Toddlers comprehension (honest discussion)

[Damien]

My wife and I subscribe to the theories from "Raising a non-violent child" by John Rosemond and was wondering what people here thought of it.

One of the key aspects of the current parenting philosophy is that you must talk to your child in depth about what they did, why they did it and have them comprehend the reasons they shouldn't repeat the offense. I was wondering how people believed that, say, a two or three year old would be able to fully comprehend what was going on in either in themselves or in others in a given aggressive situation.

The reason I ask is that I have seen several "buddy parents" and their children, and honestly I don't want our child to be anything like them - they're spoiled, they bully others and hit parents and other children. "They're just being children", yeah, and they're six and seven years old! A child hitting an adult or another child shouldn't be tolerated past the age of three (or younger, if possible), so I think it is rediculous to believe that a two minute time-out and a ten second lecture (which is ignored anyway) is enough for these sorts of incidents.

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm honestly trying to understand an opposing view.

Thanks

[maya44]

I have to say that I just disagree with you that telling children that something is wrong is not ennough. You have a child who is not yet one. How do you know that a lecture is ignored. That has not been my experience at all, and I am a much more experienced parent than you.

I am NOT a "buddy parent." I have lots of rules in my home which I don't feel a need to justify to my kids. BUT I also know that expressing your disaproval to kids IS ennough (unless the child has other problems like ADD etc...) Kids really do listen to what you say. You'd be suprised... if you try it and if you don't expect it at a ridcuousy early age (like one ) Before age two, you really have to depend on GENTLE phycial intervention. So if they hit, you take their hand, gently and in a strong and serious voice "NO hitting".

There is a HUGE difference between saying when a child hits "OH they are just being kids" ( and thus not telling your child that what they are doing is wrong) and saying to your child "No hitting" or if they are older "You must not hit. It is wrong and it is not allowed." I said this to my kids when they were little, like around age two (in a strong and serious but calm voice). They really stopped hitting very quickly.

My children are all well behaved. They follow the rules in my house 99 percent of the time. And when they do not, there is NO punishment.

If you want to be a strong parent and REALLY want to use only GD I highly suggest you read "The Secret of Parenting" by Anthony Wolf.

It's subtitle is "How to be in charge of kids today without punishment or threats."

Its method is how I was raised and how my three age 7, 9 and 11 are being raised.

If you just want to justify using punishment, this board is probobly not the right place for you.

[UnschoolnMa]

I am probably a "buddy parent"...though it would depend on the definition of that term I suppose. Hitting has always been strongly discouraged in our home. Do toddlers understand the in depth reasons that it's not okay to hit? No, probably not.. surely not all of them anyway. They are just starting to really wrap their minds around that fact that others have emotions, and needs. They are seeing for the first time that they want some independence. They also often have limited verbal skills to deal with all of that. All of that is what causes behavior like hitting to begin with, IMO.

I think it's important to discuss things with a child on the level he or she understands. A simple "please do not hit. It hurts." works as can "You hit Matthew, and now he is sad/angry because it hurt him/his feelings. Why did you hit him? What can we do." works too. It all just depends on the child and the situation. Not hitting just falls under respecting other people in my book (I do however think hitting to be acceptable in some cases) and we've approached it that way with our children.

I do not believe in punitive time outs, so if that is where you are coming from I totally disagree with that. I'm not sure what more you believe a parent should do with a 2 or 3 year old that has hit someone. To me that age is really just a baby, and because their comprehension is often limited I cannot imagine how scary, and upsetting a time out would be let alone more than that. My family does not punish

[Damien]

You might be misunderstanding me...

I think you might be misunderstanding me. I'm not looking for justification to punish our child(ren), I don't punish our 1 year old and don't believe that any punishment of any sort will make a difference until they are 2-to-3. During that stage I believe they are starting to comprehend that their actions have reactions and I believe it is through this learning that they start pushing their boundaries ("what happens if I knock over the glass of water?" etc).

My questioning I guess comes from the fact that I can't talk with the parents I mentioned in the previous message without them blowing up and accusing me of telling them what to do (long story, involving them being totally passive when one child had a severe reaction to a vaccine). Maybe I figured by posing a question or two here I might be able to understand them better...

By "buddy parent" I mean focusing on being a friend to your child more than a the respected role model / authoritarian that (IMHO) parents should be. For example, when I was growing up my siblings and I weren't given a choice of three things for dinner, the adults cooked food for the family (and others, we lived on a farm with lots of hired hands and had relatives living with us too) and the children ate what was prepared, no debates like I see people doing with their children today.

For the record, we use cloth diapers for our son, he still eats 90-95% breast milk (and will continue to), he sleeps in a 3-sided crib beside us (easy night feedings) and I love him more than life itself. I don't want to beat him, I'm interested in hearing opinions on the rationale behind the timeout-and-talk methodology.

Oh, and I'm also a geek who has to rationalize and scrutinize everything, thus reading, researching and discussing an issue that we won't have to deal with for a few years yet.

[kerc]

I'm not really sure what you're asking...there's a big difference between the ideas behind
"kids just hit sometimes"
"no hitting"
some kind of phrase to express "no hitting" -with a gentle reminder "we use soft hands"
and similarly
"no hitting" -- if you're upset we can do XYZ to express it.

I don't think cloth diapers, breastfeeding, or vaccinating necessarily mean you don't spank your kids. Plenty of mamas here at MDC talk about moving away from spanking as the first option.

[mittendrin]

thanks for being brave and starting this thread on mdc you know you might get stoned...
i agree: i have no clue sometimes if ds (25 mos) understands it when i tell him hitting hurts and makes people sad. honestly, most of the time i think he doesn't know what i'm talking about. it's easy for poeple to say: "of course, my 2 yr old knows exactly what i'm talking about when we're having a discussion about why running on the street could get you killed." but especially at that age when you're starting to have conversations like these there's so many differences in developmental stages in kids. my friend's 2 yo for example is more advanced than my child: you tell her why she can't hit and she gets it. she will forget about it again, but at the moment she understands why it is wrong. my 2 yo just started saying mama and dadda and car...he won't even sit still enough for me to finish my 20 seconds reasoning. no way i'm gonna get us both frustrated by trying to reason with him. a short: "we don't hit other people, please don't do that" imo will do better at the time than a discussion as to why he shouldn't hit. gee, he still eats crayons, once he stops doing that i think i can start reasoning with him

[Butter]

I've seen parents using the talking in depth thing. Rarely does it work. The child learns very early how to tune out mom and dad. Shorter is WAY better.

[UnschoolnMa]

lol I didn't think you wanted to beat him, or at least I really hoped not I can embrace time out only as a "lets do something else for awhile maybe so we can cool off a little". I've never been able to accept it as "you did this wrong. Go take a time out. (Not that you would say that, im just being general lol) I think talking is super important though. Talking about things to our kids is how they learn to develop a vocabulary that expresses what they are feeling. It's how they move from whacking each other to saying "I need space please" or "I am angry/frustrated right now".

I am a buddy parent by your definition. My friendship with my kids is very important to me. I feel that I am a role model, but I am not authoritarian. In our house the kids eat whatever they wish (that we have access to anyway) at any time they want. They do not have to eat dinner, or any other meal for that matter. Further more the kids are in on meal planning anyway. There is no debate over foods because the choice of what to eat is always their own

[Evan&Anna's_Mom]

First, I think you should know that the approach of Rosemond is not generally embraced by most on this board. Taking you at your word that you are interested in "honest discussion", I'll add my 2 cents.

I am not at all interested in being an authoritarian parent. I believe it is possible to be a respected role model without being feared, which seems to be necessary to be "the authority". I don't think I should be my child's best friend either, so I am striving for the middle ground. I think the goals you have as a parent necessarily influence the approach you take to parenting.

To answer your question, I am not sure if my 19 mo. old understands "Please don't hit your brother, hitting hurts. Let's play with this instead." But she does see that gentle, respectful words are the answer to a problem, not physical violence. And somehwere in the next year, she will start to understand more and I will have already established a way to communicate with her that involves mutual respect. I am modeling for her the way I want her to resolve conflicts in the future. And when I say "We don't hurt people" she will believe me because, in fact, we don't hurt people in our home. It is far more important that the members of my family respect each other and work together from that respect than for me to be an authority who is obeyed out of fear.

Now, my 5 YO certainly does understand "please don't throw that because you could hurt your sister" and he will generally comply because he has learned that hurting is not something that we do.

Like all tools, "talking" through issues can be overused or used poorly. Sometimes a gentle hand to restrain a hitting hand is needed, especially before impulse control is learned. Sometimes a child needs to be coached to "take a break and get control of yourself". And a "lecture" any longer than 1 short sentence is totally lost on a small toddler. It is a matter of respecting where your child's development is and knowing what is reasonable and what isn't. That should be true of any discipline choices, though sadly it isn't.

[CindyC]

I notice Rachel does really well when I explain what is going on, but I don't try to reason with her in terms of discipline. She is 2. As DH keeps reminding me, I'm the parent.

Don't people ask their partners what they want to eat for dinner? Why can't we ask a toddler? But you're right, I don't want to be my mom who was practically a short-order cook while we were growing up. But I do give Rachel choices when appropriate.

I think it's all about balance.

BTW, I don't give disciplining advice to other parents.

[Nurturing Mama]

My son is two, and the only discipline methods I've ever used with him are talking and, if necessary, physically helping him do (or not do) whatever it is that I am asking. So far this has worked. He is not spoiled, he is not a bully, and he doesn't hit anymore. He is compassionate and as well behaved as can be expected of a two year old.

A child hitting an adult or another child shouldn't be tolerated past the age of three (or younger, if possible), so I think it is rediculous to believe that a two minute time-out and a ten second lecture (which is ignored anyway) is enough for these sorts of incidents.

I don't think many gentle disciplining parents would tolerate a child hitting. Saying, "They're just being children" and doing nothing is the equivalent to no discipline at all in those circumstances. However, a time out or a reminder to the child is discipline, and is "enough", in my opinion. Anything further, such as spanking, may appeal to the adults' sense of justice, but isn't necessary to teach a child acceptable behavior. And that's what discipline is all about, teaching a child what is and what isn't acceptable behavior.

As for your question, I don't think my two year old is capable of understanding an in depth, one sided discussion of his behavior. I limit myself to a sentence or two to tell him what is expected of him and why it is expected. For example, "We don't hit. Hitting hurts," or "Stop pounding on Grandma's table, pounding can damage the table." When he was younger, around your child's age, my words were accompanied by me physically helping him to stop hitting or pounding, so that even if he didn't understand my words, my meaning was clear. As he gets older, I expect the discussions will become longer and more specific, but for now a couple sentences is working.

Another very useful tool in toddlers is re-direction and helping them to express their feelings in an acceptable manner. For example, I told my son that if he is angry, he can't hit, but he can stomp his feet. Some parents may not tolerate foot stomping, but you get the idea? You can't do x, but you can do y. When the child becomes more verbal, they can be taught to express their feelings verbally.

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by Damien

The reason I ask is that I have seen several "buddy parents" and their children, and honestly I don't want our child to be anything like them - they're spoiled, they bully others and hit parents and other children. "They're just being children", yeah, and they're six and seven years old! A child hitting an adult or another child shouldn't be tolerated past the age of three (or younger, if possible), so I think it is rediculous to believe that a two minute time-out and a ten second lecture (which is ignored anyway) is enough for these sorts of incidents.

I think the people to which you are referring are the example of the extreme--and are not representative of gentle discipline (discipline= to teach--and your example does not include any teaching).

I don't think there is any age at which hitting should be "tolerated", but I also don't believe that there is any age that hitting must be punished--even by a time out (if used punitively).

I believe that hitting at any age must be *addressed. That is where the words--and maybe a hand to stop the hitting, and maybe removing the child for a "break" (nonpunitive timeout) to calm down with gentle reassurance--come in. All of these tools model to the child how to act, what to do when they feel out of control, what is appropriate and inappropriate. All of this is teaching: discipline.

I have a 3 yo who is sometimes aggressive (in certain situations). When she aggressive with friends, my approach is increased supervision. I remain in eyeshot or earshot to moniter the situation, and *help* her when I can tell that things are getting tense, and trouble is looming. That way, I can step in before she hits (I know her well enough to know when she will), and give her the tools to navigate the stressful situation without violence.

My dd knows that hitting is wrong. She knows that it hurts. She gets it. But she still hits sometimes.

I trust my child's intentions. I *know* that when she hits, it is because she has not developed the tools (cognition, patience, negotiation, effective communication) to handle the situation more appropriately. She is literally out of ideas, so she falls back on hitting. Punishing her would not teach her *how* to handle that situation better in the future, and she would be left with the choice of hitting and being punished, or stuffing her emotions and being a doormat. GD, otoh, is teaching her how to express limits clearly and get her needs met in a nonviolent manner.

[Damien]

Authoritarian doesn't have to mean fear

Originally Posted by Evan&Anna's_Mom

I am not at all interested in being an authoritarian parent. I believe it is possible to be a respected role model without being feared, which seems to be necessary to be "the authority".

To be authoritarian you just have to emphasise that you have the ultimate control over what happens in any given situation. Your children are still children therefore simply do not know how to act for every given situation (not that parents do either, but they've atleast had some maturing) and need to be both guided and instructed in the correct behaviour. Fear doesn't and shouldn't be involved, but children should also understand that if you give them an instruction that it isn't optional or to be debated.

Originally Posted by Evan&Anna's_Mom

To answer your question, I am not sure if my 19 mo. old understands "Please don't hit your brother, hitting hurts. Let's play with this instead."

I can understand that, your child still isn't completely in control of their actions and decisions, versus, say, a five-year-old that does the same thing.

Originally Posted by Evan&Anna's_Mom

It is far more important that the members of my family respect each other and work together from that respect than for me to be an authority who is obeyed out of fear.

Again you're linking fear with authoritarian and they don't/shouldn't be linked.

Originally Posted by Evan&Anna's_Mom

Like all tools, "talking" through issues can be overused or used poorly. Sometimes a gentle hand to restrain a hitting hand is needed, especially before impulse control is learned.

That's what we do with our ~1yr DS who has a tendency to flail his arms in excitement. Its slowly working.

[heartmama]

Damien wrote:
"To be authoritarian you just have to emphasise that you have the ultimate control over what happens in any given situation."


Damien I think the first step in seeing the fault in this kind of parenting, is seeing a certain degree of fantasy and ego involved in thinking that a parent, somehow, magically, has the wisdom to always know best.

A good way to do this is to look back at your own childhood. You can probably think of a few instances where your parents could have understood a situation better had they not assumed immediately that they alone knew best. You can probably think of an instance where they overreacted, rushed to judgement, made an incorrect assumption...surely they were not perfect Damien and I'm sure you can remember examples of that.

What this led me to realize was that while I may know what is best for myself most of the time, and for my child in some instances, I really don't know what is best for them all of the time. I can't know that, and neither can you. Can you always know what is best for anyone? No, you'd have to be a mind reader, and be able to see the future, to always know best.

I think it takes a certain amount of humility to realize that authoritarian parents tend to think *too* highly of their own opinions, and to confuse opinions with fact, when the only satisfaction in doing so is to have things their own way.

Is there an opposite extreme? Yes, I have known parents who have so little self discipline and self respect, that they simply cannot set boundaries, or problem solve, to any degree of effectiveness as a parent. They either ignore a behavior entirely, or they over react to everything. Maybe this describes your friends?

You don't have to think in terms of "authoritarian" or "buddy" types of parents.

I will post more in a few hours, I have to run...

[andi_3k]

I can embrace time out only as a "lets do something else for awhile maybe so we can cool off a little". I've never been able to accept it as "you did this wrong. Go take a time out.

I don't like the punitive aspect of it, either, but I will send kids to sit down and cool off. Usually saying something like "Colden, you seem to be having problems with anger right now, please sit with me while you get yourself under control, then we can talk about what is making you angry."
When he can use words ( Colden is 3.5) and explain to me what is making him so angry we address that.
It does work with most kids....I have only seen one child it didn't and he was so out of controll he hit folks randomly... from his grandmother to the 1 year old neighbour girl. You didn't even have to be interacting with him, or indeed looking at him..he is an extreem, and I am sure there are other issues going on there, most kids will respond to being treated with respect.
I do think there is a place for "NO"...but the are safety issues and I do say "because that can hurt you/others."
If I am in a house that does not have children or a house where the rules are different, I expect the kids to deal with and respect the rules of that house and tell them that "In this house things are different, and we don't do XYZ here." It works...they may not like the changes in rules but they learn what is acceptable in other homes and learn to respect their rules.

[zipperump-a-zoomum]

Originally Posted by Damien

To be authoritarian you just have to emphasise that you have the ultimate control over what happens in any given situation. Your children are still children therefore simply do not know how to act for every given situation (not that parents do either, but they've atleast had some maturing) and need to be both guided and instructed in the correct behaviour. Fear doesn't and shouldn't be involved, but children should also understand that if you give them an instruction that it isn't optional or to be debated.

(Bold mine)

I have not read the book, but I can tell you that as it is phrased here I strongly disagree with your basic premise. I believe that beginning your parenting from this premise sets you up to engage in all sorts of power struggles with your child. I believe that parents do not have the ultimate control over what happens in any given situation, and as a child ages and realizes this they will fight this assumption every chance they get.

My personal philosophy- begin from a place of respect. Respect my child for the individual he now is, and the person he is learning to be.
Kaly
PS- I think I love you UnschoolnMa

[Nurturing Mama]

Expanding on what Zipperump-a-zoomum said, I would worry about a child's sense of self when a parent exerts ultimate control over every situation. I think that children should be raised with an end result in mind. In other words, I am not raising a little boy, I am raising a person who will grow up to be a man, and when I think of qualities I want my son to possess as an adult, obedience is not one of them. I want him to question authority, even if it means he will question my authority sometimes. Hopefully our strong attachment and his deep sense of trust in me will mean that he won't question me too often on his journey to adulthood.

[LoveBeads]

Originally Posted by heartmama

Damien wrote:
"To be authoritarian you just have to emphasise that you have the ultimate control over what happens in any given situation."


Damien I think the first step in seeing the fault in this kind of parenting, is seeing a certain degree of fantasy and ego involved in thinking that a parent, somehow, magically, has the wisdom to always know best.

A good way to do this is to look back at your own childhood. You can probably think of a few instances where your parents could have understood a situation better had they not assumed immediately that they alone knew best. You can probably think of an instance where they overreacted, rushed to judgement, made an incorrect assumption...surely they were not perfect Damien and I'm sure you can remember examples of that.

What this led me to realize was that while I may know what is best for myself most of the time, and for my child in some instances, I really don't know what is best for them all of the time. I can't know that, and neither can you. Can you always know what is best for anyone? No, you'd have to be a mind reader, and be able to see the future, to always know best.

I think it takes a certain amount of humility to realize that authoritarian parents tend to think *too* highly of their own opinions, and to confuse opinions with fact, when the only satisfaction in doing so is to have things their own way.

Is there an opposite extreme? Yes, I have known parents who have so little self discipline and self respect, that they simply cannot set boundaries, or problem solve, to any degree of effectiveness as a parent. They either ignore a behavior entirely, or they over react to everything. Maybe this describes your friends?

You don't have to think in terms of "authoritarian" or "buddy" types of parents.

I will post more in a few hours, I have to run...

I would love to add to this but heartmama said it all, and beautifully!

[wasabi]

Gosh my parents were such authoritarians and I despised them for it. I don't want to be that kind of parent for my Dd. That said she is a very exuberant 2 year old. She is also bigger than a lot of kids her age and can get rough without even realizing it. In very rare situations she does hit other kids and she hits us her parents as well. Due to several ear infections she is not incredibly verbal so I can't ask her why she hit someone. As far as I can tell by observing her she does not do it because she is angry but because she's experimenting sort of a cause and effect type of thing. I always tell her short and to the point that we do not hit. That it makes me sad etc. She may not understand it yet but she understands that I am not happy with what she did. If her friend is crying she has some concept that something has gone wrong. Over time especially as she develops empathy she will understand when I tell her not to hit but I'm setting the groundwork now. I will never just sit by while she hits someone and say "she's just being a kid." She is just being a kid but she's just being a kid who needs to learn she can't hit people.

[UnschoolnMa]

Ziperump-a-zoomum wrote:
I believe that parents do not have the ultimate control over what happens in any given situation, and as a child ages and realizes this they will fight this assumption every chance they get.

I agree with this. So much is not in our hands, and rightly so. I am not suggesting that we should overlook our 4 yr olds running around the backyard in a tinfoil hat in a lightening storm carrying butcher knives or anything. That would be a safety (and a whopper at that lol) issue. But everyday life presents much less extreme situations on a regular basis. I am honest with my kids that I don't always have the right answers, and I don't always know what is best. However they do know that I try to do what is
fair, and respectful and that I seek their input. Besides, I know they are going to be out and about eventually without me around and I'd like them to be able to work on their inner right/wrong making skills long before then.

My personal philosophy- begin from a place of respect. Respect my child for the individual he now is, and the person he is learning to be.

Yes, yes, and yes again!

PS- I think I love you UnschoolnMa
Aww, very kind of you. Really though, I've enjoyed reading you as well!