Originally Posted by hippymomma69
I think if you accept that no one else can make us feel anything, it is incorrect to say or imply that "because you did/didn't do X mommy is disappointed." It would be more accurate to instead say something like "when you don't help me, I feel disappointed because I was hoping to finish quickly so I could start dinner (or because I was looking forward to helping you organize your room or whatever the reason you had that expectation)" Then you could add "because I didn't have help I need some help from you to chop the onions if I'm going to get dinner on time" - or whatever. THat way you take responsibility for your own feelings/expectations and instead let the child in on your thought/feeling process. But it's important to draw a clear line between why you feel this way and their actions.
This makes much more sense to me, and doesn't sound as nearly verbally coercive as what my dad does with us.
What is the name of the book (and author)? I'm going to check it out, it sounds interesting.
Originally Posted by monkey's mom
If you're view the kid as needing saving from "the world," then you might be more focused on exerting control over "the world"/NOT her.
Like if I had superhuman strength in the truck scenario, I'd rather block the truck than have to shove someone out of the way. But, I can't so I gotta move the body.
And here's the thing. I don't have control over the world, and I likely never will (though I do have twisted fantasies of it every now and then
). How I would love for my daughter to remain unscathed while I take care of all the "big ouches" with the twitch of my nose, but that will never happen. All I can do is protect her until she of an age and ability to look out for herself, all while I communicate and model safety and good health.
|But, it just gets me out of that "it's for your own good" kind of mentality that can get kind of muddy and more coercive.
I've never liked this train of thought. It seems controlling, and is a manipulative way for parents to absolve themselves from any responsibility in how they raise and shape their kids. When your child comes to you in 20 years with social issues and reflects upon how they were treated as a child, the "it was for your own good" is an under handed way of saying "I did it for you, so are you going to blame *me* for how you turned out"? I am dealing with this very thing in my adult life, and it's what motivates me to be as fair, objective, neutral, and non-coercive as possible. But I think protecting children from themselves, and being manipulative and controlling in the name of "doing it for their own good" are completely different. At least based on my life experiences. Keeping my daughter away from the road IS for her own good. Forcing her to eat iron-rich nutritious spinach at dinner even though she's in tears is NOT for her own good. One is protection, the other is just controlling.
But I do strive for harmony in my house, and that happens when everyone is happy, when everyone has their needs met, and when everyone feels equally acknowledged (me, hubby, and baby... and three dogs and a cat
However, I still don't identify with consensual living because in our house, at some point or another someone has to make a compromise and humbly live with it.
I don't know, maybe I'm missing the bigger picture. I'm going to check out that book and I'll get back to you.