# The Secret of Parenting -- GD? I don't think so



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

The Secret of Parenting: How to Be in Charge of Today's Kids--from Toddlers to Preteens--Without Threats or Punishment by Anthony E. Wolf

I just finished reading this book (from the list above) and would like to comment on it.

It is true that this book does not advocate corporal punishment. However, emotional withdrawal and disengagement that it advocates is an equivalent to time-outs. What is worse, is that Wolf suggests emotional withdrawal to be used on a regular basis, and does not call it a punishment, thus creating an illusion of punishment-free parenting (while time-out advocates at least admit that time out is a punishment).

Wolf talks about 'baby-self', or what I would call 'trusting self'. This is when we feel free and comfortable to express our emotions, no matter how negative. We let our trusting self go when we trust that the other person loves us and cares about us, when we feel safe - with our parents, with our partners.

This is the self that wants help, that whines, that throws tantrums, that wants total and unconditional attention.

The way to deal with this self - to disengage, Wolf says. You might give a hug, you might briefly empathize, but the most important thing is to make your decision quickly, and disengage in the first moments of any behaviour which is deemed unacceptable.

The reasoning behind, Wolf says, is that the attachment of your child to you is so strong, the child will want to re-establish it, when the attachment is threatened. No (other) punishment is needed.

This is what I call emotional blackmail in its best. Yes, it can be effective, until the child detaches completely and does not care anymore about parental guidance. (One might want to read an excellent book by Gordon Neufeld, "Hold on to your Kids, why parents matter". He comes from a humane GD perspective that threatening this attachment eventually destroys the relationship between parents and children, and that nothing, absolutely nothing, should ever threaten the attachment between parent and child.

Wolf spends the entire book talking about how not to listen. He spends 2 pages talking about active listening. Active listening, for him is saying "Gosh, that's a problem" ('your problem, not mine', he adds). And "I don't know what to say".

His advice on nighttime parenting, for example? To disengage completely for the night time. He actually says that the parent should become a 'robot' parent, repeating 'good night now' no matter what the child says or does. Children must learn that the night is for being alone in their room, he says.

In fact he suggests that parents should train their children that when their emotions are overwhelming and uncontrollable, the parent is not there to help them out. No wonder children 'respond' - they learn that they don't matter, unless they are 'good', of course.

Reading this book was nauseating, but I made sure I finished it, and there are several valuable points. In the chapter called "how to make them do things" (the title alone is a red flag for GD parents) he talks about disengagement when children blatantly disobey or refuse to do a certain thing. This, I believe, is an appropriate way not to engage in the power struggle.

He also says that morality is taught by modeling (agree).

The overall message, however, is 'when you are exhibiting your baby-trusting-self, you are not worth paying attention too'. You cannot deal with your emotions - too bad, the parent is not of any help. To quote Wolf again: "Gosh, that's a problem." (Yours, not mine)'".

I am coming from the perspective that a child misbehaves only to the extent that the child is hurting inside, is frustrated and confused, and overwhelmed by emotions. To disengage in this kind of a situation is emotional blackmail, and is the worst form of time out.


----------



## kayabrink (Apr 19, 2005)

ack, your freaking me out... I just ordered this book for DH. Maybe I could suggest he only read certain chapters, to "save his time"?
it really worries me because my mother sometimes did that; mostly regarding my academics and it really was problematic for me. I really feel the "I'll only listen to you if you comply" vibe; and it sickens me. My mum thought she was doing me a favour by not 'punishing' me but I have to question that, nobody wants to perpetuate the same faulty parenting technique that was applied to them!
Would you say that it is ok for dh to read or should I avoid it altogether? If I don't find some solution soon dh is going to become a yeller; and he's a real "I'm the adult, I'm in charge" type.


----------



## stafl (Jul 1, 2002)

Just the title of the book gives away that it's not GD. You aren't supposed to be "in charge" of your children. That smacks of control issues, which is why people spank their kids. I wouldn't even begin to read a book with a title like that! Right off the bat, I'm defensive and not likely to get much out of it, except all bent out of shape.

what you have described is emotional manipulation. IMO, that's no different than using physical violence to control another person's actions. Just a different way of accomplishing the same goal. YUCK


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

kayabrink:
there are several good points in the book, but the overall tone and message is very controlling. i find it is appalling that he is masquarading as a non-punishment book.

he is correct in describing the 'baby-self', but his conclussions (disengagement)are all wrong (jmho)

if you are looking for a practical book on GD check out
Becoming the Parent you want to be
How to talk so kids will listen and listen so kids will talk

a good theoretical book is Hold on to your Kids by Gordon Neufield.

btw, the reason i posted is because this book is listed in resources on this board.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I read this book some time ago, and while I had some reservations, I thought overall it was a useful book.

I thought Wolf was very clear that issues solved by 'disengaging" MUST be discussed later, when the "heat of the moment" has passed. However, I also felt that a parent who is not so GD inclined to start with might miss this message, amongst all the disengagement exercises. And yet, the message is clearly there, that the child needs help and guidance and active listening. So I don't think it's totally fair to suggest that he just believes in ignoring everything in order to get obedience, compliance, etc.

My own feeling coming away from the book was that the disengagement technique might be very useful in certain situations. I did not feel it was a technique I would use as often as he espoused it, but I think it's a tool that even a GD parent can use.

I thought his discussion of "baby self" was very enlightening, particularly the part about how kids can be "perfect angels" at school or daycare, and then let loose at home where they feel safe. Puts their behaviour in a totally different light.

I also thought he introduces the concept of "punishment free discipline", with the underlying philosophy that children inherently want to please their parents, in a way that even the most non-GD parent might relate to. It might just get people to take that first step towards more enlightened discipline. For me, that book is just one step at the beginning of a path I've been taking for some time now. I find most other GD books I've read might be a bit too much at once for non-GD'ers just getting into this, and may be likely to turn them off before convincing them.

Anyways, I didn't think it was so bad. And if you search the archives, we've had long discussions about it before, too.


----------



## ja mama (Sep 6, 2003)

Right after I read that book I had to reread Playful Parenting by Lawrence Cohen. It balances out Wolfe a lot! They are both a bit extreme in philosophy without expanding on balance. I think the combination of those two books are a good match for my dh who does need to be in charge (he doesn't want to change that) but doesn't know what to do beside yell and threaten when the boys are not behaving the way he wants. Wolfe's way is a lot better than power struggles nonstop.

The other thing I will say is that it seems aimed for older children, not toddlers or preschool age. As children get older I think they can handle moments of Mom withdrawing energy. As attached parents we should be able to tell when they are taking our energy and using it to just continue a nonproductive arguement, or if they really need to work through a problem with us as a sounding board.

I really didn't like it when I first read it (I reviewed it here somewhere), but as time goes on and my ds1 gets older (and doesn't want me to explain, again, why he can't do what he wants) I am seeing where pieces of his philosophy fit into our household to create a more peaceful place.

Perhaps check out Playful Parenting, and I see you also liked How to talk... which fits in nicely also.


----------



## Vermillion (Mar 12, 2005)

Yuck! I guess I’ll be taking this off my “to read” list. Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## *LoveBugMama* (Aug 2, 2003)

Finally!!

I am so glad to see this thread!
I have read most of that book, and it really, really didn`t feel GD to me at all.

I agree completely that this book is about manipulation. And also about conditional parenting, in my opinion.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
I thought Wolf was very clear that issues solved by 'disengaging" MUST be discussed later, when the "heat of the moment" has passed.

yes, he says to use a simple sentence 'what you did was not appropriate', for example. which is a very good point, of course. however he also says not to discuss the issues in any depth, just to mention casually. from my reading he imagines this as a very one sided 'discussion' -- the parent states their feelings about the issue. well, it is better than nothing, i agree.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
However, I also felt that a parent who is not so GD inclined to start with might miss this message,

agree, especially with the overall tone of the book and with the little attention given to active listening, and with the ways these discussions are portrayed to be just the parent mentioning, briefly, their problem.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
My own feeling coming away from the book was that the disengagement technique might be very useful in certain situations. I did not feel it was a technique I would use as often as he espoused it, but I think it's a tool that even a GD parent can use.

yes, it can be a tool used, at times. the book however presents it as a regular, day to day, parenting approach.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
I thought his discussion of "baby self" was very enlightening, particularly the part about how kids can be "perfect angels" at school or daycare, and then let loose at home where they feel safe. Puts their behaviour in a totally different light.

he is right on on the baby self, but his conclusions are wrong. he implies that as a child is capable of being an angel, he should be an angel at home too. but a home is a space to relax and let the tension go. there must be a safe haven for children, where it is safe to show their 'ugly side' without bneing judged or ignored.

it is appaling that he uses a foster home situation as an example -- children 'behaving' at first and the exhibiting their 'baby sef' in a couple of months. yes, they finally start trusting their foster parents.

the baby self is presented as something to weed out, not something to take care of. gordon neufield rightly says that only when the baby needs are taken care of a child can outgrow them and truly mature.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
I also thought he introduces the concept of "punishment free discipline",

it is 'corporal punishment free'. yes, it might seem as the lesser of 2 evils, but emotional detachment is as harmful. *not* a *GD* primer -- it will appeal to those who want to dominate, but do not want to hit.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

:


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annabanana*
the baby self is presented as something to weed out, not something to take care of. gordon neufield rightly says that only when the baby needs are taken care of a child can outgrow them and truly mature.

it is 'corporal punishment free'. yes, it might seem as the lesser of 2 evils, but emotional detachment is as harmful. *not* a *GD* primer -- it will appeal to those who want to dominate, but do not want to hit.


It is absolutely NOT true that he says to "weed out " the baby self. He has a heading early on entitled "WE ALL NEED OUR BABY SELVES"

He explains that it is the baby self that forms adult love relationships.

He does NOT think a child should be an angel at home. In fact, he says that as parents we MUST accept that they simply can't be. (Even if you don't like it!)

He SPECIFICALLY says that "what better place than at home is their for the baby self to rant and rave..." and that a parent must want the "baby self" in their home and accpet that it is not always pleasant.

Maybe you read the book too fast. In his example of Foster care, he specifcially states that when a child is good in Foster Care, it in NOT a good thing because "the baby self is starving". He used this to explain why a child would behave less well over time and how necessary that was for them to be OK.

As I have often said this book is in my mind GD, but it is not AP.

He does not believe in withholding love. Look for example at what he says to do in the situation where a child is told to leave a box of cupcakes alone because a parent needs them for a meeting. But the child eats them anyway.

In his example, he says to say "I told you not to eat the cupcakes and know I won't have ennough for my friends." AND THAT IS IT.

And when the child asks are you mad at me, his recommended response is "No. But I wish you had not eaten the cupcakes". No withholding of love over a misdeed.

It believes that disengagment IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT, helps avoid power struggles. You do come back to it. As time a child raises a genuine issue, he tells you to come back to it later.
Its amazing how many kids who feel you are always "unfair and love their baby brother better" Or "don't understand me" when you are asking them to take out the trash, will tell you later that night when cuddled on your lap that they don't feel that way at all! And some will tell you they do feel this way and you should, he says, definitely talk about it then!

It is also beleives there is deep value when it comes to little problems (no ice cream in the house, disapointment that it is raining and cant' go to the park) in children learing that they have the power within their own little bodies to feel better.

He specifically says that for bigger problems children need all the love and support they can get.

I have used his methods with my three girls. They are loving caring girls with whom I have a close realtionship. We defintely avoided many of the power struggles that so many here seem plagued by. They are able to get over minor disapointments easily and don't hesitate to come to me with larger ones.

These methods brought joy to our family's life together.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I was waiting for you, maya.









I read the book from the library so I couldn't refer back to it but I was very certain that he never said to just dismiss issues. The disengagement technique is to get kids through the "heat of the moment" so that the issue can be properly dealt with later.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
I was waiting for you, maya.









I read the book from the library so I couldn't refer back to it but I was very certain that he never said to just dismiss issues. The disengagement technique is to get kids through the "heat of the moment" so that the issue can be properly dealt with later.


And as I have just edited to say the OP really seems to have misread what Wolf says about the baby self. He in NO WAY thinks it should be "weeded out"


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

indeed he does not say that the baby-self should be weeded out. BUT it is the general tone of the book.

he uses ONE technique (disengagement) for every problem. i am not denying that it can be a valuable technique at times. but not the only one, you have to agree.

for him disengagement is the answer for everything -- it is a great oversimplification.

he gives examples for which disengaging makes sense, and then examples for which it cannot be viewed as anything other than emotional blackmail.

i disagree that it is good to prime parents for GD. when a parent is a GD already, she can read it and think, oh, a neat technique to use once in a while IN ADDITION to other techniques. a spanking punitive parent will embrace the book in its entirety because it is so punitive in its tone, while at the same time claiming to be non-punitive.

i read it fast, it is true, but i am able to read between the lines as well. he advocates a uniform time out as the answer to every situation.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annabanana*
ihe gives examples for which disengaging makes sense, and then examples for which it cannot be viewed as anything other than emotional blackmail.


Can you show which examples you believed to involve 'emotional blackmail'?


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annabanana*
indeed he does not say that the baby-self should be weeded out. BUT it is the general tone of the book.

he uses ONE technique (disengagement) for every problem.

he advocates a uniform time out as the answer to every situation.


I don't think any of this is true.

As I specifically quoted from the book, he says that the "baby self" is necessary to all of us. How do you read that as demanding a weeding out?

This is NOT the only technique he advocates. He also advocates "active listening" in many situations.

Indeed on page 159 he says that "most of the time" this is what a parent should be doing in interacting with their child!

He also advocates other techniques. One of my favorties is his suggestions for reacting to sulking. I think that a book that involved disengagement all of the time or emotional blackmail would suggest ignoring a sulking child. But that is not what he suggests. Instead it goes like this:

DC: I wanted to go to the Pizza Palace not the Pasta Place

Mama: I know Dear, but we went there last time, and in our family we take turns and it was Dear Sister's turn to choose. Now what do you want to eat.

DC: [Sulk, no response]

Mama: Would you like Pasta with Marinara

DC: [Sulk, no response]

Mama: Okay, well my best guess of what you want is Pasta with Marinara [this is true]. Let me know, if that's not what you want darling.

Wolf says to just go on with your day and just treat your child like the "beloved child that he is who happens to be in a bad mood"
I have found this technique to be not only more pleasant for me, but to help my middle dd [who is the most likely to sulk] process her feelings better than anything else.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

maya44:

the points that you are bringing up, for example the example of sulking, i agree with too. i did say in the original post that he does have some good ideas.

i guess to me, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts -- despite the several good points, i still feel he greately oversimpifies, and his overall message is of control and withdrawal of affection.

i could go over the book one more time, and prove my points, and maybe i will do this in the future, but right now i honestly don't have time for this. if anyone is genuinely interested (not just for the sake of the argument) i will take my time and will do a more detailed analysis, but i prefer not to spend my time on this.

i hope you are not offended, that i am backing out a bit. i hope it was still a valuable discussion.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
One of my favorties is his suggestions for reacting to sulking. I think that a book that involved disengagement all of the time or emotional blackmail would suggest ignoring a sulking child. But that is not what he suggests. Instead it goes like this:

DC: I wanted to go to the Pizza Palace not the Pasta Place

Mama: I know Dear, but we went there last time, and in our family we take turns and it was Dear Sister's turn to choose. Now what do you want to eat.

DC: [Sulk, no response]

Mama: Would you like Pasta with Marinara

DC: [Sulk, no response]

Mama: Okay, well my best guess of what you want is Pasta with Marinara [this is true]. Let me know, if that's not what you want darling.

This exchange really baffles me. The child hasn't even started "sulking" and yet the mom states her side and then basically shuts down the conversation about the child's expressed disappointment. What's that about? Why is it not OK for the kid to say they're disappointed and have the mother acknowledge that in a meaningful way?

I can't imagine anyone in that situation not feeling dismissed. No wonder "sulking" ensues--what's the kid supposed to say? "I'm telling you I'm really upset here and you're acting like a jerk, Mom!" Or even if they were able to diplomatically express their feelings again, I'm sure it would be seen as "back talk" or being argumentative. This just seems like a recipe for having kids stuff their feelings--not only the initial feelings of disappointment, anger, whatever, but then the inevitable resentment that would arise toward the parent.

Just looking over his website, there seems to be so much focus on the behavior with Wolf, and how to mold that, with little focus on WHY the behavior might be happening and what the kid REALLY needs. Isn't that the crux of GD? Assuming that the behavior is a symptom and going for the real cause? Not seeking to change the behavior and let the real need go away on it's own.

From Wolf's site www.anthonywolf.com:

Quote:

Bedtime is perhaps the number one problem time for the baby self because it requires what the baby self hates above all else, being alone and separated from its parents. Bedtime is not only being alone, but having to be alone in the dark with robbers, monsters, and ghosts.
......
The nighttime anxieties never do really leave - even into adult life - but children can learn, if their parents will just stay out of the way, that sleep does come. The worries may be there, but they are part of life, no big deal. If bedtime is defined as the end of meaningful interaction with parents, then that's what it means.








This doesn't strike me as insight/advice from someone who is looking at children through a charitable lens. If being alone in the dark and scared is something that the "baby self hates above all else" maybe the adults could do something other than LEAVE and disengage. I like Dr. Sears' point that effective, gentle discpline must begin with trust.

And frankly, the notion that kids are no longer afraid of their parents, so we need to find a new way to be in charge of them just doesn't jive with my views of AP and GD.

Why *is* this on the book list??


----------



## Jordansmommy (May 26, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
This exchange really baffles me. The child hasn't even started "sulking" and yet the mom states her side and then basically shuts down the conversation about the child's expressed disappointment. What's that about? Why is it not OK for the kid to say they're disappointed and have the mother acknowledge that in a meaningful way?

I can't imagine anyone in that situation not feeling dismissed. No wonder "sulking" ensues--what's the kid supposed to say? "I'm telling you I'm really upset here and you're acting like a jerk, Mom!" Or even if they were able to diplomatically express their feelings again, I'm sure it would be seen as "back talk" or being argumentative. This just seems like a recipe for having kids stuff their feelings--not only the initial feelings of disappointment, anger, whatever, but then the inevitable resentment that would arise toward the parent.

It doesn't seem like the child's needs are being dismissed or ignored here. There is more than one child in the family, so everyone gets a turn to choose where to eat. This time it's the other child's turn. After this, parent offers a choice, presumably something the child usually likes, and when parent doesn't receive a response, the discussion is left open for when the child wants to converse: "Let me know if that's not what you want darling" I don't see how continuing to ask the child questions or offer choices when the child is upset is going to help in this case.

This actually reminds me of a skill they discuss in Easy to Love Difficult to Discipline. Accepting the situation as it is. So rather than "why do we have to eat in this restaurant" it's "Tonight we are eating here, so let's choose something from the menu that you like or that you might have had at the other place where you wanted to eat" Seems like the parent is modeling that here. That doesn't mean they can't sympathize again if the child stops sulking and starts complaining again, but we are here as a family in this restaurant and these are your choices tonight. Next time we will eat where you want to eat, etc.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jordansmommy*
It doesn't seem like the child's needs are being dismissed or ignored here. There is more than one child in the family, so everyone gets a turn to choose where to eat. This time it's the other child's turn. After this, parent offers a choice, presumably something the child usually likes, and when parent doesn't receive a response, the discussion is left open for when the child wants to converse: "Let me know if that's not what you want darling" I don't see how continuing to ask the child questions or offer choices when the child is upset is going to help in this case.

No, the mother deliberately changes the subject that the child initiated. That's dismissive in my book.

Why couldn't you just say, "Yeah? You like pizza better?" Maybe the kid finds the seats uncomfortable at the Pasta place and it has nothing to do with taking turns as a family. Maybe they just need to know that their needs and wants are heard--isn't that all anyone wants in a relationship?

Not advocating getting up and leaving, but why couldn't you just let the kid get feelings out, empathize, discuss, whatever? And THEN move on?

I think the sulking in this scenario is actually brought about by the parent's response of shutting down the discussion.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
No, the mother deliberately changes the subject that the child initiated. That's dismissive in my book.

Why couldn't you just say, "Yeah? You like pizza better?" Maybe the kid finds the seats uncomfortable at the Pasta place and it has nothing to do with taking turns as a family. Maybe they just need to know that their needs and wants are heard--isn't that all anyone wants in a relationship?

Not advocating getting up and leaving, but why couldn't you just let the kid get feelings out, empathize, discuss, whatever? And THEN move on?

I think the sulking in this scenario is actually brought about by the parent's response of shutting down the discussion.

Actually my example was not really fair to Dr. Wolf. In the example, there had already been what he described as 10 minutes of discussion on the matter. The mother stating that she understood the child was mad and that they would go to his choice the next time. but that it was his sisters turn. My scenario began to unfurl when all of the empathizing and explaining were over.

In my experience at this point, too much talking about what is happening just exasperates the situation especially when a family rule is in place (we all have to put up with someone else's choice sometimes" and the situation is not going to change.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

I have to jump in here. I recently purchased this book on Maya's suggestion in another post. (THANKS MAYA!) The difference in my children's behavior and our family interactions has been amazing. They really have responded well. I have three girls, so turn taking is a fact of life in our home.

IMO, at some point you have to move on from the "I want pizza" discussion. The fact is, it's sister's choice and that's it. Too much discussion in this case often leads to whining and temper tantrum behavior, as the child tries to change the situation in her favor. Everyone gets their day here too. One day dd#1 gets to go shopping, another day dd#2 and so on.

We had a big graduation party for my stepdaughter in my home this weekend with family that hadn't seen them in over a year. These guests included some judgemental, cranky, people who aren't used to small children. I can't even tell you how many compliments I received on my kids' behavior. (GREAT for me AND them) My SIL has 2 small step children and they have MAJOR issues with power struggles, tantrums, etc, that we no longer deal with. She was flat out amazed when I asked my girls to go clean up for the party and they did it without argument. I loaned her the book because she is looking for a better way to discipline the kids.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
I have to jump in here. I recently purchased this book on Maya's suggestion in another post. (THANKS MAYA!)

We had a big graduation party for my stepdaughter in my home this weekend with family that hadn't seen them in over a year. These guests included some judgemental, cranky, people who aren't used to small children. I can't even tell you how many compliments I received on my kids' behavior. (GREAT for me AND them) My SIL has 2 small step children and they have MAJOR issues with power struggles, tantrums, etc, that we no longer deal with. She was flat out amazed when I asked my girls to go clean up for the party and they did it without argument. I loaned her the book because she is looking for a better way to discipline the kids.










You are welcome. As I have said, with my three girls, these methods have also brought peace and joy to our home.

And, I too get many, many compliments on their behavior. That is not WHY I discipline in this way, but it is nice.

The person who is the most complimentary is the father of my SIL (DH's brother's wife). He is a "spare the rod, spoil the child" kind of guy and is always on my SIL because her kids who are GD'd are often whining and unhappy at big family gatherings. When my girls were about ages 4 thru 7, he turned to my SIL and said "See, how good Maya's kids are. I bet she doesn't worry about spanking them."

And I said "No, I don't worry about it. Its something I would never do. In fact I don't punish them at all." He looked really confused.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I have been







: on this thread, I don't care for the sounds of this book for my family, and it does not sound very GD to me, though some things might be of use.

I just wanted to pipe in that I get compliments everywhere we go on my kids' behavior as well, and compliments on my parenting. I usually laugh and say, "I got great/easy kids, I got lucky"







. I never have thought it was due in any major part to my stellar parenting :LOL I try to be very careful about taking credit for good behavior- I still have one in dipes and you just never know how he could throw me for a loop







.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peppermint*
I have been







: on this thread, I don't care for the sounds of this book for my family, and it does not sound very GD to me, though some things might be of use.

I just wanted to pipe in that I get compliments everywhere we go on my kids' behavior as well, and compliments on my parenting. I usually laugh and say, "I got great/easy kids, I got lucky"







. I never have thought it was due in any major part to my stellar parenting :LOL I try to be very careful about taking credit for good behavior- I still have one in dipes and you just never know how he could throw me for a loop







.


I don't take credit for their overall behavior, but rather for the recent CHANGE in behaviors (less tantrums, power struggles, etc) that resulted from reading this book and using the ideas. I firmly believe from years of experience with children (my own and teaching) that the way you approach a child and the techniques you use affect the behavior and attitude of the child. (eg feeding into tantrums vs. disengaging)

Our compliment was similar to yours, Maya. The conversation with my SIL started because when compliment was given, my SIL said "They aren't afraid to spank them" to her fiance. I said "We don't spank them and we don't scream at them" She lives far away and doesn't see them regularly, but she assumed we hit them because they behave well!?


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Oh I got ya, and didn't mean to offend, or imply that what you are doing has no bearing. I am just more of a "knock on wood" kind of girl :LOL


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

I wasn't offended


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annabanana*
i i am not denying that it [disengagment] can be a valuable technique at times. but not the only one, you have to agree.

I do agree.







This was one of my issues with the book, is that I don't personally feel the need to use this technique alot. Of course, as maya has said before, he doesn't advocate it for very young children. My DD isn't really at the age where it could be useful. She isn't one to harp on an issue to death (yet - I see it coming though, lol).

Quote:

a spanking punitive parent will embrace the book in its entirety because it is so punitive in its tone, while at the same time claiming to be non-punitive.
Most people I know don't make a sea change in attitude all at once. More that it seems to be a path they walk. I went from a fairly mainstream "yeah, I'll spank if I need to. yeah, i'll let them CIO if they want to" to the AP, non-punishing parent I am today step by step. Most big journeys in my life (spiritual for example) have gone that way. So while I agree that what you say may be true...it's a step in the right direction. They might then identify themselves as a "non punishment parent" (something I didn't even do when I first began frequenting this forum, I "converted" to non-punishment GD later) which might then attract them to other GD books that they will then maybe be more open to.

I do appreciate this thread, and your input, annabanana. But there were obviously enough points in the book that enough GD people thought it worth putting on our sticky list. So I encourage people to read it and make their own judgements. Discussion is always good, too! )


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I haven't read the book, but I'm with Monkey's Mom in reaction to the example about restaurant choice:
1. Okay, mama is not "ignoring" him, in that she is speaking to him. She is, however, deliberately setting aside and glossing over his feelings.
2. "I know, but" is not an effective way of empathizing.
3. Calling someone Dear and Darling does not make him feel loved unless you really mean it. In this situation, of course mama does love him, but her dominant feeling for him at this point is irritation, and that is going to come thru in her speech and manner unless she is a fabulous actress. (I'll admit that my reaction to this is pretty strong because MY mother never called us Dear, Darling, etc. unless she was being sarcastically super-polite because we were sulking. It was very unhelpful.)
4. If the quoted dialogue follows 10 minutes of discussion (as Maya later posted) then the child has already heard the explanation of why they're at this restaurant. Why is mama's repeating that any more helpful than child's repeating his reasons for wanting the other restaurant?

Here's what I would try:
DC: I wanted to go to the Pizza Palace not the Pasta Place.

Mama: You're really in a pizza mood tonight, huh?

DC: Yeah!

Mama: Well, tonight is your sister's choice. I bet you can find something on this menu that will satisfy you.

DC: [not looking at menu] No! Everything here is yucky! I want pizza!

Mama: You don't have to order anything. You could make a pita pizza when we get home.

DC: But I'm hungry now.

Mama: Okay, then you will have to choose something from the menu. Ooh, look, baked macaroni with marinara and cheese and olives. I bet that would taste a lot like a pizza!

DC: Blech!

Mama: Well, it sounds good to me. If you don't like it, I will have it for lunch tomorrow. Let me know if you see something on the menu that you'd rather have instead.

The decision about what to order is still being made by mama, and the child is still not thrilled by the situation, but his feelings are acknowledged a little more, and he's offered the option of eating later if he finds the meal inadequate.

Quote:

The nighttime anxieties never do really leave - even into adult life - but children can learn, if their parents will just stay out of the way, that sleep does come. The worries may be there, but they are part of life, no big deal. If bedtime is defined as the end of meaningful interaction with parents, then that's what it means.








I think a big reason nighttime anxieties persist is that they haven't been soothed by parents giving comfort when it was needed! Solitary bedtime is not just "the end of meaningful interaction with parents" but the end of ANY interaction with parents for a stretch of time that seems unendurably long to a young child. I vividly remember cringing motionless in bed, certain that horrifying creatures would snatch and destroy me at any moment, and hearing my parents at the other end of the house chatting, whistling, running the sewing machine, clinking dishes in the sink...and feeling that that ordinary paradise might as well be miles away. My parents, so reliable and loving during the day, would not help me. Every time I told them about my nighttime anxieties and tried to negotiate a solution, they firmly told me the bedtime rules. It worked, in that I stayed in bed and didn't scream 95% of the time. It also left wounds that still ache 20 years later. "Part of life, no big deal"? I hope not.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*







I think a big reason nighttime anxieties persist is that they haven't been soothed by parents giving comfort when it was needed! Solitary bedtime is not just "the end of meaningful interaction with parents" but the end of ANY interaction with parents for a stretch of time that seems unendurably long to a young child. I vividly remember cringing motionless in bed, certain that horrifying creatures would snatch and destroy me at any moment, and hearing my parents at the other end of the house chatting, whistling, running the sewing machine, clinking dishes in the sink...and feeling that that ordinary paradise might as well be miles away. My parents, so reliable and loving during the day, would not help me. Every time I told them about my nighttime anxieties and tried to negotiate a solution, they firmly told me the bedtime rules. It worked, in that I stayed in bed and didn't scream 95% of the time. It also left wounds that still ache 20 years later. "Part of life, no big deal"? I hope not.

I am so with you on this, unfortunately. It has made me determined not to do that to my own kids, my own parents thought it was best to do that, and I can say they were very wrong. I still have nighttime issues that are not "normal". My dh OTOH never felt what I did as a child (maybe b/c he was a twin and never alone in a room?) so he doesn't really "get it" either, like many parents don't. Sad that one would have to have gone through it to be able to know where their child is coming from, but I bet lots of mamas here would be empathetic either way, thank God for them.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
an effective way of empathizing.
3. Calling someone Dear and Darling does not make him feel loved unless you really mean it. In this situation, of course mama does love him, but her dominant feeling for him at this point is irritation, and that is going to come thru in her speech and manner unless she is a fabulous actress. (I'll admit that my reaction to this is pretty strong because MY mother never called us Dear, Darling, etc. unless she was being sarcastically super-polite because we were sulking. It was very unhelpful.)


I am sorry that you were treated like this. I do NOT feel "irritation" when my children sulk and that is NOT how the situation is presented in the Wolf book.
I say dear and darling because *I mean it*. They are, as Wolf, says my beloved child who is in a bad mood and I am not going to make my child feel that feeling bad is not "acceptable"


----------

