or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Do you prefer a family Hierarchy or Consensuality? Updated!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you prefer a family Hierarchy or Consensuality? Updated! - Page 10

Poll Results: Family Dynamics: Hierarchy or Consensuality?

 
  • 2% (17)
    Definite hierarchy with rules, strict structure; decisions made on behalf of children.
  • 29% (176)
    Hierarchy with guidelines, routine, soft structure; most decisions made for children.
  • 9% (56)
    Consensual family; decisions round table, children are self determining; few or no rules.
  • 10% (61)
    Mostly Consensual; guidelines, choice where possible, highly structured
  • 45% (277)
    Combo; children know their place in hierarchy but have as much freedom as poss within that structure
  • 2% (18)
    I don't know what you are talking about.
605 Total Votes  
post #181 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by ann_of_loxley View Post
I have to say though - I don't consider it hell at all...unless hell is harmonious and peaceful and goes with a natural flow to suit all family members! lol
If it suits all family members, then I guess it's not hellish. I can't see a way in which it would suit everybody to always compromise and never get what they want. I have yet to see anybody define truly consensual living (in the very few cases where I've seen it, because the fact is that we all live in a hierarchy - children are fully dependent on us, no matter how we choose to stucture our families) so that it suits everybody. Honestly - the CL thing has been presented to me in one of two ways...the first sounds like utter tyranny and it boggles me that anybody can live like that, but different strokes, yk? - the other seems like common sense parenting of the type I see in more families than not, no matter what they call it.

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

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

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

Quote:
'Smugness' about lables goes both ways really - smug to use the lable for yourself, and smug that you dont use any lables at all.
I recall talking about smugness, but I have no idea where it came into play with respect to labels. If other people find that labels work for them, that's great. I find that they don't work for me, except for very, very simple things...and parenting, in general, isn't simple enough for a label to mean much to me. I don't use labels much. I'm not smug about it - they just don't work for me.
post #182 of 1044
I work as a parent coach and the majority of issues and concerns I see from parents stem from when a parent is either one extreme or the other. When kids are exhibiting signs of aggression, depression or behavioral issues, nine times out of ten the household is either overly permissive or overly authoritarian. There is a middle ground called "athoritative" which I believe (and research supports) is best for the development of a "healthy self."
post #183 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post
Nature didn't make toilets. We did. And only recently in relation to the time line of humanity. Japan and some other countries still use “toilets” that are at floor level. They suffer bowel issues to a much lesser degree. When used here bowel issues can be resolved.

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

With my children, it has been a kind of experiment much of what I do, and I am the student, they teach me. I think we all benefit much more by learning from those less effected by culture. And I noticed in them something that I was told would be true: if you do not interfere with a child's toileting behaviour, they will squat to poo. Simple. Also makes sense.
Yes. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but none of this is news, in any way.

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

Quote:
When our gut is in pain, we naturally bend at the waist and clutch at our abdomen. The kindest thing we can do for the bowel health of our families is buy one of these: http://naturesplatform.com/ and teach your children how to poop naturally; or if you have a baby, don't interfere! Let them teach you how to poop!
Sure - that would be great. It still leaves our children (and ourselves) living in a culture where most of the available toilets aren't like that. I live in a rental where I couldn't even fit that into one of the available bathrooms, and probably couldn't fit it into the other one, either. Until and unless the majority are willing to do things they consider "weird", we still have to fit into the world in which we live. (And, honestly - I've never heard of a culture that doesn't have some kind of constraints on toileting...highly doubt that it would be smiled upon if an adult were to suddenly poop right beside the communal firepit...no matter how badly he/she felt the urge.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
I haven't met the Yequana, so I can't comment on that specifically. But I believe Jean because I've seen such things myself. You know instinct when you see it. You just do. And they have learned to trust theirs and listen to it because not to is to tempt death. We aren't in that precarious situation anymore, so our instincts have died down a lot in comparison, and we struggle as a culture to "listen to our instincts".
Oh, she may have been exactly right about the Yequana. I haven't met them, myself, so I have no idea. I simply found her incredibly patronizing and condescending, towards both western culture and the Yequana. There was very, very little about that book that didn't grate on my nerves. She also jumped to a lot of conclusions that weren't really supported by what she saw, imo.
post #184 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
At first getting your child into the carseat may be a "problem solving moment" and then getting them in the house is a problem solving moment and you feel you spend the whole day problem solving and not actually doing anything.
Yeah...I tried a more consensual approach to the carseat with dd when she was little (didn't call it that, as I'd never even heard of CL at that point, but that's what we did). It didn't work. Bottom line is, she hated the carseat. She finally stopped fighting and screaming when she realized that we had things we had to do, and she had to be in the seat - no choice in the matter. As long as I tried to address underlying needs, etc., we got nowhere. Her underlying need was to not be strapped into the torture seat...and that wasn't negotiable. (I can relate. I've heard people talk about putting 5-point harnesses in adult seats, and I'll stop driving the day that becomes required, no matter how badly we need the car.)
post #185 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by parent coach View Post
I work as a parent coach and the majority of issues and concerns I see from parents stem from when a parent is either one extreme or the other. When kids are exhibiting signs of aggression, depression or behavioral issues, nine times out of ten the household is either overly permissive or overly authoritarian. There is a middle ground called "athoritative" which I believe (and research supports) is best for the development of a "healthy self."
That's interesting. As a teen who had depression, aggression and other behavioural problems, that wasn't really my experience (although I have heard it before). Most of my friends and I were from homes where there were serious problems - abuse, addiction (my dad was an alcoholic) or just out-and-out toxic people (my grandmother - didn't live with us, but was a hugely manipulative person, and a big influence in our lives). I can't think of very many - only one, in fact - who came from a home where the problems were as simple as "too permissive" or "too authoritarian".

I have seen this before - that authoritarianism and permissiveness cause a lot of problems. I just haven't seen it in action.
post #186 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
In that I include the need for love, compassion, respect, and other emotional needs. (and I believe that emotional needs have been scientifically proven to be necessary for sustenance of life)

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

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

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

Perhaps in some families CL is more "desire-focused" and less "need-focused" but that has nothing to do with society, it has to do with that family.
so if love, compassion, emotional needs, etc are met then you are CL? Ok, then we are pretty much CL. As are most healthy familys. With freak outs occurring on a regular to semi regular basis depending on the ages of your kids, number of kids you have, and your tolerance and patience level.


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

Life is more concrete than abstract to me. CL is so very abstract it is hard to apply.
post #187 of 1044
did I come across as being consensual towards you? I take that as a compliment, but I wasn't trying! I guess my parenting is seeping over into other areas of my life. I don't mind if you call yourself consensual or say I am not.

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

At this point though, if you really want to understand what CL means to me, if it's REALLY that important that you understand what CL is, then be willing to read a little more about it. Don't keep insisting you know what France looks like even though you've never been there. I personally do not care if another family practices CL, but I feel like other families need to either 1) convince me that CL doesnt work despite the fact its working for me 2) convince me that what I am doing is no different then them (in this thread, then in another thread say my approach won't work for them because they arent consensual?) or 3) convince me that what I'm doing is not CL. Why do people care so much if others practice consensual living and what consensual living means to them? Why all the hostility around the subject that you must make it know the other person is NOT CL? or that if they truly are CL that it's a bad thing?
post #188 of 1044
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I have difficulty with people holding up other cultures' child rearing practices as paragons because of an apparent advantage due to an 'authenticity' that we've somehow lost.
If you think we haven't lost authenticity then we are too far apart to even begin to discuss this issue. For me, my culture has seriously messed with nature and our inherent beingness, emotionally and physically and spiritually and spread this filth world wide. Everywhere white man (usually white man) has gone, we have trampled the beauty we find there, we instill our beliefs, our religions, our morals and leave nothing but disease and misery in our wake. People are STILL doing this. Please help stop them. PLEASE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However I CAN chose to reclaim my instinctual self.

Sorry, must run for now back soon
post #189 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
No idea if you're talking to me, or not. I don't like many of those books, for reasons completely different from what you're talking about. I don't like them, and don't like some posts here, for one reason. I despise the attitude I see of "my kids don't cry because they don't need to" and "my kids don't cry because I'm a perfect mom" (although the ones saying that never actually say it. It's not true. Children are all different. Sure - maybe dd's issues did have something to do with the culture we live in...maybe they're related to pollutants, toxin, who know what. The fact is that I could follow an AP checklist (if I'd ever seen one) like a rulebook, and dd still cried for hours every single night. DD was still unhappy, unsettled, and discontent for a large part of every day. DD still never settled into any kind of nursing pattern (I was still leaking almost daily when she was 18 months old). It didn't work, if my goal was a baby who didn't cry - simply didn't work. Reading TCC, and the smug message from the author that if Western parents just did this, that and the other thing, we'd all have smiling, happy children 24/7, drove me around the bend. She even went one better, because nobody could have happy children in her world - it's not possible in western culture - that came through loud and clear. (FWIW - my parenting adapted to dd a lot...but all the things I was doing right out the chute with her produced...happy, smiling children with ds1 and ds2. Children are individuals, and I despise any parenting label that claims, directly or indirectly, to be able to produce specific results with every child.)
that was always my impression reading doctor sears... 'just do AP and life will be so gentle and beautiful'... nor do i believe a non-crying baby is ideal- sometimes, just maybe sometimes, they do need to cry for a bit! for whatever reason, my kid has intense emotions, and i would rather him let it out. now why he has them i don't know, maybe it's cultural, but i tend to believe intense kids exist anywhere and that is just them.
post #190 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
can anyone give an example of when there is only one way of something being done safely? haven't encountered that yet.
Here's my example. Yesterday we were walking to down our road, dd running a little bit ahead of me, and I noticed a Rattlesnake lying in the road right in front of her. She had to stop running toward the snake, there was no other option. Because we live in an area that has a lot of poison snakes, she has learned that we I say freeze, she has to freeze right then, no discussion. Does she want to freeze, no, she wants to keep running and touch the snake, so this isn't consensual, this is me getting what I want (her to not run and touch a snake), and her not getting what she wants. She cried all the way back to our house because she wanted to run to the end of the road which we couldn't do because of the snake. She didn't want to run around the yard, or the porch, or the road in front of the house, she didn't want to pet a pretend snake, or draw a snake, or make a snake out of playdough, so she didn't get her way. This is me telling her what to do and for safety reasons she has to obey right away without question.
post #191 of 1044
This is an interesting thread and I wish I had time to read all of it. From the couple of pages I did read it looks like there are approaches all over the board. To me any serious thinking about parenting is going to produce better parenting practices no matter which route you choose as opposed to people who don't really care and don't think about it or try.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my $0.02 and I don't really want to get into a debate about it at all.
post #192 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix23 View Post
Here's my example. Yesterday we were walking to down our road, dd running a little bit ahead of me, and I noticed a Rattlesnake lying in the road right in front of her. She had to stop running toward the snake, there was no other option. Because we live in an area that has a lot of poison snakes, she has learned that we I say freeze, she has to freeze right then, no discussion. Does she want to freeze, no, she wants to keep running and touch the snake, so this isn't consensual, this is me getting what I want (her to not run and touch a snake), and her not getting what she wants. She cried all the way back to our house because she wanted to run to the end of the road which we couldn't do because of the snake. She didn't want to run around the yard, or the porch, or the road in front of the house, she didn't want to pet a pretend snake, or draw a snake, or make a snake out of playdough, so she didn't get her way. This is me telling her what to do and for safety reasons she has to obey right away without question.
but she got what she needed: to stay safe! You may not be able to meet whatever her need is right then and there, but you can meet it eventually. If it's a need for excitement or exploration you can meet that in other ways, that may have nothing to do with a snake. a pretend snake, a snake of playdough, etc would not meet the need of someone who is seeking a thrill. (if that's even what her need is) I'm just giving an example. but in the moment, you met her need and your own need - for her safety. But that is a great example where in the moment there were no other options... well of course she probably could have ran back to you, waited for you to catch up, walked back to you, walked backwards to get to you, etc. Not that you have to say "you can do this or this" but the choice is still there. If a child can't touch a rattlesnake that only covers what they can't do. There were many safe ways for her not to be near the rattle snake in the scenario, all of which I'm sure would have been acceptable to you? While she did not like that she couldn't touch the rattlesnake, she did have things she could do in not touching the snake that were okay with you, I'm guessing. For us in some cases the only thing they want to do besides the thing they can't (for safety reasons) is have a tantrum - and in my house that is an acceptable option.
post #193 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post
Of course not. He'll transition to magazines. Then he'll move on to books, but just soft cover crappy ones first, then he'll move onto pooping on Shakespeare.

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

If nothing else, at least I will have honoured his instincts for as long as possible before he has to sit to poop, should we be faced with a smaller bathroom for some reason.
Okay - that's great. I'm not arguing with it. But, in the long run, it has nothing to do with him not "ignoring" his instincts. Even if he has a squat toilet in your home, and then in his own home, he's going to have to use a public toilet sometime (or push his instincts back further, by just not pooping when he needs to in the first place). So, are you saying that if you raise him this way, and he uses a public toilet, even once, he's "ignoring" his instincts?

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

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

Quote:
And no, for most of us, I daresay ALL of us, we didn't choose this way of pooping, we had it taught to us by our parents. How you can conceive of it being a choice is beyond me. I never chose it, no one I've ever met chose it, you're the first one I've ever met who when learning potty actually said to her mother something like, “well, of all the toileting choices I have, I feel the urge to squat, and you know what, I'm going to use a chair type toilet instead” and I fear you actually telling me that never happened so to prevent that, here's a hint, I'm being facetious.
Yeah - my parents taught me to use a toilet. That's not in doubt. They also taught me to go into another room if I wanted to play with my genitals. However, nobody ever suggested that this is/was anything but a cultural norm, or that it's the only way to do things, or the natural way to do things.

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by spottiew View Post
that was always my impression reading doctor sears... 'just do AP and life will be so gentle and beautiful'... nor do i believe a non-crying baby is ideal- sometimes, just maybe sometimes, they do need to cry for a bit! for whatever reason, my kid has intense emotions, and i would rather him let it out. now why he has them i don't know, maybe it's cultural, but i tend to believe intense kids exist anywhere and that is just them.
Yeah - dd is/was very intense. She's hyper-sensitive, easily over-stimulated, very volatile - just not like any other baby I ever met.
post #194 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
Yeah...I tried a more consensual approach to the carseat with dd when she was little (didn't call it that, as I'd never even heard of CL at that point, but that's what we did). It didn't work. Bottom line is, she hated the carseat. She finally stopped fighting and screaming when she realized that we had things we had to do, and she had to be in the seat - no choice in the matter. As long as I tried to address underlying needs, etc., we got nowhere. Her underlying need was to not be strapped into the torture seat...and that wasn't negotiable. (I can relate. I've heard people talk about putting 5-point harnesses in adult seats, and I'll stop driving the day that becomes required, no matter how badly we need the car.)
I'm confused though. Her desire was eventually met? she didn't have to stay in the car seat, she was eventually removed from the car seat, and her need for safety (which is bigger then her desire to not be strapped into the car seat). You empathized with her I'm sure. For my kids, as long as they have had plenty of time to have their need to expending energy met, they are fine in car seats. My youngest actually loves being in a car seat while sitting outside. My DD was the one who hated car seats, now she doesn't mind and loves car rides.
post #195 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
but she got what she needed: to stay safe! You may not be able to meet whatever her need is right then and there, but you can meet it eventually. If it's a need for excitement or exploration you can meet that in other ways, that may have nothing to do with a snake. a pretend snake, a snake of playdough, etc would not meet the need of someone who is seeking a thrill. (if that's even what her need is) I'm just giving an example. but in the moment, you met her need and your own need - for her safety. But that is a great example where in the moment there were no other options... well of course she probably could have ran back to you, waited for you to catch up, walked back to you, walked backwards to get to you, etc. Not that you have to say "you can do this or this" but the choice is still there. If a child can't touch a rattlesnake that only covers what they can't do. There were many safe ways for her not to be near the rattle snake in the scenario, all of which I'm sure would have been acceptable to you? While she did not like that she couldn't touch the rattlesnake, she did have things she could do in not touching the snake that were okay with you, I'm guessing. For us in some cases the only thing they want to do besides the thing they can't (for safety reasons) is have a tantrum - and in my house that is an acceptable option.
She had to freeze and then follow my instructions to walk back to me. Snakes can move very, very fast, so I'm not going to discuss if she wants to walk back to me by hopping, or singing, or skipping. I don't care how she gets there, she just has to come as quickly as possible. Yes there were plenty of things for her to do away from the snake, but she didn't want to do them, she really wanted to pet the snake and them walk to the end of the road. In her three year old mind she doesn't understand that she doesn't need to pet the snake, in her mind I am not meeting her needs, I am taking away what she wants. And she can see through me trying to manipulate her into being happy by giving her other options. So in the end she went to her room and cried.

When I can I'll give her options, but she can't always get what she feels like she needs. I just don't see how me telling her what to do and her having to obey when she doesn't want to is consensual. That is why I don't think I'm a consensual parent.
post #196 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix23 View Post
She had to freeze and then follow my instructions to walk back to me. Snakes can move very, very fast, so I'm not going to discuss if she wants to walk back to me by hopping, or singing, or skipping. I don't care how she gets there, she just has to come as quickly as possible. Yes there were plenty of things for her to do away from the snake, but she didn't want to do them, she really wanted to pet the snake and them walk to the end of the road. In her three year old mind she doesn't understand that she doesn't need to pet the snake, in her mind I am not meeting her needs, I am taking away what she wants. And she can see through me trying to manipulate her into being happy by giving her other options. So in the end she went to her room and cried.

When I can I'll give her options, but she can't always get what she feels like she needs. I just don't see how me telling her what to do and her having to obey when she doesn't want to is consensual. That is why I don't think I'm a consensual parent.
I know you aren't going to discuss that at a time like that! what I said was, that any of those options would have been okay with you. A child doesnt need the choices spelled out for them to make a choice. She could have skipped back or ran back or walked back. I'm sure you wouldnt have said "I told you to WALK back. not skip!!" and at the end, when she couldn't pet the snake and the other options weren't good enough, she had a tantrum - AND YOU ALLOWED THAT TANTRUM and YOU EMPATHIZED with her. The tantrum was an okay alternative to petting the snake.

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

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

My point is, my child isn't going to get bit by a snake because I am CL or because I'm going to waste time giving choices till their ears fall off. And I'm not going to sit in a parking lot for 3 hours because my child doesn't want to be in car seat and I'm not going to drive around with them in my lap. And to some here that means I am not living consensually, but in other threads those same people will say my ideas don't work for them because I DO live consensually and that doesnt work for them. Kind of confusing, but as I said not really all that important. I don't care if you think I'm CL or think you aren't or don't want to be or don't want me to be - just try to understand that living consensually does not mean being bitten by a snake, jumping off the roof, or driving without a seat belt.
post #197 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
= I've read several CL books lately and I what I see is them seeing the child's feelings and desires are VALID - not something they have to do. .
I think if you asked the question "Do you believe your dc's feelings and desires are valid?", the huge majority of posters would say yes--CL or not. Validating feelings (especially when you are not meeting the desire) is AP parenting 101, right?
post #198 of 1044
I have gotten more in depth on that thought in other posts in this thread, explaining the difference, but yet to me, a lot of CL seems to be AP common sense, unfortunately it was not common sense I was able to fully understand until recently. And apparently, some of that common sense means people think I'm nuts because I respond to my crying baby and my tantrumming child with the same thought process. My child who is mad they can't jump off the roof I see their request for adventure just as important as a crying babies request to be held 'just because'... its like an extension of AP, taking that respect to the next level... I mean obviously what I am saying here ISNT AP parenting 101, because so many people are telling me they wouldnt do a lot of the things I suggest.

I am done debating this though. It's more important to some people that I'm not CL or that their approach that isnt CL is the same as my approach that is CLish or whatever, frankly, its annoying. I don't understand the hostility or why is so very very very very very important that either I am not CL or that if I am CL then that means my children are tyrants. Whatever helps a person sleep at night at this point I suppose! I think I've pretty much covered it in all my other posts and be willing to read something besides internet pages of *personal* CL families before making a blanket judgment - I mean if one REALLY cares to understand it. Otherwise I can only assume one only wants to argue about it, or be hurtful to others to feel better about themselves.
post #199 of 1044
Super Glue: I think I yell too much to be CL. LOL
post #200 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverscout View Post
There is a difference between ways to ride happily and ways to ride safely. The only way to ride safely or legally is for the child to be strapped into a car seat. Period.
Yes. But the consensual way of looking at it is that it definitely is OBLIGATORY to be buckled, but to adress the athmosphere around the 'getting buckled in'- time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yes, sometimes I struggle with certain situations to find the most happy or consensual solution. It's not always the easiest one either . And so thankful for cl groups for advice when needed. There's always another perspective on things even when you think you'd thought it all through already and didn't find a way.

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