or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Gentle Discipline › Questions for non-coercive mamas
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Questions for non-coercive mamas - Page 4

post #61 of 173
Quote:
I'm sure that my post will garner plenty of responses indicating that the world needs to sit back and wonder at the whimsy of a child in a doorway, instead of hustling and bustling to and fro. But frankly, that's not on most folks' agenda, and it shouldn't have to be. Holding up for twenty seconds while a woman gives her daughter a chance to move on her own? Sure. But sitting there for "two long minutes" isn't reasonable.

I just don't see the value in so-called non-coercive parenting if it comes at the expense of everybody else's needs.
I think you are reading a lot into her post that simply isn't there. I am pretty sure she didn't have a stopwatch to time exactly how long she was in the doorway, but dealing with a fussing baby in an awkward situation can feel like 2 long minutes even if it is only 20 seconds

And who is expecting the world to sit back and wonder at the whimsy of a child? Might be nice, but not very realistic.

If you don't see the value of it then why are you here? Just to criticize, or to ask honest questions? I can understand the latter, questioning things is great. Asking questions is a lot more helpful than just being critical
post #62 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ks Mama View Post

Edited to add: I guess the key sticking point here is the 2 minute wait. Perhaps I exaggerated the wait time as my son was fussing, I was anxious about him being in his carseat already, and didn't want to get into a power struggle with my daughter. It may have only been a minute. The point being that when I stepped in to move her, it had just gotten to the point of feeling awkward, yet the man was still smiling. And the thing is too, he could have stepped by her at any point in time - the doorway was wide enough - he likely just felt rude about having to walk by her, having a child himself, he obviously understood what was going on - I told him to go ahead around her. I just really didn't want to have to physically move her. I don't like doing it, and it never turns out well - because she's obviously required to acquiese to whatever it is I'm asking - whether it is the right thing or not - and it takes power away from her. I don't like power being taken from me, so I don't like doing it to her.

Just doing something because you CAN doesn't make it the right thing to do or the right way to do it.
ok, fine, I understand your POV a little better now.

still, I don't see the big deal.

Just the other day, we were at a social event. DH was busy talking and didn't notice a server coming up behind him bearing a big tray. The server needed to get by, but DH was oblivious. I reached over and tugged on his arm, said "let her by, ok?", and gently pulled him out of the server's way.

No harm done. No big deal. Nobody was scarred for life.

I suppose I could have sat there and brainstormed other ways of getting him to move, but what would have been the point? It would have taken longer and surely would have frustrated at least one of the three people in the equation (me, DH, server).

Yeah, maybe I *coerced* him into moving. So what?

I would do the EXACT same thing with my two year old daughter, and I fail to see why it would be more appropriate to go through a series of negotiation or other verbal gymnastics to get her to move.

I understand the concept of not being coercive with children, but situations like this just feel like extreme over-thinking of one's parenting. Sometimes you just gotta get out of the way, you know?
post #63 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRangeMama View Post

If you don't see the value of it then why are you here? Just to criticize, or to ask honest questions? I can understand the latter, questioning things is great. Asking questions is a lot more helpful than just being critical
I actually do see the value of non-coercive parenting. It's a concept I learned from MDC, and I try to practice it as much as makes logical sense to me. I like reading these threads and getting new ideas that I think will work for my family.

But I truly, honestly do not understand the lengths at which some parents will go to avoid ever having to flat out say "no, don't do that" to their children, even if it means their children are now inconveniencing others. I don't get THAT one bit, and I can't wrap my brain around it.
post #64 of 173
>>Just the other day, we were at a social event. DH was busy talking and didn't notice a server coming up behind him bearing a big tray. The server needed to get by, but DH was oblivious. I reached over and tugged on his arm, said "let her by, ok?", and gently pulled him out of the server's way.

No harm done. No big deal. Nobody was scarred for life. <<


Your husband understands what was going on from years of experience of people's reactions, social awareness, etc. A 2-year old doesn't know those things yet, heck, she has only been walking for a year & a half, and talking for a year (to put things in perspective), so just moving her without allowing her to understand the situation first & at least offer the choice to move first, before I just exert myself on her isn't giving her the opportunity to grow. Sure it won't scar her for life, but there's no reason NOT to give her the benefit of the doubt.

>>I suppose I could have sat there and brainstormed other ways of getting him to move, but what would have been the point? It would have taken longer and surely would have frustrated at least one of the three people in the equation (me, DH, server).

Yeah, maybe I *coerced* him into moving. So what?<<

But again, its your adult husband. He has the ability, without you explaining during or afterwards, to understand the situation.


>>I would do the EXACT same thing with my two year old daughter, and I fail to see why it would be more appropriate to go through a series of negotiation or other verbal gymnastics to get her to move.<<

Because its fair, and it teaches her that she has equal value to the people around her, and empowers her to be able to make the right choice.

And maybe you have a daughter who doesn't have a problem with being pushed out of the way. My daughter DOES have a problem with that - she would & does physically resist, and it wasn't something I could easily do with bags & another child, so I was trying to avoid that situation with giving my daughter the chance to move under her own power. Have I physically moved my 2 year old while holding my 2 month old & my bags while she strongly resists? Yes, I have, and its not a situation that I like to repeat if she can figure out a way to move on her own.


>>I understand the concept of not being coercive with children, but situations like this just feel like extreme over-thinking of one's parenting. Sometimes you just gotta get out of the way, you know?<<

Yeah, I do know. Because really, the reason I posted in the first place was because I realize & understand that sometimes there ARE times when you need to get moving, and there ARE other people involved, and you have to move. And in reading some of the other responses, perhaps I should have been more creative than "would you like to hold my keys" in making the moving out of the doorway (or out of wherever it is we have to move from) choice more interesting. So maybe I brought the power struggle on myself, and could have handled it better. I probably need to work on my creativity & interesting ways to get my toddler out of the way. But just moving her because I know she needs to move, without giving her the chance, isn't the way I operate.
post #65 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinaKat View Post
I actually do see the value of non-coercive parenting. It's a concept I learned from MDC, and I try to practice it as much as makes logical sense to me. I like reading these threads and getting new ideas that I think will work for my family.

But I truly, honestly do not understand the lengths at which some parents will go to avoid ever having to flat out say "no, don't do that" to their children, even if it means their children are now inconveniencing others. I don't get THAT one bit, and I can't wrap my brain around it.
I have to agree with this. I so badly want my daughter to grow up knowing she has freedom of choice, and to know that she is in control of her life, but I question the lengths I have to go to send her that message. Letting poop leak out of her diaper because she doesn't want to be changed? I'm not willing to go that far. It's a matter of hygiene in my opinion, and since a 16 month old is too young to make decisions for her own health and safety I have to do it for her, and that means changing a diaper when she doesn't want to be changed. Do I make it fun an enjoyable by playing games and singing songs? Absolutely. Will I let a pee pee diaper wait longer because she's wiggly? Absolutely. I don't hog tie her to change table. But I just cannot understand for the life of me how allowing feces to leak all over one's house is going to instill freedom of choice in their child. :

Do those who believe in non-coercion also believe that children are capable of reasoning in the same manner as adults? I don't know how else to think of it, but as much as I respect my child and try to accommodate her wants and needs as much as possible, there are just some things that she, as a 15 month old, is not capable of discerning as safe or appropriate, and by golly, if "coercion" is the word you wanna use, then I guess I'm a coercive parent.
post #66 of 173
Quote:
Do those who believe in non-coercion also believe that children are capable of reasoning in the same manner as adults?
Which adults? Bush? Hussein? Paris Hilton? Tom Cruise? Evil Knievel? The American Medical Association? The OBs? The CDC? The FDA? The Big Pharmaceutical companies? The Oil Companies?

My goal is creating *mutually agreeable solutions*, rather than non-coercion. The focus is on negotiation and consideration. That is what I DO want to model and practice.


Pat
post #67 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by WuWei View Post
Which adults? Bush? Hussein? Paris Hilton? Tom Cruise? Evil Knievel? The American Medical Association? The OBs? The CDC? The FDA? The Big Pharmaceutical companies? The Oil Companies?
I'm assuming this is some sort of sarcasm, but I'm sorry, I don't understand it. I was asking a genuine question and don't understand the snark. What does Bush and Saddam Hussein have to do with my question?

To make my question more understandable, as I obviously was not clear enough, let's go back to the 2 year old in the door way...

So, if your two year old is blocking the door way and holding people up because she doesn't understand it's socially unacceptable to be in people's way when there is only one exit, instead of just clearing the child from the door way to begin with, why would you go to great lengths in getting the child to move under her own power if you didn't think she was capable of reasoning like that of a person who is socially aware (aka, an adult)? At 2 years old she doesn't know that it's impolite to block the only exit while people stand there patiently holding their goods. What do you do? It would seem to me that by not intervening in an attempt to encourage the child to move on their own will is imposing adult reasoning and social awareness onto a child who is incapable of understanding that what they're doing is impolite and inconvenient to other people.

I just think that "mutually agreeable" has so many variations and interpretations that in my world it WOULD be mutually agreeable to scoop my child up while telling her that we need to keep the door ways clear.

What does a non-coercive parent do when their child is obstructing the general public? Or is about to engage in a dangerous activity? I find it hard to believe that life will always be mutually agreeable with a child when they simply don't know right from wrong, safe from dangerous, socially acceptable from unacceptable, etc.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just don't get it.
post #68 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ks mama
Your husband understands what was going on from years of experience of people's reactions, social awareness, etc. A 2-year old doesn't know those things yet...
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Of_60
Do those who believe in non-coercion also believe that children are capable of reasoning in the same manner as adults? I don't know how else to think of it, but as much as I respect my child and try to accommodate her wants and needs as much as possible, there are just some things that she, as a 15 month old, is not capable of discerning as safe or appropriate, and by golly, if "coercion" is the word you wanna use, then I guess I'm a coercive parent.
I can never reconcile those two things in my mind either, No60. On one hand, you have people saying that the kids don't have the experiences, cognitive ability, etc. of adults and therefore shouldn't be expected to react to situations the way an adult would, but on the other hand, it seems like the same people are saying that we should treat our kids exactly the way we'd treat another adult, by always respecting their desires as valid options in a given scenario. But ... if they shouldn't be expected to reason the way an adult does, then why should we interact with them as though they're fully on our level?

I dunno -- I accepted long ago that I'll never fully understand this concept, and decided that I'm comfortable and happy with my parenting style, which includes some level of coercion.
post #69 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by WuWei View Post
Which adults? Bush? Hussein? Paris Hilton? Tom Cruise? Evil Knievel? The American Medical Association? The OBs? The CDC? The FDA? The Big Pharmaceutical companies? The Oil Companies?
Pat you are so funny LOL

So here's a new question....what about when you have a very stubborn 3 yo who likes to control a few key people (oh, say.....mommy!)? How do you come to a solution that makes us both happy?

A specific example is, sometimes I like to sing to myself or to the baby and my DD can't STAND it if I'm not singing something "approved" by her. How do I teach her about where her desires end and mine begin? I mean I could just give in because it's less important to me to sing than her to scream. Or I can sing over her screaming....but a logical discussion is NOT helping my low verbal child understand that other people have a right to sing if they want to....she only seems to get that either she or I will "get our way" in this one....how do I power down the standoff?

Any suggestions?!

tia
peace,
robyn
post #70 of 173
I think when people are throwing out phrases like, "scarred for life," or "will go to any lengths," there's kind of a misunderstanding.

I don't think most of us think that one episode of changing diaper against a child's will or moving them out of the way is going to do some serious long term damage. And I don't think any of us are standing there wringing our hands in distress at how to avoid that.

But there is an overall goal to approach things in a way so that those episodes (which most parents wouldn't even consider to be problematic) don't happen day in and day out over weeks, months, years.

But, sometimes there are stumpers, you know? And that's what I got from the mama with the kid in the doorway's post. Just, "Here's a situation that I didn't have a quick solution to and wondering if I missed something obvious."
post #71 of 173
I agree with you limabean and North of 60: I don't understand how one can necessarily "reason" with a toddler when the ability to reason comes from experience and toddlers simply don't have that experience. It's been my experience that toddlers often do things for no particular reason except to do it and that can include destructive things. Taking time for a "mutually agreeable solutions" can work in many and maybe even in most cases but not in all cases. If my DD wants to eat only candy for dinner and she insists on it and I don't want to give her candy, there is no mutually agreeable solution to that. And in the end she will not get candy. If that's coercion then I'm in the coercion club.
As I see it, one of the points of parenting (out of many) is to protect them from themselves. Sometimes children are incapable of reasoning and thus you have tantrums. How do stop a tantrum and try to find a "mutually agreeable solution" for that situation?

BTW, I also don't see the point of bringing up Saddam Hussein, the FDA, ect. That kind of response is not what I hope for on a forum in which adults talk and discuss with each other about something really important to them: their children.
post #72 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by verde View Post
BTW, I also don't see the point of bringing up Saddam Hussein, the FDA, ect. That kind of response is not what I hope for on a forum in which adults talk and discuss with each other about something really important to them: their children.
Oh the irony... (being a GD forum and all )
post #73 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Of_60 View Post

What does a non-coercive parent do when their child is obstructing the general public? Or is about to engage in a dangerous activity? I find it hard to believe that life will always be mutually agreeable with a child when they simply don't know right from wrong, safe from dangerous, socially acceptable from unacceptable, etc.

I think these are honest questions, and I wonder about this as well.

Also, what about situations regarding housework, cleaning, tidying-up...etc. I expect my dd (7) to respect her things (put her clothes, toys away...etc), and also, to respect the fact that Mama has *stuff* to do, of the domestic variety. Sometimes the things she wants to do will have to be put on hold because I have responsibilities, yk?

What's a mutually-agreeable solution to this?
post #74 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Of_60 View Post
I'm assuming this is some sort of sarcasm, but I'm sorry, I don't understand it. I was asking a genuine question and don't understand the snark. What does Bush and Saddam Hussein have to do with my question?
I'm not sure exactly what Pat meant, but I took it as a "questioning" of the standard we hold up of "adults are capable of reason." Some adults don't seem all that capable, you know? Just a challenge of the conventional wisdom--and maybe a challenge of the conv. wisdom that kids aren't capable of reason, too. Pat's pretty "snark-free," as it were.


Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Of_60 View Post
So, if your two year old is blocking the door way and holding people up because she doesn't understand it's socially unacceptable to be in people's way when there is only one exit, instead of just clearing the child from the door way to begin with, why would you go to great lengths in getting the child to move under her own power if you didn't think she was capable of reasoning like that of a person who is socially aware (aka, an adult)? At 2 years old she doesn't know that it's impolite to block the only exit while people stand there patiently holding their goods. What do you do? It would seem to me that by not intervening in an attempt to encourage the child to move on their own will is imposing adult reasoning and social awareness onto a child who is incapable of understanding that what they're doing is impolite and inconvenient to other people.
I guess it's b/c that's how I want them to learn about reasoning and politeness. Just like I don't expect them to understand about the electric wall sockets, but that doesn't mean that I just smack their hands away every time they get close. I imagine other people think we, GDers, go to insane lengths when we talk about moving furniture to cover the outlets or distracting with a toy each time or saying, "Ouch, baby, that can hurt you!" or whatever it is we do.

Explaining to the child that they're in the way or being impolite or that the wall outlet can zap you might not get through to them if they're very young or they don't have the impulse control to stop themselves, but it lays a foundation of dialogue and giving explanations for our actions.

Eventually it starts to make sense to them and you can get more sophisticated from there. But if you aren't trying to reason with them or explain things to them at an early age, you might never know how early they can get it. Like being sure that your baby can't walk yet so you never put her down. I've been very humbled by what I thought my kids could "get" and how much they exceed those expectations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Of_60 View Post
I just think that "mutually agreeable" has so many variations and interpretations that in my world it WOULD be mutually agreeable to scoop my child up while telling her that we need to keep the door ways clear.
And it might be. Your kid might have no problem with that. But some kids don't like to be touched. Or moved--like the above mama's kiddo. So what then? I saw a post in another forum about a kid who didn't like the sound of pages being turned! That family's life and solutions are probably going to look very different than mine! I don't think it hurts to do a little collective brainstorming for cooperative solutions to situations with kids like this. I don't think any of us are ever going to get it perfect every time, but it doesn't hurt to try to move closer to less adversarial encounters with our families.

Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Of_60 View Post
What does a non-coercive parent do when their child is obstructing the general public? Or is about to engage in a dangerous activity?
If my child is obstructing I just point out what's happening, "Ooops, Buddy, watch out behind you there," or ask him to move over or something. If something were going on with him where he literally would not move, *depending on the situation* I would probably crouch down next to him and put my hand on him and say, "Hey. What's going on? This person is trying to get by. Let's move over here." and I would try to connect with the person we were blocking with a, "I'm sorry. Would you please excuse us?" If my kid still wasn't moving (which is just pure conjecture on my part, b/c I really can't think of a situation where that's happened), I would physically move him while telling him, "Listen. We gotta move over. Look. That person needs to get by." and I would excuse us to the other person again and apologize. And probably ask, "Woah. What's up with that?" or bring it up later and see what was going on. But, that conversation would include the information that it was NOT cool and that that person was inconvenienced by us, and I'd try to call up a time where he had been blocked by someone and didn't like it.

If he were about to engage in some dangerous activity like stepping in front of a car or grabbing a knife I would do whatever I had to do to pull him back or keep him safe. And then I would say, "Oh my god!! Are you OK? You almost just got REALLY hurt! You can't just walk into the street/grab a knife/jump off the roof/etc. like that! Oh my goodness! Are you OK? Did I scare you? I'm sorry I had to grab you like that, but that was REALLY scary for me! You OK? OK. Whew...let's just take a minute to catch our breaths. Wow. Sorry about that, huh?" I've said some variation of that a few times! I just really try convey that it's all about looking out for each other and then quickly talking about what to do next time. Even if he thought I'd over-reacted he's always gotten that I was scared and acting with his best interest in mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hippymomma69 View Post
A specific example is, sometimes I like to sing to myself or to the baby and my DD can't STAND it if I'm not singing something "approved" by her. How do I teach her about where her desires end and mine begin? I mean I could just give in because it's less important to me to sing than her to scream. Or I can sing over her screaming....but a logical discussion is NOT helping my low verbal child understand that other people have a right to sing if they want to....she only seems to get that either she or I will "get our way" in this one....how do I power down the standoff?
I recall this phase. I don't know...if you were working in an office in a cubicle would it be OK with you to sing despite the person next to you objecting? Maybe you could ask her what songs she wouldn't mind hearing and go from there? Or just say, "Hmmm....I notice that you don't like it when I sing sometimes. What can we do, b/c I *really* like to sing?" See what she says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
Also, what about situations regarding housework, cleaning, tidying-up...etc. I expect my dd (7) to respect her things (put her clothes, toys away...etc), and also, to respect the fact that Mama has *stuff* to do, of the domestic variety. Sometimes the things she wants to do will have to be put on hold because I have responsibilities, yk?

What's a mutually-agreeable solution to this?
Something that you and she agree upon.

Seriously, though....who knows? What might be OK for someone might not work for another. What might be agreeable to my kid might not be to your kid. I can suggest a bunch of stuff you *could* try, but generally those come back down the road as, "Yeah, those crazy people told me I should just forget about getting anything done and let the roaches take over," so I dunno....

You could try reading here: http://sandradodd.com/chores. It helped me a lot w/ regards to housework stuff.

Maybe start a thread on it? Or what does your daughter say? She's old enough to have some cool ideas, I bet.
post #75 of 173
My point is that "reasonable" is a subjective judgment, imo. According to each individual's priorities, values, interests, focus, desires, needs, etc., both adult's and children's awareness of another's needs may be limited or imposing without awareness or intention. I consider each person's own values for himself equally valid, irrelevant of age. I can voice my needs as requests, but I desire not to impose my needs on others without their agreement. I fully understand that others, including most parents (and children) do not share this same value or practice. Neither do many "reasonable" public members of society. Therefore, I don't expect either the man waiting, nor the child obstructing the doorway to share the same definition of "reasonable". I can help each become aware of the other's perspective (or mine when I am impacted); but I don't feel comfortable imposing my own view upon either.

Discussions regarding CL-specific issues are requested to be addressed within the Tribe Forum or CL yahoogroup.


Pat
post #76 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post
I'm not sure exactly what Pat meant, but I took it as a "questioning" of the standard we hold up of "adults are capable of reason." Some adults don't seem all that capable, you know? Just a challenge of the conventional wisdom--and maybe a challenge of the conv. wisdom that kids aren't capable of reason, too. Pat's pretty "snark-free," as it were.
And in the context of our children, by adult I mean us, the parents, not some random adult who may or may not know how to reason. :

Quote:
Explaining to the child that they're in the way or being impolite or that the wall outlet can zap you might not get through to them if they're very young or they don't have the impulse control to stop themselves, but it lays a foundation of dialog and giving explanations for our actions.
Exactly. But, why can't you do that while taking your child's hand and gently guiding them to side and out of people's way, or away from the wall socket and toward something more appropriate to play with?

Quote:
If my child is obstructing I just point out what's happening, "Ooops, Buddy, watch out behind you there," or ask him to move over or something. If something were going on with him where he literally would not move, *depending on the situation* I would probably crouch down next to him and put my hand on him and say, "Hey. What's going on? This person is trying to get by. Let's move over here." and I would try to connect with the person we were blocking with a, "I'm sorry. Would you please excuse us?" If my kid still wasn't moving (which is just pure conjecture on my part, b/c I really can't think of a situation where that's happened), I would physically move him while telling him, "Listen. We gotta move over. Look. That person needs to get by." and I would excuse us to the other person again and apologize.
Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the effort to communicate and get children interested in making good choices for themselves, but I still don't get this... aside from those children who don't like to be touched (be it autism, sensory issues, or what have you), why is it inappropriate to have that conversation while gently moving your child out the way - either by the hand, picking them up, a hand on their back, etc?

I do this kind of thing every single day in my own home... while sweeping up as she plays in the dust pile, her climbing into the fridge every time I open it, running a few laps of tag around the car before we get buckled in, etc. But, in public, I get uncomfortable at the thought of holding people up because my toddler doesn't want to stay by my side, or wants to pull things off the shelf and roll soup cans into an old woman's foot (and she has done that.. lol), or what ever. And I fully admit that my naiveté may be due to DD's age, I don't know.

Quote:
And probably ask, "Woah. What's up with that?" or bring it up later and see what was going on.
What do you do with preverbal children who aren't capable of going back to that, like with my almost 16 month old?
post #77 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post
If my child is obstructing I just point out what's happening, "Ooops, Buddy, watch out behind you there," or ask him to move over or something. If something were going on with him where he literally would not move, *depending on the situation* I would probably crouch down next to him and put my hand on him and say, "Hey. What's going on? This person is trying to get by. Let's move over here." and I would try to connect with the person we were blocking with a, "I'm sorry. Would you please excuse us?" If my kid still wasn't moving (which is just pure conjecture on my part, b/c I really can't think of a situation where that's happened), I would physically move him while telling him, "Listen. We gotta move over. Look. That person needs to get by." ...

...

If he were about to engage in some dangerous activity like stepping in front of a car or grabbing a knife I would do whatever I had to do to pull him back or keep him safe. And then I would say, "Oh my god!! Are you OK? You almost just got REALLY hurt! You can't just walk into the street/grab a knife/jump off the roof/etc. like that! Oh my goodness! Are you OK? Did I scare you? I'm sorry I had to grab you like that, but that was REALLY scary for me!...
Thanks for your thoughtful response, but the two examples above jumped out at me as having physical coercion as an end solution if your child does not find your earlier suggestions mutually agreeable. I think your dialogue in the how-to-get-a-kid-to-move example above is pretty much what any of us GD moms would do -- I'm pretty sure that none of us would just wordlessly shove our kid out of the way without offering them some kind of chance to do it themselves first. I think people's confusion comes about when confronted with people who claim to *never* use physical coercion no matter what the situation (possibly barring dangerous situations like those in your 2nd paragraph above).
post #78 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by WuWei View Post
I can voice my needs as requests, but I desire not to impose my needs on others without their agreement. I fully understand that others, including most parents (and children) do not share this same value or practice. Neither do many "reasonable" public members of society. Therefore, I don't expect either the man waiting, nor the child obstructing the doorway to share the same definition of "reasonable". I can help each become aware of the other's perspective (or mine when I am impacted); but I don't feel comfortable imposing my own view upon either.
And making people wait is not an imposition? : I guess I too am reconciling that this will never be my style of parenting, as I think it is a huge imposition of your beliefs on those around you to allow your child to obstruct the way because helping them move is coercive.

Thanx for the information. I got a couple of links and some key words to google, so I'll read up on it more, but I don't imagine my input is of any interest to those dedicated to this way of life.
post #79 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by WuWei View Post
My point is that "reasonable" is a subjective judgment, imo. According to each individual's priorities, values, interests, focus, desires, needs, etc., both adult's and children's awareness of another's needs may be limited or imposing without awareness or intention. I consider each person's own values for himself equally valid, irrelevant of age.
Pat
So Saddam, Bush, the parent of the child, the child themselves... all equally valid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WuWei View Post
Discussions regarding CL-specific issues are requested to be addressed within the Tribe Forum or CL yahoogroup.Pat
I find this confusing given this thread resurfaced when YOU bumped it and restarted the conversation. Perhaps someone could clarify. I'm fine with keeping the CL discussion to the tribe forum or yahoogroup, but I've noticed a trend that this ONLY happens after people start asking specific questions or pointing out potential inconsistencies in the philosophy.
post #80 of 173
Quote:
Discussions regarding CL-specific issues are requested to be addressed within the Tribe Forum or CL yahoogroup.
My understanding is this is "for organizational purposes".

Pat
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Gentle Discipline
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Gentle Discipline › Questions for non-coercive mamas