"Oh, oh now it's ON..." - Page 2

[sgmom]

Originally Posted by Theoretica

I don't think it's taunting at all if it's handled respectfully. It'd be the same if he ripped a book because I couldn't drop everything and read it that instant (next time he asks I'd say nope, not this time, try again later), or if he destroyed the crayons because I asked him to put them away (sorry honey, crayons aren't coming out right now because when we cleaned up last time you smashed them). I'm not saying wave them in front of the kid and mock his soul, I'm saying to kindly and lovingly point out that he can't treat people/things that way and expect them to continue to be offered. And there's always another opportunity to handle it better next time. Then distract, move on, and let go. It should be at MOST a 30 second conversation, kept positive and pleasant, and then moved on to something else (I'd love you have you help me with dinner though!).

Hope that clarifies

It does (thanks!), but I still disagree. A cookie is a special treat, whereas a book can be read at any time. I wouldn't care as much if my kid destroyed a cookie than I would if she tore up a book. That cookie/book would be GONE, and although more cookies can be made later, you probably wouldn't run out to buy another of the same book every time it got intentionally wrecked.

I still dislike the idea of showing him the cookies, then telling him he can't have any. Offer one or two (or like in the example above, a baggie full of several), then put the rest away. He can destroy his cookies all he wants, but that's all he gets. Soon he'll learn that if he eats it, he might get more. And once it's established that he can be trusted with his OWN cookies, then he might be trusted with yours (ie. the rest that you put away) being put back on the table.

But I stand by my original comment. To not allow him to have ANY isn't my idea of gentle discipline, nor will it teach a 4 year old self control, but rather that YOU are in control until he/she can develop some of his/her own.

Sorry to disagree!

Edited to add: Telling them he can't have any (yet torturing him with the yummy fresh baked smell that's filling your house while everyone else has some) is not only cruel, but it shows that you don't trust him. And while this may be the case, it's not the message I'm sure we all want to send. So trust him with 3 or 4 cookies, then put the rest away. Build from there.

[Theoretica]

Originally Posted by sgmom

It does (thanks!), but I still disagree. A cookie is a special treat, whereas a book can be read at any time.

Maybe that's part of it, as I bake cookies at least once every week or two so it's genuinely not a big deal to say nope, you're not having a cookie this time because you smashed 'em last time. Try again next time I make them.

I still dislike the idea of showing him the cookies, then telling him he can't have any. Offer one or two (or like in the example above, a baggie full of several), then put the rest away. He can destroy his cookies all he wants, but that's all he gets. Soon he'll learn that if he eats it, he might get more. And once it's established that he can be trusted with his OWN cookies, then he might be trusted with yours (ie. the rest that you put away) being put back on the table.

Again, I'm not saying SHOW him the cookies, but I'd bet good money he'd notice and ask/demand some. And no, it's not ok with me for him to destroy his own cookies and waste something I made for everyone to enjoy.

But I stand by my original comment. To not allow him to have ANY isn't my idea of gentle discipline, nor will it teach a 4 year old self control, but rather that YOU are in control until he/she can develop some of his/her own.

Well. I *am* in control until he can develop more self control. That's the entire gist of parenting. And because I want him to develop better self control (i.e. NOT smash cookies when he's mad) AND I want him to learn that people deserve to have their projects treated with respect. It is gentle parenting to set and enforce reasonable limits. I'm NOT saying to NEVER let him have a cookie/book/whatever EVER again. I'm saying when you take the opportunity to say nope, last time you were really disrespectful and I don't appreciate it, it helps TEACH them to think before they act. Will it happen again? Maybe. But when he's around other people what do you think would happen if he did this? It's my job to teach my kids how to realistically navigate the world around them, and it starts with gently and lovingly setting and enforcing reasonable boundaries inside our home.

Sorry to disagree!

No worries, no apology necessary Parenting comes in many different shapes, sizes and flavors and most kids turn out ok despite our best efforts

Edited to add: Telling them he can't have any (yet torturing him with the yummy fresh baked smell that's filling your house while everyone else has some) is not only cruel, but it shows that you don't trust him. And while this may be the case, it's not the message I'm sure we all want to send. So trust him with 3 or 4 cookies, then put the rest away. Build from there.

Of course I can't trust him, he's repeatedly smashed them. I do think it's appropriate to validate his feelings (give a hug, say I'm sorry you're upset, I'd be upset too if I were in your shoes, empathize) and I don't think it's torturing him at ALL to tell him no the next time. I'm ok that we disagree.

[sgmom]

Originally Posted by Theoretica

No worries, no apology necessary Parenting comes in many different shapes, sizes and flavors and most kids turn out ok despite our best efforts

[DevaMajka]

I'm with heartmama- as soon as I could tell that ds didn't have the impulse control to stay away, I'd put the cookies away.
When ds1 was younger, there were times that I did that, and I could just see the relief on his face that the temptation was gone.

Originally Posted by Theoretica

I haven't read the replies but my suggestion is this. The next time you make cookies you say (nicely, calmly) "Honey, I'd love for you to have one, but last time you smashed them and I want to share them with people who enjoy them. Maybe next time!" Then put the entire batch out of reach.

Yes, he'll throw a fit. But he'll learn that when he treats other people's projects with disrespect, he isn't included in the future. At four he's definitely old enough for that concept.

Remember that gentle discipline is just that...disciplining (teaching) gently. Good luck!

I was thinking the other day about the idea of delayed natural and related consequences, and how soon it actually "works". As in, how soon kids truly get the connection between the consequence and what they did 3 days ago.
I used to think that DS1 was learning from this type of delayed consequence, but looking at it now, even if there was a connection made in his mind the chance that it could affect his behavior the next time was pretty low.
You have a lot of things going on there- the ability to connect behavior to delayed consequence, remembering it, bringing it up in just the right situation, and the impulse control to act accordingly.

[ssh]

Originally Posted by HoneyTree

Wow. I had NO IDEA that gentle discipline represented such a wide swath of parenting styles. I am seriously in awe of the diversity of responses here.

Ssh, I know what you mean, and I'm struggling with the food limits thing. I have noticed that the things I have historically put limits on are the "precious," the coveted item that is most likely going to be scarfed down. And maybe I don't let ds self-regulate enough, because he sure bee-lines for the sugary treats, and while we do debrief during the stomache ache cuddles afterward about the consequences of too many sweets, he still goes for them. But I love to bake. I love to bake and share. And I use the body block for 1) harm to others, 2) harm to self, and 3) utter destruction of property (in this case, cookies). So I need to ponder that one a little more.

Savithny, duly noted. I have to remember the primates learning limits thing, and the book sounds fascinating.

Theoretica, yes. We use that method often--respectful, quick, reasonable "no," and then move on. I'm just not really convinced that the concept IS within his grasp at 4. I mean, he GETS that the cookies are for everyone, that if you rip a book it's no longer readable, broken crayons aren't fun, etc., he just doesn't reliably act in accordance with that in the "challenge" moment. Sometimes I feel like if I did the "we'll try _____ again later," we'd end up alone in a padded room; at some time or another, he has acted out against a "no" with any number of things that I really don't want to remove from his life entirely. Or maybe I just want to still be able to bake my damn cookies!!!

Again, thanks for the responses.

We've always let my DD self regulate, so I don't what would happen if a person suddenly started letting an preschooler. They would probably binge abit before settling down. I'm type two diabetic and we don't keep a lot sweets in the house. It's usually just an occasional thing and never a large quantity. My DD does occasionally binge with a new food but has never gotten an upset stomach. She ate most of a jar of pickled okra yesterday and a small bag a natural peppermint candy only lasted 3 days. But it doesn't happen enough to be a health issue and my DH and I were raised with traditional social eating habits and we're both over weight. So DD self regulating avoids conflict but the reason we're doing it is to help her avoid weight and food issues. Though we do try to have a comfortable nonrestrictive home. For example when DD brought a bowl of snow in her room to play with we explained why wet stuff on wood floors were a bad idea and thats why snow in the house should be played with in the bathroom or kitchen. Expect for things like shouting, pushing or hitting we usually don't 'forbid' things we say specific things are a bad idea and tell her why.

[clipfish]

Maybe I'm just super-strict, but when mama says no, that's it. No means no, ya know.(;

It sounds from the whole body blocking, eye-contact, cookie smashing thing that you are playing games with him, and that doesn't sound fair to either of you. He gets rewarded for not listening to you with a game...and it's a game where he gets to destroy something just because he can't have it.

If it were my son, and he could not cannot control himself mentally to listen to me when when I said no, the cookies would be put physically out of his reach.