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 11

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 #201 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by ernalala View Post
Yes. But the consensual way of looking at it is that it definitely is OBLIGATORY to be buckled, but to adress the athmosphere around the 'getting buckled in'- time.
Yes, I understand that. I was merely pointing out that there is indeed only one way to ride safely and was interested to hear how a CL parent would address the issue if a child WOULD NOT comply despite all the sining of songs and offers of snacks and attempts to address whatever the underlying need might be because in some cases that need might just be to not be in the seat but there is no way around getting strapped in the seat if the child is going to ride in the car.
post #202 of 1044
I think that falls in the catagory that Alfia Kohen says is time to put your foot down and empathize.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self determining means letting the child make decisions that effect them when it doesn't interfere with someone else's life in a negative way. They can decide to have a messy room - but they cant break into their neighbors house and trash it. That wouldn't be self determining, that would be neighbor-determining. It's what CL avoids teaching: doing things that effect ourselves or protect the safety of others.. . controlling ourselves, not others. We don't refrain from controlling our children only to let them turn around and control us or others. We control ourselves without controlling others, and teach our children to do the same. We treat our children with the same respect we would treat any adult. I insist anyone in my car have a seat belt on, regardless of age.
post #203 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
I think that falls in the catagory that Alfia Kohen says is time to put your foot down and empathize.
See, I guess that is where the issue with CL lies for me. If parents can ultimately "put their foot down" then that directly conflicts with the definition of CL:

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

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

Anyway, I'm all for doing whatever works best for you and labeling yourself however you want . Just pointing out why even some people who might appear pretty darn CL don't accept the label.
post #204 of 1044
I think that's exactly where I split off from the CL tribe too. Sometimes things just have to happen, and there's no getting a kid to agree with it. I can validate until the cows come home, but sometimes they HAVE to be in the car seat. Sometimes they HAVE to be buckled. Sometimes they HAVE to leave a store/park/restaurant, and no amount of validating or bargaining or bribing is going to convince them.
post #205 of 1044
""It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone’s wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties.""

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

but I see what you are saying about why you don't use CL for your family. I really think its all about the mindset though. Sometimes, Children will be the ones who will ultimately put their foot down as well I strive for equality. And the underlying need of safety will take precedence. I am meeting the underlying need of safety by having my child ride in a carseat/ Some CL parents may not feel that carseats provide more safety so an acceptable option to them is not riding in one, but when you feel safety is an issue, you are not "not practicing CL" because you are meeting the childs need instead of their desire. That does not conflict with any of the definitons of CL as presented, other then the definitions of CL be presented by people who DONT practice CL and havent read anything about it other then how SOME CL families practice CL...

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

If you don't want to practice CL thats fine - but you can practice CL and put a child in a carseat, stop them from jumping off a building, and not let them play baseball on the highway. A child isn't more prone to death just because you practice CL. And keeping your child Safe does not mean that you aren't practicing CL.
post #206 of 1044
also, CL doesn't use bribes. and it doesn't mean preventing your child from having feelings. Read the quote I posted from Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves - which so far has been more "challenging" to me the UP.
post #207 of 1044
But see, that's exactly the thing...there are times there IS no 'mutually agreeable solution' BECAUSE the parent has to put their foot down and the child has to do something they just don't want to do.
post #208 of 1044
but the underlying need is still met - the need for safety. then what you can do is work outside the situation to prepare for the future in attempts to acheive a mutually agreeable solution for the future.
post #209 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
I dont see how that says that you have to do what they want though? You can still consider the child's desire and address it. You then also have a need for safety, which is more important then the need for being comfortable in a car seat, for example. the underlying need, even if the child doesn't yet understand, for all parties is the need for safety in some cases. those are the cases where you "put your foot down" it doesnt mean their feelings arent valid or arent addressed. So no, it doesnt conflict with the definition to me.
"It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone’s wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties."

See I can't past the fact putting a child in the car seat against their wishes is in no way a mutually agreeable solution.

Also, I think I have a different idea of what an underlying need is. Yes, putting a child in a car seat meets the child's need for safety but to me that's not really their underlying need. To me, an underlying need is something from within, same as a want or a desire really. It's the thing you look for when the tantrum over getting in the car ensues. Are they hungry? Tired? Need a diaper change? But sometimes that need is not identifiable or it's just not possible to meet at that time. I don't think my child who doesn't want to get in the car seats underlying need is to buckle up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
If you don't want to practice CL thats fine - but you can practice CL and put a child in a carseat, stop them from jumping off a building, and not let them play baseball on the highway. A child isn't more prone to death just because you practice CL. And keeping your child Safe does not mean that you aren't practicing CL.
I've heard people say they will wait as long as necessary for the child to be ready to get in the seat or that they would just not go somewhere, not that they would allow the child to ride in car without being in the seat.

(Again this is a friendly discussion about parenting philosophy. I'm not debating or criticizing anyone's choice. I know there have been some hurt feeling here but no attacks from me....promise.
post #210 of 1044
RiverScout, I think that your experience with CL is about the same as mine. The people I know who practice CL do not make their child do anything that they don't want to. They would never force their child to ride in a carseat, they would just not go places. If this means missing, weddings, funerals, appointmens, then they miss them. My cousin who practices CL used to live with her parents. When she bought a house, her ds didn't want to move, so she didn't make him. He still lives with her parents and comes to visit her whenever he wants to. There is never a time when they put their foot down and what they say goes. It works for them and they are happy, he is happy, so CL works for their family.

So according to them I do not practice CL since, when it comes to certian situations, I make the final decision, regardless of my childrens wants/desires. But according to you I do practice CL since I try to give choices whenever I can, but I am willing to put my foot down and make her do things that she doesn't want to. I guess I have never heard CL defined like you define it.
post #211 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverscout View Post
"It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone’s wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties."

<snip>

I've heard people say they will wait as long as necessary for the child to be ready to get in the seat or that they would just not go somewhere, not that they would allow the child to ride in car without being in the seat.
Well and how is it supposed to work out when child A has to get to soccer practice by 4, and child B refuses to get into the car seat because they've decided they don't want/need to, so then what? Maybe when a kid is an only the parents have the luxury of just doing everything on the kiddo's timetable, or not doing anything the kiddo doesn't consent to, but when you have more than one kid....or four kids....sometimes consent isn't possible.

I'm not disagreeing with saying hey, I'm with you, I wouldn't like it either, I support your feelings, but....you gotta do it. I'm probably annoyingly empathetic to my kids, but that doesn't change that they HAVE to do some things some times.

And it's not CL. Because as much as I involve them and encourage their consent in whatever possible, there are times I just have to be the mom and direct the show.
post #212 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix23 View Post
RiverScout, I think that your experience with CL is about the same as mine. The people I know who practice CL do not make their child do anything that they don't want to. They would never force their child to ride in a carseat, they would just not go places. If this means missing, weddings, funerals, appointmens, then they miss them. My cousin who practices CL used to live with her parents. When she bought a house, her ds didn't want to move, so she didn't make him. He still lives with her parents and comes to visit her whenever he wants to. There is never a time when they put their foot down and what they say goes. It works for them and they are happy, he is happy, so CL works for their family.

.



I always wonder how people that don't make their kid do anything ever at all pay their bills. I have to work. That means I have to put DS in his carseat. Now I can make try to make it pleasant (and I do) but there have been a small handful of times that he HAD to get into that carseat whether he wanted to or not, or I could lose my job.

Or what about if there are 3 or 4 kids. One wants to do this, another wants to do that, and #'s 3 and 4 want something different yet. How is that handled?

How does that work for people who have jobs and more than one kid?

Also, it seems in a situation like this the child gets what they want but the parent does not. Wouldn't "consensual" be a misnomer then?
post #213 of 1044
LOL, I see Theoretica wondering the same thing! :-)
post #214 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by karina5 View Post
I always wonder how people that don't make their kid do anything ever at all pay their bills. I have to work. That means I have to put DS in his carseat. Now I can make try to make it pleasant (and I do) but there have been a small handful of times that he HAD to get into that carseat whether he wanted to or not, or I could lose my job.

Or what about if there are 3 or 4 kids. One wants to do this, another wants to do that, and #'s 3 and 4 want something different yet. How is that handled?

How does that work for people who have jobs and more than one kid?

Also, it seems in a situation like this the child gets what they want but the parent does not. Wouldn't "consensual" be a misnomer then?
I don't know other people do it, but with my cousin, her mom works from her house and there is also a big extended family all living nearby. So if he doesn't want to go somewhere and they have to be somewhere, then they call a relative to come stay with him while they are gone. When he was a toddler he didn't go anywhere they couldn't walk, because he didn't want to get into a carseat. I don't know how they would have managed without the family to take care of him.

They only plan on having one child so they they won't have to deal with children having conflicting needs. I have no clue how people with more then one child handle these situations.

I agree with you that it sounds like he gets his way and the parents never do, but they say that they are happy living this way. There is no way that I could live like that, because I believe that I am the adult and I'm the one who gets to make the final decision. I'll give choices when I can, but when I can't, my children will have to do what I say, regardless of what they really want. I'll make it as pleasant as I can, but sometimes in life they have to do things that they don't want to do.
post #215 of 1044
This thing about the "underlying need" bugs me precisely BECAUSE it seems so authoritarian and hierarchical. It may be gussied up in consensual language, but it is definitely about the superior wisdom of the parent.

A tiny baby has simple needs. To be held, to be fed, to be changed, to have a comfortable body temperature. But put yourself in the position of an older child for a minute. I want (you might even say I NEED) to do the dangerous thing. My parent circumvents my need and explains (in perhaps not so many words) that my "real" "underlying" need is for safety.

How is the parent a mind-reader? How can the parent say, "Oh you don't really NEED that, you NEED this?" That just annoys me. Much easier to swallow if a parent says (gently, lovingly) that I can't do X because X is unsafe, and a parent's job is to keep me safe.

I know the adult = child equation is not always valid, but I can only imagine how irritated I'd be if someone stopped me from doing something by explaining that I don't really need to do that, I must need something else deep down inside.
post #216 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix23 View Post
RiverScout, I think that your experience with CL is about the same as mine. The people I know who practice CL do not make their child do anything that they don't want to. They would never force their child to ride in a carseat, they would just not go places. If this means missing, weddings, funerals, appointmens, then they miss them.
I don't think this is CL at all. What you're describing sounds like TCS.

CL takes everyone's desires into consideration. TCS only takes a child's desires into consideration. And if there is more than one child, it appears that the one who acts out the most is the one who is catered to. If the 4yo doesn't want to ride in a carseat, the whole family has to miss the trip to the zoo.

I practice mostly CL, but we're not extremists. Sometimes my kids hear the words "no," or "you have to." They're kids. They need guidance and boundaries. If they have all the answers, then what are parents here for? I strongly feel that I'm more than just a wallet and a ride.
post #217 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverscout View Post
"It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone’s wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties."

See I can't past the fact putting a child in the car seat against their wishes is in no way a mutually agreeable solution.

Also, I think I have a different idea of what an underlying need is. Yes, putting a child in a car seat meets the child's need for safety but to me that's not really their underlying need. To me, an underlying need is something from within, same as a want or a desire really. It's the thing you look for when the tantrum over getting in the car ensues. Are they hungry? Tired? Need a diaper change? But sometimes that need is not identifiable or it's just not possible to meet at that time. I don't think my child who doesn't want to get in the car seats underlying need is to buckle up.



I've heard people say they will wait as long as necessary for the child to be ready to get in the seat or that they would just not go somewhere, not that they would allow the child to ride in car without being in the seat.

(Again this is a friendly discussion about parenting philosophy. I'm not debating or criticizing anyone's choice. I know there have been some hurt feeling here but no attacks from me....promise.
If we didn't have to drive where we were going, we could walk. I do plan outtings to include time to handle a child not being ready to move on to the next thing. So I do agree with that, but I don't think it means that if we lived 20 miles from a grocery store and HAD to drive there and didn't have a farm with food to harvest for ourselves that we would get to the grocery store, with children in carseats. It's not like they would starve in those cases. It seems like some see CL to be unreasonable, but in practice it's really not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post
I don't think this is CL at all. What you're describing sounds like TCS.

CL takes everyone's desires into consideration. TCS only takes a child's desires into consideration. And if there is more than one child, it appears that the one who acts out the most is the one who is catered to. If the 4yo doesn't want to ride in a carseat, the whole family has to miss the trip to the zoo.

I practice mostly CL, but we're not extremists. Sometimes my kids hear the words "no," or "you have to." They're kids. They need guidance and boundaries. If they have all the answers, then what are parents here for? I strongly feel that I'm more than just a wallet and a ride.
I agree there is a huge confusion between CL and TCS. I think even some TCS's call themselves CL not realizing they are really TCS, and this adds to the confusion.

Also, I think perhaps in reasonable practice, one may only be able to be consensual 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time either the child OR the parent may make the decision and while all needs will be met, and most desires will be met (but sometimes these things are met later, not at the exact moment) that perhaps the other 10% is still consensual because its still equal in the sense that sometimes the parent will pout their needs on hold, and sometimes the child will. Perhaps you might not be able to be consensual in the moment, but you are consensual over all because you are in an understanding that sometimes the child will have to wait for you to pour them a cup a juice because you are mid pee - even though they want the juice NOW. OR sometimes you may have to wait to eat dinner because your baby is crying for a diaper change. Even if in the moment your need isn't met, and even if in the moment one family members doesn't "mutually agree" to put their need on hold, they do mutually agree that sometimes they do have to wait, and sometimes someone else will have to wait.
post #218 of 1044
Eeeeeenteresting!

I just read through that TCS website and one of the phrases is this:

"TCS is everyone getting what they want"

"TCS is no one deferring to or giving in to anyone."

How does 'everyone get what they want' when 'no one defers or gives in to anyone'?????

The logic doesn't even work there!
post #219 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
I agree there is a huge confusion between CL and TCS.
I'm not even going to touch the issue of TCS . But I'm definitley not confusing them but rather pointing out that I don't see how CL logically works due to the whole "mutually agreeable" thing amongst other things. It just seems to be a flawed and overreaching idea. To me it's one of things that works great...until it doesn't.
post #220 of 1044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theoretica View Post
Eeeeeenteresting!

I just read through that TCS website and one of the phrases is this:

"TCS is everyone getting what they want"

"TCS is no one deferring to or giving in to anyone."

How does 'everyone get what they want' when 'no one defers or gives in to anyone'?????

The logic doesn't even work there!


Yeah. That doesn't make any sense at all. Someone want to explain?? I'm genuniely interested.
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!