What all is Non-negotiable? - Page 3

[ambdkf]

Originally Posted by johub

No certainly that is not it at all.

Well, what you said was:

children learn about how people should be treated from how adults treat each other,

My question is if they are learning it from how adults treat adults - when and with whom do they use it? When do they earn the right to be treated in the same way? It just doesn't make sense to me and I think a big reason is the fact that my kids aren't in school so they really don't see this arbitrary divide in how people are treated. In their lives, all of the people they interact with are treated with respect and reference - from toddler to grandmas.

[ambdkf]

Originally Posted by johub

Everybody knows that the way to teach a child generosity is not to give them everythign they want, but to have them witness giving to others.

I think we learn about generosity by having a belief in the abundance of the universe. I can't imagine a child understanding generosity if they were not treated with generosity. Just like I can't imagine a child learning about treating others with respect if they are not treated with respect.

[The4OfUs]

Originally Posted by irinam

Exactly. Compromise is a reason for negotiating. I don't think Pat meant "negotiable" as in "you do what kids say"

You know what - thanks for pointing this out to me. I'm going to go edit my post, cause "their way" isn't really what I meant....I can phrase it better to get my point across better.


ETA: OK, I changed my initial wording...does this make more sense?

But to me, validated, considered, and respected does not always mean that the solution is going to make them happy (which is how I understand consensual/mutual living, that both parties are happy with the solution), because minor disappointment (which is different than vehemently protesting) or not being totally OK/happy with the solution is OK with me sometimes (including in my own life).

[dharmamama]

I don't really have a list of "non-negotiables" because I think there are so many variables in life that it usually comes down to the specific situation. At times I might force my kid into a carseat. Other times I might not.

Several non-life-threatening things that come to mind where I have forced my kid/s to do something they didn't want to:

1) Have a facial wound stitched (11 stitches, so it was a large wound for a small face)

2) Left a child with a sitter (my mother) during a sibling's surgery. The hospital specified that children under 18 were not allowed in the pre-op and recovery areas, and my dh and I felt my son needed his parents with him more than our daughter did. Yep, we could have left one parent at home with our daughter, but we felt it was more important that we both be there for our son (and each other).

3) Left my daughter with a sitter (my dad) when we went to Ethiopia to bring our son home. Yes, we could have (theoretically) taken her with us, had our son escorted, had only one of us go to Ethiopia, not adopted in the first place, or one of several other options I am sure that someone else could throw out. However, we felt that it was in our son's best interest that we both be there to meet him and spend time with him before we transported him halfway across the world, we couldn't afford to pay an extra $1400 to take our daughter along, we didn't think the trip would be enjoyable for our daughter, and we were concerned about potential health risks to her. So we "forced" her to stay with grandpa even though she said she wanted to go with us.

I guess I see certain situations as non-negotiable at certain times not because I can't think of myriad alternative ways to handle them but because there are times when the available alternatives are just not practical.

Namaste!

[aira]

I'm a little late to the party, but OMG Captain Crunchy! : : : : :

I agree with absolutely everything you said.

With I could explain things so clearly!

[MissRubyandKen]

donosmommy04
MissRubyandKen, you know, I think when it comes down to it, a lot of us are probably a lot more alike than we're realizing....I think many of us are saying basically the same things, but in different ways, and with only minimal differences.

I'm new around here but I admit I have pondered this myself numerous times.

donosmommy04
But to me, validated, considered, and respected does not always mean that the solution is going to make them happy (which is how I understand consensual/mutual living, that both parties are happy with the solution), because minor disappointment (which is different than vehemently protesting) or not being totally OK/happy with the solution is OK with me sometimes (including in my own life).

Sure, many times me or dc CHOOSE minor disappointment when consenting to something. KWIM? ie. Dd and ds want to watch a movie. Ds and dd both have a different choice. Ds is waving his choice around, jumping up and down, going on about how it is his favorite show and this and this happens and can he please please please please watch it. Dd sees how important this is to him and says, 'He can watch his mom, its okay with me.' Sure she was disappointed slightly but she CHOOSE that path. Or I may to agree to play a game of checkers with dd even though I had been planning on cuddling up with a book. She is excited and really wants to be with me, I consent knowing I'll have fun anyway and I can read later. Not exactly what I had in mind, not exactly what I wanted at that moment but okay anyway. There is a difference to consent and agreeable. Many things are agreeable between us, many things are consentual. I don't think I need to force my will on them for them to learn that minor disappointment is endurable.

dharmamama
I guess I see certain situations as non-negotiable at certain times not because I can't think of myriad alternative ways to handle them but because there are times when the available alternatives are just not practical.

In an emergency room visit situation I imagine one would have to wing it. But I would like to point out that if it seems the available alternatives are not ones I could consent to I might focus on my dc and get ideas from them about how we might make the situation that might not change consent worthy for them. Make sense?
I want to give an example of when I did this, I know it is nowhere near as drastic as your's. Maybe it could help, maybe not.
We all decided just over one hour before sunset to make a trip to the park before we went to the store to get supplies for dinner. At sunset, when it was time to leave no way was leaving agreeable or even consentual to either of them even though we had discussed our plans before we left the house. It was getting dark and I knew my dc would be hungry and on the verge of meltdown before I could get food bought and prepared if we didn't leave right then, so staying was not something I would consent to. So I focused on leaving being consentual for them. I explained to both of them the need to get food to eat before we felt yucky and reminded ds he had wanted to pick up some apple juice because we had run out. He said oh and asked if we could get hot dogs too and then was ready to leave then. Dd was disappointed because she had been playing a fun game of tag. I told her I understood leaving fun was hard and asked her if she wanted a piggy back ride to the car. She said yes and was ready to leave.

Now I bet you probably did try to make leaving your dc behind with grandpa agreeable to her. I would have definitely put alot of energy into making the situation consent worthy for her. If she was verbal maybe grandpa could have asked her what might make it okay for her and made a list of promises he would keep to her while she was there? That is a drastic example. Seems to me most situations in daily life can be turned into something consentual with minimal effort.

[rumi]

well i just thought of one - dinner before dessert - though it is possible that i would make an exception if we had had a nutritious snack late in the afternoon or something, in general, i will not leave this up to my dd. anyway i think that this is also in line with my overall paradigm in that i am taking a hard line now but will gradually withdraw.


AND wanted to say - we have never forced carseats because we have never forced cars. of course we have ALWAYS enforced carseat when in the car. But we don't use the car much and I am equally happy to walk, take a bus or whatever. Only ONCE we had no option and it was a long (2.5 hours) ride where we had some crying / protest in the middle and I had to use the display screen of the video camera and show her last bda party scenes to 'quieten' my dd in the carseat.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Originally Posted by scubamama

I would think that if something were *truly* Non-negotiable, we could all agree on it.

Why?

[johub]

Originally Posted by ambdkf

Well, what you said was:


My question is if they are learning it from how adults treat adults - when and with whom do they use it? When do they earn the right to be treated in the same way? It just doesn't make sense to me and I think a big reason is the fact that my kids aren't in school so they really don't see this arbitrary divide in how people are treated. In their lives, all of the people they interact with are treated with respect and reference - from toddler to grandmas.

What I am saying is that there are some intracacies of the parent/child relationship which do not translate to model to other relationships. And those things which seem to contradict how adults act to each other ,children learn from watching adult behavior.
They dont "earn the right" to be treated the same way. Parental responsibility for them wanes and their independance grows and the relationship evolves. There is no arbitrary limit.
For example, when a child is old enough to reliably not run into the street AND be aware enough of his/her surroundings so as to not accidentally step in front of traffic, he/she has earned the right to walk side by side rather than be held by the hand or confined in a way that would be unacceptable to an adult.
Becuase children are not adults, their requirements for independance and autonomy are not the same, as such treating them the same is not respectful of them or their development.
And I do not see that treating my child as a child models to them inappropriate ways to treat others. My child will not attempt to control his spouse or peers or coworkers by holding their hands when crossing the street simply because this is what I modeled to him at age 2.
My child will not learn that he has the right to force others to comply to his wishes simply because I forced him to be in a carseat or wear shoes.

When and with whom do children practice it? Every day and with people they meet all over. They watch how people treat each other and they use these behaviors all the time. With each other, siblings, peers, parents, teachers, the cashier at the grocery store.
Children often model how babies and small children are treated with their dolls or with smaller children, and still treat each other of the same age and older differently.
In my childrens lives everybody is also treated with respect.
Treating children as children with unique roles, and abilities and needs and not exactly as adults IS respectful in my opinion.
I do not believe that treating all people with respect equalls treating all people exactly the same though.
Joline

[johub]

Originally Posted by ambdkf

I think we learn about generosity by having a belief in the abundance of the universe. I can't imagine a child understanding generosity if they were not treated with generosity. Just like I can't imagine a child learning about treating others with respect if they are not treated with respect.

I agree. But when we treat a child with generosity without modeling it towards others the only thing we are teacing them is greed and materialism.

Also I agree that children will not learn to treat others with respect if they are not treated with respect. But as in my previous post, I thinkw e differ in how we define respectful treatment. I do not think children need to be treated as adults in order to be respected.

[WuWei]

Colleen95: This is a non-invasive blood gluose monitor: http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/glucosemonitor/

HTH, Pat

[ambdkf]

I don't think of treating someone as an 'adult' or as a 'child', I try to treat people how they want to be treated. It has never been an issue here.

[DevaMajka]

I'm coming in late, so forgive me here

I'd have to say that I would consider the *end result* of a situation basically "non-negotiable" when it is likely that someone (or something) will be harmed in the immediate future. (I say in the immediate future because I wouldn't apply this to, say, tooth brushing, or eating veggies lol)
So, if ds is hitting the dog, it HAS to stop. HOW it stops is negotiable, to a point. Meaning that I'm not going to allow him to keep hitting her, even if in that moment, THAT is not agreeable to him. But I'll redirect, give alternatives, and try to find some sort of agreeable solution, that doesn't involve hitting the dog. If, for some really strange odd reason, there is absolutely no agreeable solution that we can find in a short amount of time, then, sure, I'd be ok with coercing. But I can't really imagine that would be likely to happen, kwim?
If we're shopping, and ds doesn't want to be carried, or in the cart, and can't fight the temptation to run around where I can't see him, the end result is going to be either be carried, be in the cart, or stay close to me (there could be other options, but end result being that he's not running where I can't see him). I try to work on an agreeable way to get there. (I should say, that this rarely happens, and he generally loves being in the cart, or he'll stay close to me). In the meantime though, I'm not going to let him run off. If I don't have a cart and 2 heavy coats, and my purse, I can follow behind him, and am happy to do so. But with all that stuff, I can't easily leave the cart to follow wherever he wants to go. We might find some stuff to play with, some things to look at, he may play under the tall shelves (where the carseats are) for a while, whatever. I let him get his energy out. But, I'm not entirely opposed to picking him up, and taking him to another section of the store (like the toy section) where it will be easier for him to stay in one area.
So, I'm not sure exactly HOW that fits in.
But, I have to say that I think that kids learn best when they are not being coerced. When things ARE negotiable, and a mutually agreeable solution, or a consentual solution are reached. So, for that reason (and one of basic respect) I try to do what I can to not coerce.

[MissRubyandKen]

Of course the parent child relationship is unique. That's what makes it so possible to live consensually with them. They look to their trusted mother naturally for information as to how the world works and how things are to be. In no way is force neccessary. I find it much easier to live consensually with my children than my dp, honestly. My children being my children makes it easier for me to be intuitive about underlying reasons for behavior I deem unacceptable and they are almost always quite willing to listen to me and accept my help.
Back to my forced toothbrushing example. My mind was so set that this was something that HAD TO BE DONE my mind was closed at the moment of the first refusal. It was not open to ideas and alternatives as it was in so many other instances and as it should have been in this one. I could have waited 15 minutes and asked again, I could have sought to understand why my child was refusing and done what I could to remedy it. What if the only reason had been becasue he was just so tired at that moment? I could have skipped one night of brushing. That would have been fine. I do not believe he would have then refused often just because 'he got his way' as he did when I turned it into a power struggle. I do not believe children are that way. My children are not that way. The 'this has to be done' mindset closed my mind unnecessarily.
I bet most of us have been forced to do things as children. That does not make it the right course. Many of us have been spanked too, we realize here that that is not the right course. A child who is daily forced to eat vegetables, wear socks or shoes, sit at the dinner table, get in the car seat, etc etc. surely will have more problems as a result than a child who is occasionally forced to do something against their will. I doubt anyone here is constantly daily forcing their will on their children because 'they know best'. Right?

[loraxc]

don't think anyone, non-coercive or otherwise wouldn't pull their child off the road if a Mack truck was seconds away from making them a pancake. Fortunately, those aren't situations that happen very often and I think hypothetical situations like that are a convenient way to deflect from talking about day to day situations that will occur 1000 times to every 1 mack truck incident.

Well...I don't know. I don't think these situations are THAT uncommon, especially in the life of the typical somewhat accident-prone and impulsive toddler. I brought up the popcorn-in-the-nose example elsewhere: my DD told us she had popcorn up her nose, and we ended up having to restrain her while the doctors examined her. I don't know how else we could have handled it, guys. We explained, empathized and distracted, but the popcorn could have been a danger and the exam was necessary. I can think of lots of things like that, where a toddler would have to hold still or experience a needle or take some unwanted medicine. I plan to take my DD to her first dentist appointment soon. I am seeking out the best kid-friendly dentist in town, and we will talk about it and play-act it and prepare her for it. I will try my hardest to make this easy and not a struggle. But if it comes down to it and she absolutely refuses to be examined, yes, we will probably employ a bit of gentle force. I am not, most likely (barring a total freak-out, which I don't foresee--probably some "No, no, I don't want to" and 30 seconds of crying) going to leave the office without having the exam. Maybe some of you would. I do not have that kind of money, and frankly I do not have that kind of total surrendering patience.

I also have continued to point out that when we allowed DD to control when her diaper was changed, she got an excruciatingly painful rash; no one has told me how I was supposed to handle this noncoercively, except by suggesting that we no longer use diapers, which I do not consider in any way practical. (How would we ever leave the house?) There's the toothbrushing example: some kids really don't want to brush their teeth, ever, and some of those kids have cavities and really need good oral hygiene. There's the "sometimes you really just HAVE to go somewhere" issue. I can think of a couple examples with my DD--once we were at a public playspace and her diaper was leaking poop, so I had to take her and change her for hygiene's sake, although she did not want to be changed at all right then. Once she was playing at the gate at the airport, and we had to board the plane or it would leave without us. Another poster gave an example of a child who did not want to leave home when another child needed to be picked up at school. What if your child does not want to get in the car to go to daycare, and you really have to go to work?

I'm not saying we shouldn't try all that we can to avoid the situation where we have to hold the child down for the exam or haul the crying toddler to the restroom for a change. Of course we should try. I always TRY, and try hard and creatively, but sometimes I do not succeed.

I just don't think these situations are all THAT rare. I don't think they're *common*, either--I mean, I'd say we end up having to force an issue maybe once a month, if that. Most of the time it works: distraction, negotiation, empathizing, playful parenting, offering alternatives, giving 5-minute warnings...yes it totally works! That's why I love this forum--I learn methods that work! But SOMETIMES it doesn't. At least in my house.

[maya44]

[QUOTE=MissRubyandKenA child who is daily forced to eat vegetables, wear socks or shoes, sit at the dinner table, get in the car seat, etc etc. surely will have more problems as a result than a child who is occasionally forced to do something against their will. I doubt anyone here is constantly daily forcing their will on their children because 'they know best'. Right?[/QUOTE]

Well what do you mean by "force." It is pretty broadly defined by some here to mean telling your child they are expected to do something with no negotiation.

By that definition I do/did "force" my kids to do things on a daily basis including get in the car seat, sit at the table, pick up toys, clean their rooms, take a bath etc...

What I didn't do was invest much force into my force. There were seldom consequences for not doing what I asked except a reminder that this is what was expected of them. (Though I did gently place recalcitrent children in car seats when a sibling needed to be picked up on a tight schedule)

[dharmamama]

Originally Posted by loraxc

There's the toothbrushing example: some kids really don't want to brush their teeth, ever, and some of those kids have cavities and really need good oral hygiene. There's the "sometimes you really just HAVE to go somewhere" issue. I can think of a couple examples with my DD--once we were at a public playspace and her diaper was leaking poop, so I had to take her and change her for hygiene's sake, although she did not want to be changed at all right then. Once she was playing at the gate at the airport, and we had to board the plane or it would leave without us. Another poster gave an example of a child who did not want to leave home when another child needed to be picked up at school. What if your child does not want to get in the car to go to daycare, and you really have to go to work?

Yes, that's pretty much how I think of it, too. I do not beat around the bush with my kids when the outcome of something is non-negotiable. If we have to leave to pick Daddy up at the bus stop, then we are going to leave to do it, even if the kids don't want to. They can pick whatever coat they want (or no coat), whatever shoes they want (or no shoes), what we listen to on the radio, whether they take a snack, which of the zillion stuffed animals populating and procreating in our house that they take along, heck, they can even choose what coat and shoes *I* wear if it makes them feel better, but they WILL be getting in the car to go get Daddy. They have no choice about that. I don't try to humor my kids by distracting them from the fact that they must do what I want them to. I state absolutely and clearly that this is what we will be doing, now what do you want to do to make this situation tolerable?

Namaste!

[The4OfUs]

Originally Posted by MissRubyandKen

A child who is daily forced to eat vegetables, wear socks or shoes, sit at the dinner table, get in the car seat, etc etc. surely will have more problems as a result than a child who is occasionally forced to do something against their will.

ITA with this, and would even go so far as to say that a child who is occasionally 'forced' to do something they may not want to *at that moment*, in an otherwise vastly gentle, consensual, alternative seeking, loving household will not have ANY problems. I'm living proof. I'm sure my parents coerced me into brushing my teeth sometimes, getting in the car sometimes, going grocery shopping when I didn't *really* want to sometimes....and I can't think of any problems it has caused me. Because, on the whole, I was listened to, validated, considered, respected, and loved.

Originally Posted by MissRubyandKen

I doubt anyone here is constantly daily forcing their will on their children because 'they know best'. Right?

I would bet our day to day lives don't look all that different, those of us who are strictly noncoersive, and those of us who try to be, but don't always succeed for whatever reason. I don't think ANYONE here starts the day out saying, "gee, I wonder what I can force my kid to do today?"

[MissRubyandKen]

Well what do you mean by "force." It is pretty broadly defined by some here to mean telling your child they are expected to do something with no negotiation.

By that definition I do/did "force" my kids to do things on a daily basis including get in the car seat, sit at the table, pick up toys, clean their rooms, take a bath etc...

What I didn't do was invest much force into my force. There were seldom consequences for not doing what I asked except a reminder that this is what was expected of them. (Though I did gently place recalcitrent children in car seats when a sibling needed to be picked up on a tight schedule)

I don't believe making a request equates force if that is what you mean. My children usually are willing to fulfill my requests with no negotiation. That doesn't make my requests equal to force because they choose to fulfill it themselves. Force to me would be if the child's refuses and then 'I don't care if you like aspauragus you'll sit at that table until every last bite is gone', 'pick up your toys or no movie', if you don't brush your teeth I'm putting your lovey up for the night', or parent pinning child down to brush teeth, or restraining them to put on clothes, or picking child up and forcing them into the bath.

[irinam]

I think the difference in our opinions on the particulars of GD (as I saw in many threads about coercive/non-coercive, and this negotiable/non-negotiable thread) come from the difference in one of our core believes.

It seems that some of us firmly believe that no matter what, the parent is, how shall I say it, the head figure in family life. Yes, the parent will be gentle, considerate and respectful. Yes, the parent will attentively hear child’s point of view. Yes, the parent will go great length to educate him/herself on many subjects as pertains to parenting. But at the end of the day, it is the parent that will make a final decision and if need be, impose this decision on the kids because he/she felt it was best. Kinda “benevolent ruler” if you will

Then there are others that believe that the family is a homogenous entity, where albeit the parent has more experience, knowledge, physical strength, he/she is an equal “part of the clan”.

One is not better or worse than another. Just some of us identify ourselves as former and some as latter