "non-punitive" does have varying degrees of iterations as it seems to euphemistically include 'imposed consequences' in some coercive parenting paradigms also.







But, I am not so agreeable that *imposing* consequences, abet logical, natural or non-arbitrary are "non-punitive coercion" either.

Coercion and force rely on the implementation of physical, emotional, psychological restraint or imposition on another. *Coercion is adversarial*. Granted coercion can be imposed violently or "gently". But coercion is hardly as gentle as voluntary agreement to act, which is non-adversarial.







I believe most parents who practice gentle discipline desire a non-coercive and non-adversarial relationship.

Btw, consensual living is not an educational philosophy. It is a manner of relating to others, irrelevant of age, without coercion.























Pat


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Quote:

I believe most parents who practice gentle discipline desire a non-coercive and non-adversarial relationship.
By your definition, perhaps. But it's evident in this forum that non everyone who embraces gentle as part of their parenting also claims non coercive. And many of those do not agree that they are in an adversarial relationship with their children.

I'm not debating the terms, semantics, approach of issues with you. I've discussed this issue for years; I'm done. I'm asking that if you believe in your approach to parenting, please post about it without multitudes of words that label another gentle approach with negative labels.


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*

It is not my goal for my daughter to be a "functional member of society" ...shit, George Bush is the president and I wouldn't even call him functional in any sense of the word. My goal is for my daughter to be content with who she sees in the mirror every day. My goal is for my daughter to get a peaceful night sleep at the end of the day without tossing or turning or wondering, or crying, or doubting her choices.

Well it is not my ONLY goal that they be functioning members of society...just one of my goals- sort of my BASELINE (if I do nothing else!) And I think GW has other problems...

BTW I think it is an urban myth that anyone gets out of taxes by suing the govt but even if they did- obeying the law and using the legal system to get out of paying taxes would be "being a functioning member of society"

I guess fundamentally I don't think we do or that it is a good thing that we do- always follow our bliss. I see examples of children who did that as folks like Paris Hilton...and frankly my goal is for more grounded kids than that. I think by learning how to live in the system of rules we exist in I will help my child to have all the things you describe.

I don't make rules just to make them- in fact I aim to have less rules. But I do have rules. For example my first rule was "no touching outlets" and I hold fast to that rule. No matter how fufilled my little darlng things he would be if he licked one!


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Ok, similar to what Babybugmama said-
What about counting to three, and saying if it's not done by then, then *I* will do it. So, maybe ds wants to help pick out something to eat, but he's been standing with the fridge door open for a while now. He's not decided yet, but I just want something picked out, so I can close the door and fix some lunch. So I give him a little more time to pick it out himself (and count so he can understand the time limit) and if he hasn't picked something out, I pick it myself. (this is just an example, but similar to what I've done).
btw, ds is 15 mos, and not talking, but understands and communicates VERY well.

So what are the opinions on that type of thing? Counting, with the end result not being that dc HAS to do something, but the end result being that something has to be done within a certain time- whether by mom or dc.

eta- so far, it hasn't ever seemed to bother ds at all.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I guess fundamentally I don't think we do or that it is a good thing that we do- always follow our bliss. I see examples of children who did that as folks like Paris Hilton...
Seriously? honestly? You think Paris Hilton is an example of someone following their bliss? Seriously? You honestly believe that starring in sex tapes, acting out like a maniac in public, dressing um, well..you know...(I could have lived my life without seeing her vagina, I know that much)....acting like a dumb blonde in every interveiw (whether she really is or not), making poor choices in men, putting all her self worth into her body and looks and material possessions... you define that as following your bliss?

Quite honestly, I think part of her behavior is having been raised in a very hands-off, nanny-having, material possessions to replace love, no figure of stability for understanding, love, acceptance, probably the LAST thing from an AP home ....certainly NOT a result of her "following her bliss".

Not knowing her personally, I can only speculate that she is far from "blissful" inside.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommyMine*
cc and pat-
you are talking logical consequence? I personally use logical consequence as my form of discipline in my home but I have often had a "consequence" painted by others as a "punishment" or in fact "forcing" for example if my son is screaming at me in a nasty way and I enforce him being in a different space from me because I don't choose to be around someone who screams. I do that by putting him in his crib or in his room and closing the door- he is forced to obey. He wouldn't just leave if I told him too...he would start screaming that he didn't want a time out. He is after all two.

I do feel I have things I have to obey to be a member of society. I hope for my children that they too become functioning members of society.

I have to pay taxes and obey laws.

I have to obey my boss or teachers.

My husband and I have rules we have agreed on that we both have to obey (such as not cheating).

I suppose that each of these are in fact "choices" but other than agreements with my husband you really can't be a functioning member of society without obeying these rules. And you can't be a functioning member of a partnership if you won't obey any of the partnership's mutually agreed to rules.

But that is just my thinking...maybe you agree and are just talking semantics?










You have just described better than I have been able to why non coercive parenting is simply not right for me. THank you for being so clear and concise.

I want to add that I do not count and I think that counting gives children an excuse not to listen.
I think that studies have shown that children whose parents count to wait for them to obey the children will almost always wait till they hear "3" .
But I do get that maybe you are really counting to give her a reasonable chance to respond. If that is the case I'd probably count to myself to keep myself from getting up and enforcing too quickly.

Oh and thank you HappyHSer for pointing out that NOT all GD parents desire a non coercive relationship with their children.


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Not knowing her personally, I can only speculate that she is far from "blissful" inside.

I agree, being raised without boundaries makes one a very unblissful person. I think that rules help us to feel safe because we understand how to function in society.

I think she has all the problems you describe but I also think that there are some things that must be done....whether my toddler wants to or not.

I was thinking more about the OP and I do use 123 in cases where I will do it if he won't...generally my toddler wants to do it all himself!

I don't often use it for when I will have to enforce a consequence because well I guess I find that for me I get three times as frustrated becasue he ignored the instruction three times. I don't know about your toddler but mine would ignore the instruction and glare defiantly at me while I counted to three and frankly I am not a good enough mommy to not get a bit steamed at that.


----------



## Fiddlemom (Oct 22, 2003)

We do a "20 count". You count backwards from 20 and it gives them lots of time.

We do it to take turns, leave a situation they don't want to leave, etc. I personally believe 3 is way too short for anyone under the age of 50. My older one is very number-obsessed and fixating on 3 might really offend him, because he probably has a personal attachment to it.

Half the time they just get on with whatever it is right away and the other half they linger excitedly down to 2 or 1. It's very exciting, like a rocket getting ready to blast off. The enjoyment on everyone's part diffuses my frustration half the time.

You can have a lot of fun with it, closing your eyes and saying, "I know you'll have your socks on by the time I count down from 37." my kids think it's hilarious that I sometimes forget what number I'm on and my older one won't help me because he's struggling to get his shoes on or something. When I only make it down to 35 (or whatever) he gets this real gleam of conquest & satisfaction.

Jenny


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I also wanted to add that having come late to this thread I am disappointed to see the posts from HappyHSer edited. She always has very intelligent as well as respectfully worded things to say and I look forward to reading her POV.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
Ok, similar to what Babybugmama said-
What about counting to three, and saying if it's not done by then, then *I* will do it.

I don't think there's anything evil about that, but it does somewhat pit you against him. And a child will very likely perceive that as a threat to his/her autonomy (because to small children, choosing what to eat is often a really big deal).

In cases like that, maybe prevention is the better cure. If your concern is about not having to wait forever to make lunch (I know how frustrating that can be!), maybe you can pull two or three things out of the refrigerator and let him choose from those. It can be overwhelming for such a small child to have so many choices. Even at 5, my ds can hardly ever decide what he wants if he looks in the refrigerator.







If your concern is about wasting energy by keeping the fridge open, maybe you can draw a quick picture of the things that are routinely in the refrigerator and hang it on the door.

Quote:

So what are the opinions on that type of thing? Counting, with the end result not being that dc HAS to do something, but the end result being that something has to be done within a certain time- whether by mom or dc.
I think it's pretty much a distinction without a difference. Both result in the mother imposing her will on the child. Of course, some people have no problem with that... it all depends on how you view your role as a parent.

I don't like to count because what it says to me (and what it says to my son, as I've come to find out) is, "I have all the power here and you're going to do what I say when I say it or I'm going to make you (or make it happen)." I don't think that's very respectful. Other people might feel differently... it's just not the relationship that I want with my son.

In the interest of full disclosure, though, I have to say that I found myself counting the other day when ds and I were engaged in a stupid power struggle over a lollipop.







I started counting out of some weird, throwback impulse. His face just fell and he chucked the lollipop in the trash. I won... and I felt like crap. When I was thinking about it later (after I'd apologized and talked with him about how I could have better handled the situation), it occurred to me that the counting was really pretty pointless without the threat of follow-through. I mean, if the child doesn't believe that you're going to act when you get to 3 or 10 or whatever, then what's the point? And if your intention is to act by making them do what you want them to do, then you're out of the realm of gentleness and into the realm of force.

Just my 20 cents.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Just read Fiddlemom's post and I do like her version of counting! Very Playful Parenting-esque. I imagine that would work beautifully when not in the midst of a power struggle.


----------



## babybugmama (Apr 7, 2003)

Dragonfly - I learned the hard way about counting too. I did it in the manner that you described and it wasn't pretty and I felt lousy.

The refrigerator example...I struggle with that with dd too. I just ask her to close the refrigerator b/c all the cold air is getting out. Tell her she can think some more and then look again to see if it's there. It seems to work. Especially when I explain why I want her to do/not do something.


----------



## Fiddlemom (Oct 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
Just read Fiddlemom's post and I do like her version of counting! Very Playful Parenting-esque. I imagine that would work beautifully when not in the midst of a power struggle.









LOL








ain't that the truth....diffusing the power struggle is way difficult for a stubborn pain in the neck like me.








tapping into things like our family love of numbers (my husband and I met in calculus class in 11th grade) can really lighten the load.
xo jenny


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rockinmama*
Your child is aware of the passage of time, why the need to count it out?

You really think so? My ds1 is 12, and he's _still_ almost completely oblivious to the fact that time keeps going by. If you ask him to wind up what he's doing because we have to leave in five minutes, he'll say "okay", then take 15. If you give him a 5-minute warning, then let him know when 2 minutes are left, then 1 minute...he's still not done and will swear up, down, left and right that "there's no way that was 5 minutes". And, this is often not even about doing something we want to do...it'll be that we're all ready to leave and I'm dropping him off at a friend's on the way to go shopping. He just doesn't get time. This isn't preteen stuff, either. He's been like this since he was a toddler. He doesn't get that he's keeping people waiting. He doesn't get that five minutes is too long to stand with the front door open talking to his friends - in December! He's a very kind, helpful, creative, intelligent child...but the passage of time is a complete mystery to him.

He has missed out on doing things that he wants to do...not as a logical consequence, but as a natural one. Sometimes, he just can't get it through his head that he has to something _now_ or he won't be able to do something else. If he wants a ride somewhere and dinner's cooking, he needs to go _now_, before supper's on the table. If he wants to help me cook dinner, he needs to put down his book _now_, because that's when dinner's being made (he's really into learning to cook). But, he's convinced that he came when I asked him...even if it took 10 minutes or more.

Okay - I went a lot longer with that than I meant to. But, if any of you have _toddlers_ who are actually aware of the time going by, I envy you greatly for that.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
Okay - I went a lot longer with that than I meant to. But, if any of you have _toddlers_ who are actually aware of the time going by, I envy you greatly for that.

Your son sounds a lot like my brother. He's also creative and brilliant and completely oblivious to time. If we want him to be even close to on time to a family gathering, we generally tell him that we're starting about 1-1/2 hours before the actual start time (or we tell his live-in girlfriend who can usually get him moving along).







I'm that way to an extent, as well, though I can usually get places on time if I really make a huge effort to pay attention and leave myself enough get ready time for the inevitable distractions.

Mine isn't a toddler anymore and he still doesn't get the time thing. I mean, he understands that time passes but he's oblivious to how long an actual increment of time is. If I remind him that we have 5 minutes left before we need to leave for... wherever... and then get distracted and the 5 minutes turns into 15 minutes, he still thinks it's been 5 minutes. Either that or he just doesn't clue me in that he knows it's been longer. I actually would hate it if he were aware of the time. One of my biggest pet peeves is being rushed. I like that his personality allows me to be flexible with time.


----------



## Maple Leaf Mama (Jul 2, 2004)

Please forgive me if I come across as thick headed and stupid. I have a 26 month old and I'm trying to educate myself (as fast as humanly possible) to all this GP stuff.

I count to 5 when I want her to do something. Usually like come let me change you poopy bum, as she does a zoom by while laughing at me.
After a few attempts to talk her into coming over to me and explaining why, rather than just grabbing her by the arm and plopping her down on her back, I tend to get frustrated. Especially if I'm trying to get us ready to go out.

At this age, explaining WHY she should do something tends to only work 5-10% of the time (for us)
Like me saying this morning: if you stand on your toys, they will break, please get off your cash register, you're hurting it.
She just looked at me and turned her back to continue what she was doing.
She ignored me.

This is when I would say: Hailey, please get off your toys--1...2...3...4...5--and THEN I would go over and pick her up and redirect.

I have to say, counting is effective about 50% of the time, which I think is pretty good.
If not counting, then what?
But I'm very open to ideas and hope you ladies can educate me starting now!


----------



## Bleu (Mar 6, 2004)

Maple Leaf, you're not being thick at all! There's plenty of good advice here, but it's also two sides arguing for their particular flavor of GD. GD *can* include non-coercive/TCS (Taking Children Seriously) practices, but doesn't necessarily. Some posters were giving answers from that camp; others argued against it and provided alternative ideas.

It's unclear what kind of advice the OP was looking for -- if she _has_ any preference. Maybe she was not aware of the divide or hoping to be persuaded to one side or the other.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommyMine*
I have to pay taxes and obey laws...I have to obey my boss or teachers...My husband and I have rules we have agreed on that we both have to obey (such as not cheating).

So, do you stay faithful to your husband because you're afraid of what would happen if you didn't? Or do you stay faithful becuase you love and respect him?

Do you pay taxes only because you're afraid of being fined or jailed if you don't? Or do you do it becuase you like being part of an ordered society and recognize that obeying laws keeps that society functioning smoothly at for the best of the majority of its members (recognizing, of course, that YOU have the power, as a democratic citizen, to change laws you don't like - does your child?  ).

Do you follow your boss's requests only because you are afraid of being fired, or do you respect that the chain of authority in your workplace is how that place is designed to run and that if everybody did their own thing you would likely all be out of a job?

I don't see how punishment factors into anything I do. My motivation comes from WITHIN and that is what I want to instill in my children.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maple Leaf Mama*
Please forgive me if I come across as thick headed and stupid. I have a 26 month old and I'm trying to educate myself (as fast as humanly possible) to all this GP stuff.

I count to 5 when I want her to do something. Usually like come let me change you poopy bum, as she does a zoom by while laughing at me.
After a few attempts to talk her into coming over to me and explaining why, rather than just grabbing her by the arm and plopping her down on her back, I tend to get frustrated. Especially if I'm trying to get us ready to go out.

At this age, explaining WHY she should do something tends to only work 5-10% of the time (for us)
Like me saying this morning: if you stand on your toys, they will break, please get off your cash register, you're hurting it.
She just looked at me and turned her back to continue what she was doing.
She ignored me.

This is when I would say: Hailey, please get off your toys--1...2...3...4...5--and THEN I would go over and pick her up and redirect.

I have to say, counting is effective about 50% of the time, which I think is pretty good.
If not counting, then what?
But I'm very open to ideas and hope you ladies can educate me starting now!

At that age, redirection to something more interesting than what the child is doing is most effective, imo. Take the play item along, provide a novel play item, engage the child with attention rather than expecting them to comply or swooping in and removing them. These things make transitions easier. I know I told our son that if he stepped on the neck of his little guitar it would probably break. I've said it for 2 years now and I am wrong. It will not break.







Sometimes, checking my premises about what I think, believe, fear, worry will, might or should happen can occur without our son changing his actions at all.

As far as the diaper change, at about 18-24 months, I found having our son stand at the side of the couch with toys on the couch made changing the diaper *standing up* agreeable to both of us. After he felt he had mastered standing he wanted to do that instead of laying down where he could not see or do much while the diaper was changed. So, considering the *child's* pov is what I try to do when I feel frustrated that our son isn't wanting to do what I want him to do. Then I can work with him to find a mutually agreeable solution instead of making him comply against his will. Using my mental energy is more productive in the long run than using force, imo. And this models using words and consideration too.

Expecting compliance without providing reasons or alternatives is unnecessarily frustrating for the child (or anyone), in my opinion. Thus, *the parent creates the power struggle and the child reacts with "tantrums"*. I don't think it is much of a surprise. I would be upset too if anyone just expected to authoritatively direct my life and made me comply.









Oh, and I would not consider her reaction "ignoring" you, unless you expect compliance. I would consider her reaction 'considering your pov and *choosing* not to act on it'. If it isn't life threatening, how is it worth forcing? Except to model 'who is the authority'? This type of power matrix is thus introduced by the parent. And the child reacts to try to protect her own autonomy. And 2 year olds want autonomy!!!

Pat


----------



## Pattyla (Apr 18, 2004)

I put this up and then my computer went out. I want to read all the responces; it truly is facinating.

Just to clarify. I'm not giving my dd a choice. The counting simply gives her a chance to comply on her own w/o being forced. We both seem to prefer it that way and I don't think she has any illusions about it being a choice to do what I have asked.

While truly none of us has to do what someone else wants I don't see the benefit in trying to reason with a 22 month old that she needs to come in before the ice cream melts. She just doesn't get that. It isn't safe in my neighborhood to leave her outside while I put groceries away. I do try to convince her to come in with me but when I can't convince her that it is a good idea and I have a reason that I need to get inside asap I ask her to come with me and if she doesn't I count. If she doesn't come with the counting I pick her up and bring her, even if she doesn't like it. I'm not ashamed of that. I do think that as the parent with some perspective sometimes I do know better than she does.

I do have to go to bed now but I'll be back some time tomorrow to read all of this and join in.


----------



## Pattyla (Apr 18, 2004)

Ok I have now read the entire thread and learned that I had no idea there were two different camps in the gd stuff. I had never heard of coercive or non coercive parenting before I read this. I am posting and reading here cause I realize that my tool box is rather empty of gd stuff for this oh so fun toddler age and I'm needing a lot of help.

I don't understand why redirection isn't coercive. If anything is seems more coercive than setting a rule and helping my child follow that rule if they are unable to. That is like tricking them to follow the rule. Not that I don't redirect, I do a lot. I'm just trying to understand why that isn't considered coercive while the rest is.

Having just learned of this distinction I am trying to understand the non-coercive side of things. I do want to be minimally coercive but I honestly have no idea how one could truly be non-coercive with a baby/young toddler and still keep them safe and continue to be happy as a mother as well (I do think that I matter too). Also what if your being non-coercive and your child is railroading over the rights of others? For example today my dd kept taking a doll away from a baby (7 mos). She is in the "I see it therefore it is mine" stage. She truly doesn't understand that, that isn't true. I would ask for it back. I would try to distract her with other toys but she kept going over and getting that doll. She really liked it. I had forgotten her bear so I think that was part of it but she still can't take a doll out of another kids hand and since this baby is much younger she really couldn't hold on or protest or give her any natural consequences. It wasn't really fair to put the doll up where no one could play with it since this baby really likes her doll. This is not an instance where I would use counting. I don't use counting for power struggles for the most part. It is more for when my dd is dawdling and I expect her to do what I am wanting (I use it the most for coming in to the house.) I use counting to three since she can count to 3 herself and that is a nice short ammount of time for her to understand and change her behavior. I understand why some of you are saying you would pick a larger # and I am sure that when she is older I will, but for now I think that a larger # would just be overwhelming to her.

I have used the counting with different ammounts of sucess to stop dd from climbing on the table durring dinner. It doesnt' really seem to work so I have abandoned it. I do all the things I am supposed to do (at least as far as I know). I let her climb a lot. I let her make lots of choices for herself. But I also don't want her standing in the mashed potatoes and if I cannot reason with her enough to get her to stop. If I can't distract her from it with something else. I will pick her up and remove her from the table. I think that most resonable people would do the same and I don't understand why someone wouldn't. I don't have a desire to engage in power struggles with her. I don't really care how I get her to stop climbing on the table. It is ok with me if it is for a "reward" of playing with toys or getting down from dinner early and w/o eating or talking to me or reading a book or whatever I can think of but when none of those things work and I am not able to eat my own dinner (I am quite cranky when I am hungry) I will pick her up off the table and put her on the floor. I don't think that counting to warn her that she has a limited time to get off herself (she prefers doing everything herself) is a bad thing but I am willing to be educated.


----------



## rumi (Mar 29, 2004)

Quote:

I will pick her up off the table and put her on the floor
i personally find this to be a great move and have often sat on the floor to eat with dd. Not because she climbs on the table but because she enjoys having easy access to all the food and these days esp does not like the high chair because that is for babies.

i think that a lot depends on finding the positive - finding the positive in what your child is doing and also finding a positive thing to offer that would draw them away from whatever negative thing is going on. i too have wondered whether at times i a so good at redirecting that i sometimes lean on it for my own convenience, but i think that in general it can be used in a respectful, empowering way.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*








You have just described better than I have been able to why non coercive parenting is simply not right for me. THank you for being so clear and concise.

I want to add that I do not count and I think that counting gives children an excuse not to listen.
I think that studies have shown that children whose parents count to wait for them to obey the children will almost always wait till they hear "3" .
But I do get that maybe you are really counting to give her a reasonable chance to respond. If that is the case I'd probably count to myself to keep myself from getting up and enforcing too quickly.

Oh and thank you HappyHSer for pointing out that NOT all GD parents desire a non coercive relationship with their children.


Yep. I don't know why some here believe that GD means non-corecive. It may to them and that is fine. But not alll GD is non-coercive. That is TCS and it is indeed something different.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:

Yep. I don't know why some here believe that GD means non-corecive. It may to them and that is fine. But not alll GD is non-coercive. That is TCS and it is indeed something different.








:

Yet another example of a thread where the topic becomes all about how those who are non-coercive have such a better strategy.









I count occasionally when my kids either won't do or won't stop doing something after I have asked/told them to start/stop. It's just one of many tricks in my parenting bag.

I am not really all that interested in having a non-coercive relationship with my children. I wholeheartedly believe that parents and children can have a relationship where the parents are the parents and the kids are the kids and everybody knows it and gets along fine.

So no, I don't think that counting is bad.

Namaste!


----------



## pjlioness (Nov 29, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommyMine*
Why not?

One word...*pedophiles* (and other dangerous people, like bullies, spouse batterers, etc.).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommyMine*
Just wondering...don't you have to obey people/rules in your life?

Yes, but as adults, we can consciously choose to put ourselves into situations where we have to follow the rules. Plus, we able to understand why the rules are there, and we can understand the logical/reasonable basis behind them. If we want to play an organized sport, there are rules we will have to follow so that the game has structure and is fair for all participants. If we want to drive a car, we have to follow the rules so that everyone else on (and near) the roads is safe. If we want to work to earn money, we will have to do the work our boss/company asks of us (if our boss/company is unreasonable or is asking too much of us, we can choose to find another job).

Many rules parents/society impose on children are not reasonable, logical, or developmentally appropriate.


----------



## pjlioness (Nov 29, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pattyla*
I ask once and then follow it with a count to three (slower or faster depending on how rushed for time I am and how much she needs to disengage and change her behavior).

You say that you are counting to give her time to comply, but your statements in the parentheses are not about giving her time - they are about _your_ time needs and _your opinions_ about what she is doing.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Yep. I don't know why some here believe that GD means non-corecive. It may to them and that is fine. But not alll GD is non-coercive. That is TCS and it is indeed something different.

This could be written the other way.......

"Yep. I don't know why some here believe that GD means corecive. It may to them and that is fine. But not alll GD is coercive. That is coersive and it is indeed something different."

I am not sure what the point of this comment is except to fuel the flame. People have different opinions and can state them if they want. The OP asked what people's opinions are about counting. I see no reason that it cannot be discussed by people form both ends of the "GD" spectrum.

Back to the OP.....I have read most of 123 Magic which is a book about using counting as a discipline tool. I strive to be non-coersive, but aside from that, the thing that bothered me the most about the book was that I feel it closes down communication, discussion, and idea sharing.....things that I feel are important skills to develop in small children.

And I think that "reasoning with a toddler" does benefit people. It might be frustrating sometimes......but so is reasoning with my dh sometimes







I think that young children can understand metling ice cream. It only takes a minute longer to show dc that ice cream melts when it is left outside. and sometimes that minute is inconvienient. But I find if I take that minute then, the next 20 times I need dd to cooperate in order for me to get groceries in, she understands that her Rice Dream might melt and be ruined if we wait outside too long.

We recently had some serious hitting and pushing problems when dd was around other kids. I was at my wits end and was close to either pulling the plug on visitng people with kids or getting coersive with dd in the heat of the moment. It seemed like I explained myself to death that it was not OK for dd to push or hit a 9 month old. I commented to my dh that is was just IMPOSSIBLE to reason with her on this. He reminded me that I was not looking at the problem, only the results. She was frustrated that the other kid could not play the way she did and was playing with toys and things SHE wanted right then and there. Typical 2.5 yo. So we tried discussing it out of the heat of the moment. On our way to the next visit while in the car, we explained that babies are little, fragile, and do not understand. We explained that hitting and pushing makes baby feel bad and might even hurt them. We also explained that we understood it was soemtimes frustrating to play with a baby. We gave dd some tools to help her avoid hitting and pushing. We told her she could yell "help" when she felt baby was wrecking her play. We told her she could bring her play thing onto the couch out of reach if she wanted. Etc..... I really did not think this was going to sink in with my not-very-verbal 2.5 yo. But it did. We have been around babies about 10 times since that discussion. We discuss the major points before the actual visit and have had zero problem. I am just guessing here as I have not tried it, but instead we could be counting to 3 mulitple times at every visit which would be frustrating for us and dd AND still not ever address the underlying problem.


----------



## UmmBnB (Mar 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*







:

Yet another example of a thread where the topic becomes all about how those who are non-coercive have such a better strategy.









I count occasionally when my kids either won't do or won't stop doing something after I have asked/told them to start/stop. It's just one of many tricks in my parenting bag.

I am not really all that interested in having a non-coercive relationship with my children. I wholeheartedly believe that parents and children can have a relationship where the parents are the parents and the kids are the kids and everybody knows it and gets along fine.

So no, I don't think that counting is bad.

Namaste!









:


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
This could be written the other way.......

"Yep. I don't know why some here believe that GD means corecive. It may to them and that is fine. But not alll GD is coercive. That is coersive and it is indeed something different."

I am not sure what the point of this comment is except to fuel the flame..


Your "reversal" does not make sense. No one is saying that being GD MEANS being corercive or that "all GD" is coercive. What is being said is that "non-coercive" parenting is not the ONLY thing that GD consists of.

For some, being gentle, means only being non-coercive, but others believe that this is a subset of GD called TCS.

In other words all TCS is GD but not all GD is TCS.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I might be wrong on this but I do not think anyone on here classifies themselves as TCS. I do not.

Anyway, some people are discussing non-coersive ideas. Others are discussing ideas that involve coersion. No one is telling anyone to stop discussing thier lean on the subject. I am not seeing a problem here. It was stated "I don't know why some here believe that GD means non-corecive". Well, it does to some people and I think they have explained themselves well. No one has to agree with them though. So a comment like that seems only to fuel a (very old) flame and not promote active and diverse discussion. Anyway, I see no reason that the discussion cannot continue without comments like that. You discuss your ideas. I will discuss mine. The OP can take what is helpful to her. And we can all live happily ever after.


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

What is tcs? I missed the memo.


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

I was very non-coersive with my first. It just came naturally, that was the type of child he was. I could have been very much like yooper and others in my posting.

Then I had child number 2 and child number 3. They are both very different from #1. It's easy to say that something works when you only have one "study" to compare it to. It's also easy when the only needs to consider are those of you and your child. It's not so easy when I now have the needs of three children with three different personalities and three different sets of needs as well as those of myself. When it's time to take my oldest to school, frankly, the younger two don't have a choice about whether they they have to come or get to stay home alone. Do I sometimes have to pick up the toddler to get him to the car, you bet! I get frustrated when people feel like one method of parenting works best because it works for their child. Great!!! That doesn't mean it will be the best for your subsequent children or for the children of others. That's an assumption that shouldn't be made. Trust me, I had to climb off my high horse when my second was born and what worked for the first was a dismal failure with the second.

I think sometimes we fail to take into account that the physical brain of a child is very different than the brain of an adult. Treating toddlers like adults isn't necessarily a good thing. Too many psychology classes have led me to believe that we have to take into account the abilities of the developing brain of children and parent them according to their physical, mental and emotional abilities. Toddlers lack the ability to reason. You may be able to state your reasoning, they might even seem to understand, but their brains don't have the connections yet to carry that on in their everyday world. They also don't have the ability to control all their impulses. All these quirks are what make toddlers so wonderful. Raising a tiny adult wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

I guess you can take my rambling for what it's worth coming from the parent of a 7yo, 5yo, and 22mo old who sets household rules, gives her children jobs, *gasp* occasionally counts, and thinks that structure is a good thing, but still practices gentle discipline.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jish*
I think sometimes we fail to take into account that the physical brain of a child is very different than the brain of an adult. Treating toddlers like adults isn't necessarily a good thing. Too many psychology classes have led me to believe that we have to take into account the abilities of the developing brain of children and parent them according to their physical, mental and emotional abilities. Toddlers lack the ability to reason. You may be able to state your reasoning, they might even seem to understand, but their brains don't have the connections yet to carry that on in their everyday world. They also don't have the ability to control all their impulses. All these quirks are what make toddlers so wonderful. Raising a tiny adult wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
.


I completely agree. I definitely try to tell my children the reason that I am making a certain rule, but I don't when they are very young expect to "reason with them".

I too believe and numerous studies seem to show that the ability to use reason and judgment is just "not all there" before a certain age. I think this makes it the parents job to set the rules and that attempting to get two or three children to all come to a rational agreement can be done, but may not be fair to all family members.

I am comfortable in my role as rule setter. I listen and consider what they have to say, but I do not feel that my children are best suited to decide certain things and I simply don't let them do so.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
So a comment like that seems only to fuel a (very old) flame and not promote active and diverse discussion.

So do comments like these:

Quote:

So, if you are comfortable having a relationship with your child based upon using force to get your way and believe that you philosophically want to model the relationship dynamic of using force to get your way

Quote:

I don't see how the use of enforced compliance can be euphemistically called anything other than force, imo. And I do not believe that there is anything "gentle" about using might (or threatening to use one's physical strength) to enforce compliance.










Quote:

It was stated "I don't know why some here believe that GD means non-corecive".
Perhaps it would be better stated as, "I don't know why some here believe that GD means *only* non-coercive." Because that is the attitude that some posters in the forum present.

Namaste!


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jish*
That doesn't mean it will be the best for your subsequent children or for the children of others. That's an assumption that shouldn't be made. Trust me, I had to climb off my high horse when my second was born and what worked for the first was a dismal failure with the second.

My guess is that the second child might not agree







I have two kids and have not found coercion necessary. So just for those out there who are wondering, it can work with more than one child. I do think it takes a committment but that is something that I'm comfortable with. And my two kids are polar opposites with high needs, so the 'well that just works with your kids', doesn't really apply.

Oh, and I'm not a TCS person, in fact I don't care for TCS at all. We live consensually and there is a big difference.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ambdkf*
My guess is that the second child might not agree







I have two kids and have not found coercion necessary. So just for those out there who are wondering, it can work with more than one child. I do think it takes a committment but that is something that I'm comfortable with. And my two kids are polar opposites with high needs, so the 'well that just works with your kids', doesn't really apply.

Oh, and I'm not a TCS person, in fact I don't care for TCS at all. We live consensually and there is a big difference.

Thanks for sharing







That is good to know.

I was just waiting for the "you don't qualify to share in the discussion because you don't have enough kids/the right ages/the right gender/whatever" statement. Living consensually is something my family strives to do together, no matter how many kids we end up having. It is not something that we do because it "works", we do it because that is how we all want to be treated.

I am very curious to see the studies stating that reasoning with small children is impossible and/or damaging. I was raised in a mostly consensual home and do not feel it was detrimental to my well-being....however, some of you might disagree


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

As for my second child, since I'm pretty sure I know him better than you I feel pretty comfortable disagreeing with you. He is a child that does very well with structure. He wants to know what is next on the agenda. If I tried to reason everything with him, it would put him on overload. I learned this early on. He prefers choices, limited choices. He is happier if he knows that he has limits and if they are followed. If I am lax in enforcing the rules, he will have a much worse day than if he knows that the rules will be followed, and that he doesn't have too much responsibility for our day, if that makes sense.

I am in no way saying that non-coersive parenting can't work with more than one child. What I am saying is that it is harder to have an objective opinion if you have one child. I find it harsh when a poster sees that as the only right way to parent based on their limited experience. I feel that each child should be parented in the way that is best for them. That is why I don't parent any of my kids exactly the same -- through attachment parenting I am able to adjust my parenting to fit their individual needs. I don't judge those who parent non-coersively, that's wonderful if that works for them and their children. I simply ask for the same respect. Don't assume that you (not personal) know what is best as a whole for each of my individual children. Every child is different, they should be parented according to their individual needs. Please don't fault me for doing that. After all, you know what they say about assuming. It seems like sometimes we can get too high and mighty here sitting in front of our computer and we forget that there are real moms with real children at the other side. They have real lives that we know nothing about, and real children with real personalities that we will never know. Why would we think that we know what is best for their children.

I think if we would all remember that while our method of parenting may be best for our family, it may not be the best for every family. There's no one best way of parenting. That won't be possible until every child is born the same, and how boring would that be. We can be so accepting of diversity here in every other way, but when it comes to parenting, is it so hard to believe that there is more than one "right" way to do it? I don't think so. Right doesn't mean the same.


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your previous post, it sounded a lot like it doesn't work with more than one child. That was all that I was responding too. I'm glad you have something that is working for you. I just wanted to let others reading, that might be wondering after reading your post, that it can work, that it is merely and choice and commitment no matter how many kids and no matter how old they are.

Interestingly, your second child sounds a lot like my first! She is SO rule oriented. That is how she feels comfortable in breaking things into rules and structure. I have not found that I need to impose rules on her, for HER that would be a disaster. I totally support her need to live by her rules and support her world view, even though it isn't mine.

ITA that we don't really know what is happening in another's family or how it is perceived. That is why I try to just share my experiences and things that work for us - then those reading can take what they want and leave the rest. I just reacted strongly to your post because it seemed to imply some people I respect greatly are "on a high horse" because the chose to live consensually and that they will see if they have more than one child that is doesn't work. I don't feel I'm on a "high horse" but have chosen to live consensually in our family of 4. I will say it is one of the reasons we didn't have any more children but I have met people that live consensual with even 4 kids so it can work. That's all I am saying, may not work for you but can work for those that choose it.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
I am very curious to see the studies stating that reasoning with small children is impossible and/or damaging.

No one said reasoning with children was always damaging to them.

The studies that were discussed above were those that showed that the human brain until AFTER the teen years simply does not have adequate reasoning and judgment skills to make many decisions. Impulse control is also incredibly low until adulthood is reached .

Thus trying to explain to a child why they should not do something dangerous, rather than intervening to keep them from doing it, is simply in my mind unfair to the child.

See the studies of Abigail Baird at Dartmouth and those by Todd and Steiler and Harvard.

Also I know the Journal of Neuroscience has published many studies of the underdevloped reasoning skills in the brain during childhood and adolescence. The February 2004 issue contained one landmark study which helped convince a judicial panel to recomend against the death penalty for adolescent murderers BASED LARGELY ON THE BIO-PHYSICAL fact that teens simply do NOT have the same reasoning, judgment or impulse control as adults.


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

It's sort of funny because as I have been reading around tonight I have found that many statements and suggestments have been made by those who practice non-coersive parenting that I would define as coersive (although not bad.)







Perhaps my definition of what is coersion is just too strict. Maybe we aren't all as different as we think. So much is just semantics and how we personally define things. I know that many of you are picturing my househould as a strict place where I am the be all end all boss and that is far from the truth. We live in a household where choices avail, we work to come to compromise when possible, but we also have consequences when poor choices are made. Trust me, I don't always like the consequences of my actions.







I'm guessing that the way we parent isn't as different as you might think.

If you read back on the archived TCS threads you will see my posts there. I became so frustrated with some of those people who seemed to think that their children's desires and will should be the only thing that counted even if it meant their child blocked the aisle in a busy grocery store playing with cans for an hour (just an example.) I have a real issue with that, and with not teaching children that the needs and feelings of others matter also. I think that sometimes I go back to that type of thinking even if that isn't what is meant by those espousing noncoersion. In that case, I do apologize, because I really do feel that we are all closer in our parenting that we are different. I just get frustrated with the idea that one idea/theory/style is what is best for every child. I think we all have to make that decision about each of our children, and allow others to do so also. I hate to see posters feel like they are being told that they are damaging their child because they require that their child wear shoes to play outside in a cold weather state -- that it's a non negotiable (and again, just an example.) I think if we think our child is going to be permanantly damaged because we made them wear shoes outside in winter, then we are selling our children short and not giving them enough credit.

As for the psychology and reasoning things. I was an education major and I wanted to know as much about child development, both physical, emotional, and psychological as possible if I was going to be working with children. Thus, I took about every psychology and child development class available. If you go to the library and check out the developmental psychology books (not the parenting section) you can read all the research and the research and reasoning behind it. I'm not one who thinks that the medical establishment is godlike, but I was very swayed by the information I received in those classes. It has greatly shaped the way I parent. You don't have to agree with it, or parent any certain way because of it, just thought I'd let you know where I came across my info. Now, I'm wishing I'd kept those textbooks from 15 years ago.









Now, I'm starting to ramble and need to take my preggo body to bed.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jish*

Every child is different, they should be parented according to their individual needs.


I agree with this completely. I have 3 dds and we are expecting #4 this summer. Each of our girls has a unique personality and different needs. We adapt our parenting to fit the needs of each individual. Also, we adapt to each situation. Sometimes reasoning works without coersion and in other situations it won't.


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

I think you are probably right, we aren't too far apart







I'm certainly no TCSer!! I also really don't talk about myself at being non-coercive, I really prefer living consensually. I prefer that term because I think it is more descriptive of what goes on in my home.

Your grocery store example wouldn't happen to us because I always give my children information about those around them and have found they are very receptive. They *want* to fit into our society and love understanding the nuances of that. As for shoes, my girls wear shoes when their feet are cold







They don't need me to tell them.

I have a degree in Child Development and I too learned a lot from my classes and books. They would be horrified to see how parents use CIO type things. I remember so clearly in Child Dev. 101 my professor repeated over and over to always answer a babies cry. OK, now I'm digressing, not at all what this thread is about - just brought back some memories


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
I completely agree. I definitely try to tell my children the reason that I am making a certain rule, but I don't when they are very young expect to "reason with them".

I too believe and numerous studies seem to show that the ability to use reason and judgment is just "not all there" before a certain age. I think this makes it the parents job to set the rules and that attempting to get two or three children to all come to a rational agreement can be done, but may not be fair to all family members.

I am comfortable in my role as rule setter. I listen and consider what they have to say, but I do not feel that my children are best suited to decide certain things and I simply don't let them do so.

I agree with all of that. Especially the last part.


----------



## Boof (Dec 1, 2004)

My mother counted to 3 as a threat. It really damaged our relationship. I have never trusted her. I can still hear her counting and have told her that if she ever does that to my son she will never see us again. Period.

I was always the reasoning type even as a child from what my family has told me. It was her issues that lead to the counting. Explaining things always worked with me. She counted because she had no tools besides threats and violence.

I prefer creative coersion. Did I just coin a new term? lol Nah I mean distracting, redirection, making a game out of it. If it's about getting her inside with groceries, why not give her a job she'd enjoy? Opening the fridge, letting her unlock the door, etc. I don't think there's a situation where something else can't be thought of.


----------



## rumi (Mar 29, 2004)

Quote:

I am comfortable in my role as rule setter.
i appreciate your honesty on this. i dont appreciate when people say this is the only way because 'you can't ..." (fill in the blank - reason with a toddler, etc ... )


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Thus trying to explain to a child why they should not do something dangerous, rather than intervening to keep them from doing it, is simply in my mind unfair to the child.

i tend to agree with this, but I like the happy medium approach. When ds was younger, it was unfair to weigh him down with lengthy explanations or expect him to reason (and it's still unfair most times). I still always thought it was important to give an explanation while helping him to do what needed to be done. Even if small children don't get the reasoning part, I truly believe that they do get they conveyance of respect that comes with the explanation and the gentle re-direction.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
i tend to agree with this, but I like the happy medium approach. When ds was younger, it was unfair to weigh him down with lengthy explanations or expect him to reason (and it's still unfair most times). I still always thought it was important to give an explanation while helping him to do what needed to be done. Even if small children don't get the reasoning part, I truly believe that they do get they conveyance of respect that comes with the explanation and the gentle re-direction.


You must have missed the part of my post where I said this:

[/QUOTE]

*I definitely try to tell my children the reason that I am making a certain rule*

[/QUOTE]

I give my children an explanation becasuse it is a nice thing to do and because it will give them info for future use. But I don't expect it to convince them or worry if it does not.

For me, "giving my child information" and assuming that he can use reason and judgment to make the best decision is simply wrong. It is IMO unfair to my child. It makes an assumption about the reasoning skills of the brain that I believe to be biolgically invalid.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
You must have missed the part of my post where I said this:

*I definitely try to tell my children the reason that I am making a certain rule*

I give my children an explanation becasuse it is a nice thing to do and because it will give them info for future use. But I don't expect it to convince them or worry if it does not.

For me, "giving my child information" and assuming that he can use reason and judgment to make the best decision is simply wrong. It is IMO unfair to my child. It makes an assumption about the reasoning skills of the brain that I believe to be biolgically invalid.

Wow. That is so fascinating. I have seen time and time again with my own child and the many children of my friends who choose to live consensually, that our children have an unending ability to reason and be rational. I am curious about the discrepency, and the only difference seems to be that you believe they can't and we believe they can.









There are so many potential flaws with any study, such as for years they "knew" that 'babies didn't feel pain', and NOW, all of a sudden, whoops, 'babies do feel pain'. There is an adamant belief that very young children biologically can't know or control their excrements. But my friend's 7-month old has communicated and held his stool and urine until over a toilet, as do many other EC children. Our preconceived notions always affect research findings and interpretation.

Pat


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Jish - I remember the cans in the aisle discussion. I think it was either before dd was born or whens he was still quite young. I also remember being on the side of the people that though TCS was crazy







While I am not TCS, at that point I never ever thought I would get into the consensual living mindset. It just seemed too hard. I could/can not imagine having my entire day revolve around long drawn out discussions on why blocking the aisle is an inconvienience for other shoppers. In reality, our life is nowhere near that. In fact, I think I spend less/equal time discussing and trying to find solutions than the average parent spends on discipline over the long view (there are certainly days or issues that require much more problem solving). This is based on my observations of friends and other community members. I am guessing that there might still be a point when we come to some sort of problem where a solution can not easily be found. And it might take some time or frustration on both sides. But I am also guessing that this happens in any sort of household at some time or another.

I am not on a high horse. We have days where I fail or get frustrated. I am not judging other parents here. Every parent here is parenting WAY more respectfully than the average and I respect that. But I do like to share my ideas and experiences. In my first post on this thread, I just outlined a couple of experiences from my life that I felt could be helpful to the OP. Our kids are about the same age and we have experienced some of the issues that she brought up (ice cream melting and agressiveness). I just wanted to share how we handled those things in our hosue in case it might be helpful to the OP. She mentioned that it was unbeneficial to reason with a toddler and I wanted to share that we do reason with a toddler and in our experience it is beneficial (as in feeling counting is unnecessary). Others have posted that they also think it is pointless to reason with a toddler in some situation (as in feeling counting is a useful tool). So the OP is getting experiences from both sides which gives her some food for thought as we discuss the merits and detriments from both ends. I do not see the horse. Someone asks a question "is counting bad?" Some are going to think it is, others are going to think it isn't. One cannot participate an open ended question thread then accuse people of being on horses when they fall on the side they disagree with just because they disagree.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*

For me, "giving my child information" and assuming that he can use reason and judgment to make the best decision is simply wrong. It is IMO unfair to my child. It makes an assumption about the reasoning skills of the brain that I believe to be biolgically invalid.

And this is why we will never agree on this subject. I do not believe it to be biologically invalid. I have not read studies on this. I can not speak with scientific proof. But I do know that it seems to be valid with my dd. She can reason. Sometimes better than me







She often sizes up the same situation and comes up with a different conclusion. Sometimes it is because she has more or less of the information about the situation than I do. When she has less, I offer up the info I can. If she has more (for example whether or not she is hungry or sleepy) than I am open to her offers of more info. She is not some sort of freak genius so I am imagining that this reasoning ability is present in most small children.


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
She is not some sort of freak genius so I am imagining that this reasoning ability is present in most small children.











Yooper, This cracked me up!! and I totally agree. I see it everyday and did even when my girls were really young. They are constantly amazing me with their problem solving skills and ability to see other's points of view. Things that most people think they aren't biologically cabable of doing.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Here's a dumb question: what's the difference between TCS and consensual living?

Namaste!


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
She is not some sort of freak genius so I am imagining that this reasoning ability is present in most small children.

Although I agree that many children are probably able to reason (or accept reason and negotiating with an adult), I believe there are SO many different temperaments, personalities, and characters in people (little ones included) that I can totally see some children being able to negotiate and rationalize from a young age, and others simply not, just based on the way they're "wired".

Sometimes when I talk to my 2 yo he seems to understand and come up with ideas of alternatives that are good for both of us, but other times it's like talking to a brick wall...and on those occasions, if *I* need to get something done, I will explain, empathize, and then just get it done. No drama. And I'm OK with that, because a vast majority of the time I don't compel him to do anything, so we're still attached and have a close, loving relationship...and as he gets older, I know he'll see that I don't just do things "because I'm the parent", and that I have our entire family's best interests at heart (which to me means a little give and take).

For example, trying to rationalize with him the other night that although he was allowed to play with some curly ribbons he dismantled off his dad's Bday present while he was awake, but he couldn't sleep with it because it could get tangled around his neck and that was dangerous, well, he just had no interest whatsoever in listening to any of my various gentle explanations or demonstrations around my own neck. So, I found some foam rubber numbers he loves to play with in the bath, put them on his bed, gently took the ribbons, and said "you may not sleep with the ribbons, it could be dangerous. You may sleep with the numbers, though, and you can play with the ribbons as soon as you wake up tomorrow." He flung a few numbers off the bed, protested loudly for about 2 minutes (with me in my Zen place comforting him but not giving him the ribbons), then he snuggled down with a number 4 and a minus sign and was asleep within 10 minutes. Corecive? Yes, I took the ribbons he wanted. Do I feel bad about it? Well, I feel bad that he wanted the ribbons and couldn't have them, but I don't feel like I just made some arbitrary decision that he couldn't have them because I'm the parent and I said so.

I don't think anyone on here actively looks for ways to force their child do something they don't want to, or to stop doing something they want to. I think, here at least, that most of us try to accomodate our children and their desires as much as possible.

The difference comes when there is a stalemate. Some of us are comfortable making the decision (even if unpopular) in the end, while others are not, and will spend more time lookign for an agreeable solution. I don't think either way is right or wrong, and that if you're taking your child's temperament, desires, and abilities into account (even if in the end they don't get what they wanted), you're miles ahead of the "standard authority figure" model of parenting where the child's thoughts and desires don't matter.

Oh, and FWIW, the very next night, before goign downstairs he was playing with the ribbons again. I reminded him that he couldn't sleep with them because they might get tangled, so he stuffed them into a cup, grabbed a ball, and was ready to go downstairs with a smile on his face.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Wow. That is so fascinating. I have seen time and time again with my own child and the many children of my friends who choose to live consensually, that our children have an unending ability to reason and be rational. I am curious about the discrepency, and the only difference seems to be that you believe they can't and we believe they can.









I think it may actually be different ideas about what constitutes reason. (And, to put this into context, I strive to be a non-coercive parent.) To me, reason is the thing that allows us to override impulse control. To take the worst case example, if my toddler son were to run toward the street and I were to catch him, I would be noticeably freaked. My tone would convey it, the look on my face, the pace of my heart, etc. He would feel that I was terrified and it would definitely impact him. Would I expect that he would be able to reason this through the next time it occurred to him to run into the street? No. He's not there developmentally.

At 5, my son can reason quite well sometimes, but his impulse still overrides much of the time. Why? Because he's only 5 and that's developmentally where he is.

IMO, there is a difference between reasoning and understanding in the moment. And there is also a difference between reasoning/rationalizing and problem-solving.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Here's a dumb question: what's the difference between TCS and consensual living?

Namaste!

There have been many posts about living consensually. Here are a few that discuss this.

"The talking diaper", post #20
"Differing perceptions of words" from 12-18-05
"Is this TCS?" from 01-05-06
"What is TCS?" from 11-02-05
"Learning not to be permissive" from 11-06-05

Here is an old post of mine discussing living consensually:

Quote:

And, NO, I don't ever do anything I do not want to do. I always have a choice about what *I* will do or won't do, unless someone uses force or coercive threats to *obstruct* or limit my choice. Life has its own limitations, however.

Nor do I do *everything* I want. These are completely different philosophies. I do not believe that anyone can do *anything* that they want, if it impacts others.

There is a huge continuum of what is considered 'impacting others' and 'coercive' obstruction of choice however. So, I don't think you will find any one answer about this.

Our son, like I do, always has a choice of his actions. I intend to avoid ever *initiating* force or coercive threats to obstruct or limit anyone's choices, including our son's. When a conflict of choices occurs between us, we work to find an action upon which we all agree. At first this took more time than just telling another person what to do and expecting compliance. However, since force or coercion as a default was removed from the "solution tool box", we became creative and less limited in discovering possible solutions that we all could agree upon.

For instance, when I want to go to the grocery store and ds doesn't, he has a choice to go or not. Just as I have a choice to go or not. So, we find other solutions to meet the need for regular food acquistion. Perhaps a delayed trip to the grocery store, perhaps a short trip might be agreeable, perhaps dh comes along and they just have fun outside or nearby, perhaps I go alone, perhaps dh goes, perhaps we do the drive up, perhaps we all go and dh runs in, perhaps I do a co-op instead, perhaps we grow some of our own food, perhaps someone picks up some things that we need, perhaps we shop somewhere that is less stressful, perhaps we find an agreeable way to make shopping fun, perhaps someone comes along to help keep ds occupied while I shop. There are many possibilities.

We have no *one* possible solution which will be implemented. We have unlimited possibilities to solve the need for regular food acquistion.

We always have a choice upon what priority we want to act, or refuse to act. But a choice exists unless threats of "making" another do are introduced from some external person, other than the organic consequences of life. Our son does not have to do anything he doesn't want to do. Nor do I. Nor does dh. Yes, that means bedtimes, going to the doctor, eating vegetables, riding in the car, etc. But the negotiations to find a mutually agreeable solution continue without any default to force if any of our actions impacts another. Refusal always remains a choice too.
The main differences between TCS (as I understand it) is that it is an educational philosophy which embraces non-coercion as a more effective _learning_ environment. Within TCS there are obstacles to learning which are specifically distraction, redirection, persuasion, coercion, manipulation, physical enforcement, force, etc. The focus in on optimizing the environment to learning, rather than autonomous living by consent of all parties. The parent is expected to default to the youngest child, in order to optimize their learning by not interfering with the trial and error of the Real World, unless the child would prefer to avoid the logical consequences. Information and moral opinions are offered and shared but not enforced.

TCS also judges that any action which intrudes on a child's learning is a parental failure. That defaulting to the child, even at the sacrifice of a parent's needs is preferable when a common preference can not be found. And that failing to default is failure, despite parents being recognized as fallible. It is a very judgemental paradigm (of parent's actions) which espouses non-judgement of a child's actions.







:

Living Consensually is a process of living in relationship with all individuals based upon mutual consent, voluntary action or movement, in agreement as to the action that affects another, regardless of age, sex, religion, race, nationality, physical or intellectual ability, etc. Non-coercion isn't the goal or the process. The process of living in relationships is by consent or agreement, each individual having equal autonomy.

See "The talking diaper" thread for a clarification of the difference between non-coercion and seeking mutual agreement.

HTH, Pat


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

Quote:

Sometimes when I talk to my 2 yo he seems to understand and come up with ideas of alternatives that are good for both of us, but other times it's like talking to a brick wall...and on those occasions, if *I* need to get something done, I will explain, empathize, and then just get it done. No drama. And I'm OK with that, because a vast majority of the time I don't compel him to do anything, so we're still attached and have a close, loving relationship...and as he gets older, I know he'll see that I don't just do things "because I'm the parent", and that I have our entire family's best interests at heart (which to me means a little give and take).










That is a good example of my house.


----------

