or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WWYD?? - Page 2

post #21 of 33
Thread Starter 
You were not the only one. Yes, I am honestly shocked to hear that here. I would agree that 7 is old enough to be the first one up or for a parent togo to bed whiallowing the child to experience the natural consequences of staying up late. However, the key difference is, the child is with a person who is aware the kid is there. If, for example, I got up on sat. AM at 8 and I don't see ds around, I will look for him. If I hear something strange, I know theres not another still ly around, I will investigate. If dh woke up at 4PM on a tuesday, he would aassume ds is with me. WIf he didhear anything, he would assume I am there. Waking him is not an option for me.
post #22 of 33
Thread Starter 
Adult around. Phone not behaving.
post #23 of 33

I'm sorry you feel shocked. Your OP didn't mention that staying home with dad was not an option and I don't think it was an unreasonable suggestion for an 8 year old (your OP said your child was 8?). At 8, if I were considering leaving my child with a sleeping parent (who is on shift work) I would be able to come up with a system that would work so that the sleeping parent could get some rest and the 8 year old could feel supported in his new independent role. But, it sounds like that isn't a good fit for your family -- which is NO big deal. I was just commenting because I don't think the fact that it doesn't work for you means it's not AP, GD, MDC. I very much disagree with that. I'm sure you can go back to posts from 8 years ago and find many threads in support of 8 year olds beginning their journey of staying home. 8 is very much the norm in my city, even among AP parents. 

 

Please know that I kind of felt like I "went to bat" in favor of "peaceful parenting" and "GD" on this thread and I'm just kind of bummed that this was the thing that got a reaction. I'm sorry that the thread had a focus that you don't appreciate but I hope you got something out of it.  

 

It sounds like you haven't had another incident, which is great! 

post #24 of 33
Thread Starter 
We haven't. I'm sorry a lot of things got overlooked in my focus on what I saw as a safety issue. He was 7 when I wrote this post, he is now 8. Part of my reluctance to have him stay alone is where we live. Part of it is theres a big difference to me between almost 9 and barely past 7. I asked a few other opinions including hu:joybby's and the general consensus seems to be that he is to young.

There were other great ideas on this thread. Another option I have used is to wait til dad is up sio I can leave people home.

I wanted to clarify that the ice cream was not intended as a bribe or reward. What happened was one of the three who were waiting asked if we could have ice cream when we got home. I agreed and then called this out to the oldest. I can see now where he was mad at his sister, feeling that she ruined it all and now im just trying to make ot better with ice cream. However, my whole issue was that he would not come and talk to me, so how would I know?

The front seat was agreed upon simply because it separated the warring parties. Also, I had enough to deal with without prolonging things until another child got too hour, bored, whatever and caused another issue.

Hot not hour. Stupid phone.
post #25 of 33
Thread Starter 
You did support me. I appreciate that. smile.gif
post #26 of 33
Thread Starter 
heres the other issue from this post. How do you get them to understand that arguing and screaming and making a scene is unacceptable? At what age can I expect them to understand that this is embarrassing? That others don't want their peace disturbed? And at what age can I expect them to accept and cooper, not LIKE, but cooperate with the fact that we may need to cut an outing short because of a siblings behavior?
post #27 of 33

I think the awareness that screaming and making a scene in public are embarrassing sets in as they get older, usually without it needing to be directly taught. They start to pick up on the looks from the people around them and especially if they play with other children a lot. DD will be 8 next month and she's starting to realize the idea that there is an audience when she's out in public, and pays more attention to whether or not she is acting appropriately.

 

When the children start publicly arguing or fighting, is it possible to have one come sit beside you to talk about it? Not necessarily as a negative consequence, but in order to get a breather from the other child, be heard, and maybe just getting some empathy can be enough for the child to let it go. And maybe get some space alone with you to work out a better way to deal with whatever the issue is.

 

I think that outings should be cancelled suddenly only sparingly, when one child is hurt or sick. In that case, the message is, "we need to take care of X - he needs to get home right away because he is not feeling well." In the case of children not getting along, I think if you can get one of them to sit beside you for a while until they are ready to re-join the play its better, then there is less likely to be resentment among the other children for one child ruining their playtime. When I take DD and her friends to the park, there is one child in particular who gets bored easily and would deliberately provoke the other children because he wanted me to take him home. Now instead of letting him determine when we leave I tell him he needs to sit beside me if he doesn't feel like playing, and we can chat if he likes, but we're leaving when its time, not before. I also go over the rules with him before we leave, reminding him that he has gotten bored in the past but we want everyone to have as much time as possible, so if he thinks he's going to want to leave early, he could make some other plans and not come.

post #28 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by peaceful_mama View Post

Really? Is this the same MDC I joined 8 years ago? Are you seriously advocating for leaving a 7 year old with a sleeping parent who would not be aware that the child has no other supervision win the house? I wouldn't do that no matter where I lived! And yes, I have napped as the sole adult home, but when you know you are alone, you have an ear open. And sleeping after a long night at work is different than a nap.

 

I was not *advocating* it but *suggesting* it. I don't see what letting your dk home with a sleeping parent has to do with being part of Mothering or not. Many kids are able to stay home with a sleeping parent at this age. I'm into co-sleeping, CLW, AP and all the good stuff, yet my son can stay home alone for short periods of time. As ICM said, it doesn't sound like a good choice for your family, but it doesn't mean it's not AP.

post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama View Post

I'm not quite sure I understand the distinction and/or how this relates to what I was saying. I get the sense that maybe you feel like you and I disagree and I'm not sure that we do. Although do feel that the way the consequence is presented is important, I mainly meant that a consequence is not the only way to deal with this situation. I really don't think that it is. I don't think it's the only way to stop it from happening and I don't think it's the only way to show respect for the mother or child. I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear. I REALLY don't disagree with anyone here -- OTHER than the fact that I think a consequence is just one of many ways to approach this. 

 

For instance -- if PM can get to a place...this magical place of just expecting cooperation...THAT is major respect. PM is conveying respect for herself by expecting that her kids will listen to her. She is commanding respect as she says it's time to go. Her kids feel the respect she is extending to them by her positive expectations. Her kids pick up on her confidence in herself and in them and they get in the car. 

 

I KNOW this sounds freaky. When my DC was a kid and I was posing to the GD forum and I I would hear this (it was a popular method back then) I was like -- WOW, you people are crazy. And I bucked it like crazy. Till I realized it works. Lots of the time. And, I got more consistently positive results than I ever did by imposing logical consequences. 

 

Just to answer your post... it doesn't sound freaky to me. I do this all the time. I know how it works. But to me OP's situation doesn't happen because of lack of gentleness of positiveness, but quite the opposite. How can I explain without criticizing OP? I see GD as walking a fine line between being permissive and being an authoritarian. I saw OP's post as leaning towards the first extreme, that's why I was suggesting consequences.

What I disagreed with in your post was this conceptual approach to a situation which was very concrete to me. You are disrespectful to your friends and family, next time you are not invited to their outings. As simple as that. It applies to adults and children alike. No philosophical soliloquy about his. (Although OP is not considering leaving her child at home so it's a moot point.)

Also, I very strongly disagree with the fact that if a child experiences the consequences of his actions it MUST be a behaviouristic approach.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama View Post

I'm sorry you feel shocked. Your OP didn't mention that staying home with dad was not an option and I don't think it was an unreasonable suggestion for an 8 year old (your OP said your child was 8?). At 8, if I were considering leaving my child with a sleeping parent (who is on shift work) I would be able to come up with a system that would work so that the sleeping parent could get some rest and the 8 year old could feel supported in his new independent role. But, it sounds like that isn't a good fit for your family -- which is NO big deal. I was just commenting because I don't think the fact that it doesn't work for you means it's not AP, GD, MDC. I very much disagree with that. I'm sure you can go back to posts from 8 years ago and find many threads in support of 8 year olds beginning their journey of staying home. 8 is very much the norm in my city, even among AP parents. 

 

Please know that I kind of felt like I "went to bat" in favor of "peaceful parenting" and "GD" on this thread and I'm just kind of bummed that this was the thing that got a reaction. I'm sorry that the thread had a focus that you don't appreciate but I hope you got something out of it.  

 

It sounds like you haven't had another incident, which is great! 

 

I am all for GD as well. But for me GD doesn't mean that we need to disregard other people's needs and feelings just to let one child express himself.

post #30 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by transylvania_mom View Post

I was not *advocating* it but *suggesting* it. I don't see what letting your dk home with a sleeping parent has to do with being part of Mothering or not. Many kids are able to stay home with a sleeping parent at this age. I'm into co-sleeping, CLW, AP and all the good stuff, yet my son can stay home alone for short periods of time. As ICM said, it doesn't sound like a good choice for your family, but it doesn't mean it's not AP.

ITA.

As for when can kids understand that they can't make a big scene, I think that this happens when they stop getting a reaction that reinforces their behavior. My dd was three when she learned it didn't work at the store and five before she stopped having big fits in other situations because I became consistent with my expectations and follow through. One thing that really helped both of us on this path was talking about what she should have done instead. Planning for handling the next time slowly helped her follow through with not making a scene when she wasn't getting her way and it is a tool we use for a lot of childhood issues that come up.
post #31 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by transylvania_mom View Post

What I disagreed with in your post was this conceptual approach to a situation which was very concrete to me. You are disrespectful to your friends and family, next time you are not invited to their outings. As simple as that. It applies to adults and children alike. No philosophical soliloquy about his. (Although OP is not considering leaving her child at home so it's a moot point.)

Also, I very strongly disagree with the fact that if a child experiences the consequences of his actions it MUST be a behaviouristic approach.

And for me either. I was posting mainly because I felt there was a strong focus on some sort of logical consequence and I though it good to bring in some other ways of thinking. It was more one of those things where you brought one thought so I brought the other, yk? Had you (or anyone else) neglected to bring up the consequence of not going to the park, I'm sure I would have wanted to mention that option. Does that make sense? 

 

As far as my wording for behavioristic -- I applied those labels more to how I describe my approaches. I do tend to think behaviorism in a negative light and to be a "last ditch effort". For me,  punitively leaving the child at home would have been a last ditch effort. But, looking at leaving him at home as a sort of family consensual choice is a different thing. Without going through this month-old thread to be sure, I think that was my main point -- how this consequence is presented to the child. 

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by transylvania_mom View Post

I am all for GD as well. But for me GD doesn't mean that we need to disregard other people's needs and feelings just to let one child express himself.

No, and neither do I, most certainly. I realize that I made what could be viewed as an offensive comment above when I said I went to bat for "GD" implying that I was the one arguing in favor of GD and others on this thread were not. I apologize for how that comment could be understood. That is not what I meant. Everyone on this thread was posting as a GD parent. I was mainly wanting to talk about how GD is much more than one thing -- it is a huge variety of philosophies. Each has its place for individual families, circumstances and temperements. I'm finding myself yearning for some mind-expanding GD advice and I think I kind of unloaded my feelings about that when I made that comment. I hope that makes sense. 

post #32 of 33

Gotcha. thumb.gif Thanks for clarifying.

 

OP, glad to hear your ds is behaving better.

What works with my dk is making them responsible. For example, instead of telling ds: can you play nicely with your sister? I tell him: can you watch your sister (or take care of her) while I'm cooking etc.? So he instantly assumes the role of protector. The same thing works for my dd, although she's only 3. I ask her to call her brother to supper or wake him up in the morning, and she gets very determined to make sure her brother does what he's supposed to do. When we go to playgrounds, ds is the one who wants to push dd on her swing, or help her climb on the jungle gym. Me or another adult are always there, I'm not dumping anything on ds, but just the fact that I ask him to take care, or help his sister, makes him more responsible for his actions.
 

post #33 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BellinghamCrunchie View Post

I think the awareness that screaming and making a scene in public are embarrassing sets in as they get older, usually without it needing to be directly taught. They start to pick up on the looks from the people around them and especially if they play with other children a lot. DD will be 8 next month and she's starting to realize the idea that there is an audience when she's out in public, and pays more attention to whether or not she is acting appropriately.

When the children start publicly arguing or fighting, is it possible to have one come sit beside you to talk about it? Not necessarily as a negative consequence, but in order to get a breather from the other child, be heard, and maybe just getting some empathy can be enough for the child to let it go. And maybe get some space alone with you to work out a better way to deal with whatever the issue is.

I think that outings should be cancelled suddenly only sparingly, when one child is hurt or sick. In that case, the message is, "we need to take care of X - he needs to get home right away because he is not feeling well." In the case of children not getting along, I think if you can get one of them to sit beside you for a while until they are ready to re-join the play its better, then there is less likely to be resentment among the other children for one child ruining their playtime. When I take DD and her friends to the park, there is one child in particular who gets bored easily and would deliberately provoke the other children because he wanted me to take him home. Now instead of letting him determine when we leave I tell him he needs to sit beside me if he doesn't feel like playing, and we can chat if he likes, but we're leaving when its time, not before. I also go over the rules with him before we leave, reminding him that he has gotten bored in the past but we want everyone to have as much time as possible, so if he thinks he's going to want to leave early, he could make some other plans and not come.

That's r exactly what I was trying to accomplish. One child, my daughter, did come and attempted to talk with me. My ds was screaming so loudly from the play equipment a few feet away that I could not listen to dd. Ds refused to come closer and talk with me instead of screaming, and he was screaming about his sister being a liar, so I decided it was time to leave. It's not acceptable to me to express anger by screaming insults at anyone in public. Seems pretty natural we'd leave, and hopefully a good observation to the others that fighting in public ends the outing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Gentle Discipline