Modified time-out (I think) - is this GD or not? - Page 2

[blessed]

Originally Posted by donosmommy04

Our first pet was a fish when I was around 4, then a guinea pig at 5, and then a dog at 6....and by that time my empathy AND impulse control had naturally developed such that my parents didn't have to monitor us much..

Gosh, our dogs and cats were integral members of our family. I can't imagine a kid growing up without a dog. I could see not having some tiny frail animal, or an animal prone to aggression.

The best thing is if you can get a puppy while the child is still very young. They play together naturally and bond much tighter than if the dog is older when baby arrives.

Our dd loves our two dogs tremendously, and they her.

[Yooper]

Well, in the case of my suggestions, I know they sound time consuming. But if it is a regular pattern in your house to always discuss and to try and find some other outlet for an experimental activity, then it really does save time. At least it does in our case. Quick fixes rarely work in the long run for us. I know about being time strapped. A small investment in initial time for dc to see that you want her to understand and can help her find other outlets can reap faster "compliance" int he long run. If she trusts that you care to help her get what she wants, she is more likely to listen when you need her to help you get what you want. At least that has been my experience. I do not think that is "bending over backwards" for a child.

[aira]

Just for the sake of balance, since you asked specifically about how gentle we thought this was... I would do something more along these lines.

Originally Posted by Yooper

So we had a long discussion about how the TV was old, she likes to watch movies, and it might stop working if she kept pushing the button. That might have done the trick, but I did not give it the chance. I found something else really fun to turn on and off. In this case it was a cheapo solar powered calculator. I use it for bills. It is pretty much indestructable. I showed her that whenever she had the urge to push buttons, this was a really fun way to get the urge out....and she could take it anywhere! And look! Numbers! Yeehaw! She never touched the TV button again.

I agree that what you tell her is a threat. It doesn't have to be an empty threat to be a threat. And violence is really subjective. I'm not saying at all that you are being violent, but she may feel emotionally shamed or otherwise fearful, based on your response.

I haven't found that approach to be very useful. DS, who is extremely active and independent, needs to get his curiosity out. So we show him how to channel it in ways that we are all OK with.

I bet that even if your DD is not rebelling about the dryer, she is likely brewing something inside that will show itself later. Threats usually just serve to shame, and that doesn't teach very well - it only motivates little ones to avoid the bad feeling.

I'd personally prefer to help DS think/learn about helping keep our things working than thinking about how to avoid something bad.


Another example: Even just this AM, DH was working from home, and DS got really frustrated that he wasn't getting more attention from him. So he decided that the solution was to stomp on his computer until it broke into 100 pieces. (his words)

We knew what it was really about and tried putting the puter away for a while, I drew a laptop out of 2 sheets of paper stapled together for him to smash, we looked for other things he could stomp on, and directly addressed his need for Daddy's attention. Nothing worked! He just stayed hyper-frustrated and had his mind set of shashing that computer.

It didn't change until I reiterated him exactly what he wanted to do, in his language, and told him that I wish I could help him smash that computer because it's so important to him, but that I just couldn't. I assured him that I wanted to help him. He wept a little more, melted into a hug and didn't talk about the computer again (which so far is still intact).

The point I'm trying to make is that even if it seems to be working, there may be a price that isn't obvious yet. I think you can't go wrong making sure the DC hears that you care about her desires, even when they can't do the thing that they think is just too cool. IME just that can erase the impulse for the specific thing.

HTH!

[aira]

Yooper, I agree that in the end your approach is the least time-consumning. Has been for us!

[mammastar2]

I understand that, realistically, you really do need a quick fix, because when you're fixing dinner or whatever and you're in school full-time, you can't have a heart-to-heart, or what passes for one with a 2.5 year old, every 10 minutes...

I wonder though, if what feels 'off' about what you're doing right now is that it frames things in terms of a power struggle between the two of you. I agree with the previous poster that taking the "I will do X if you do Y" out of it is a good idea. If a situation develops that shouldn't e.g. her torturing the dog, I see nothing wrong with removing her from it if you have to, but avoiding that terminology, and, wherever possible, heading off a power struggle before it starts.

Also, a propos of time constraints, are you sure this method is really saving you time, if it ends with her in hysterics and you comforting her? That's got to cut into dinner-making time!

So, I wonder if maybe you can always try to give her a little job while your're making dinner. You're chopping mushrooms, give her a couple to 'wash,' or a couple of spoons and forks to put on the table, etc. Does the dog have a special spot it can go to where she can't get at it? I know our cat was very adept at climbing up somewhere high, or squeezing somewhere our daughter couldn't get. If the dog doesn't have a spot like this, can you create one?

I may agree on getting rid of the rabbit for now - a dog, a rabbit, and a 2 year old in a small apartment is pushing it...

Good luck!

[mamaduck]

I'm all for having expectations, but developmentally realistic ones. I think expecting a 2.5 yr old to have the impulse control and emapthy to be able to interact safely with household pets without constant supervision is asking to much. And as for, "they have to learn eventually", I agree. But we don't start learning math at 4 with algebra....you have to work up to things, and just because you don't understand algebra when you're 6 doesn't mean you won't understand it when you're 12. So just because your child isn't empathetic at 2.5, doesn't mean they won't be at 7...

I agree with this, and would take it a step further by saying that the way you actually teach a child to be gentle with an animal is to by being very involved whenever the animal is handled, and coaching her through it. And its too much to expect a toddler to learn more efficiently than this.

And I think this example relates very well to the more general topic in this thread -- whether a child needs to learn boundries by imposed consequences. And I would say that whatever the "real world" is like, 2.5 is very young and learning experiences need to be tailored to her level. The best way to prepare her for the way that people act is by shadowing and coaching her.

As far as empathy -- the vast majority of 2.5 year olds have not developed the cognitive ability to "put themselves in someone else's shoes." She simply cannot fully comprehend an idea like "what the rabbit must be feeling." She may be taking steps in that direction, but right now her own perceptions and her own experiences of life take center stage in her developing mind. Combine that with a lack of impulse control typical for a 2 yo. and what you end up with is a small, bright, inquisitive person who must be closely supervised while playing with rabbits.

Reflecting on my own exprience, I think that its too easy to have high expecations of first children.

Gosh, our dogs and cats were integral members of our family. I can't imagine a kid growing up without a dog. I could see not having some tiny frail animal, or an animal prone to aggression.

Yeah, Blessed, I agree that a dog or a cat is a different situation than a rabbit. For one thing, even if they start out 'frail' they grow out of that phase very rapidly. They are tough creatures, and they also have the capacity to "get away" when they really need to. All our animals have places they know that they can escape to when the kids are too much for them. The cats go to the laundry room through a flap door, and the dog goes to her crate when she wants her own space.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by donosmommy04

I don't think there's anything wrong with her being removed to the sofa, I would just try to find a different way to word it....cause there is something about your posted wording that makes me feel oogy, but I can't exactly say why.

Yeah, there is something about it that makes me feel oogy too, and I can't say exactly why. I mean, obviously I'm controlling her. I really don't see it as a threat, or in any case as a bad thing to tell a child "if you do x, I will do y." Like I don't think it's going to mess up her self esteem, or shame her, inherently. But it is an overt expression of control, for sure. And I guess I'm uncomfortable with that.

YES, as adults living in the real world, there are consequences to our actions, but I think that as an adult, consequences coming from our "age peers" (other adults) don't seem as potentially intimidating and domineering, and a traffic ticket or letter from my boss, well, I don't have a close loving relationship with a cop or my boss, so it's really not the same thing at all.

Yes, I see that. It's definitely about me, her mama, controlling her behaviour and doing something to her that she doesn't want done, namely physically moving her.

So, ahem...back on topic. I don't think there's anything wrong with removing her to the couch, or wherever about the dryer. I'd probably just do as a PP suggested and change the wording a bit (I never thought I'd be so caught up in semantics as a parent, but I've found it really does make a difference). I try to set up the "rules" in our house as ones that we all follow so that it's less parents vs kids, and more of all of us respecting things together. So maybe instead of this,

Me: "Please stop pressing the dryer button. That can break the dryer."
Her: "I will press the dryer button."
Me: "You need to stop pressing the dryer button. If you press it again, I will put you on sofa."

try this?

Me: "Please stop pressing the dryer button. That can break the dryer."
Her: "I will press the dryer button."
Me: "Please leave the button alone and come X with me." (She presses the button) (You walk her to the couch, saying, "We need to not play with that button, it could break the dryer.") (You sit on the couch, and maybe say something short and sweet about how you need the dryer for drying clothes, and it's not a toy to play with).

Same physical redirection and removal, same 'consequence', but it gets rid of the "I'm going to X to you", and still sends the same message that if she plays with the dryer button, she's gonna be removed from the room.

Yeah, I think I will try this and see how it goes. She is pretty smart to power dynamics, and what I don't want to do is be passive-aggressively controlling her, like controlling her but prettying it up. But perhaps prettying it up will change her experience of it into something nicer, not simply serve as a mask for what is really going on, yk? I'm gonna try it.

Also, if she's going to the dryer a lot when you're not even using it, I'd just close/lock the door, or find some other way (a gate?) to not even make it an opportunity. Again, she's 2.5, not 7, and I think modifying environments for a child under 4 is completely different than "bending to the whim" of a 6-yr-old.

Well I've definitely modified the environment to a degree. Like, suddenly she is going up the handmade staircase to the back window that we use for the dog to go out. This is dangerous, and also means she ends up in the backyard with no immediate way for me to get to her. Bad scene. So now there is a babygate on the door to the room with that staircase.

And the other week she grabbed the kitchen scissors, which I had been accustomed to leaving around, because she always used to listen to me when I said they were dangerous. Now the kitchen scissors are put away in the drawer whenever I'm done using them.

I don't feel like she needs to comply in every way, it's just that there are some things that would be really difficult to modify for her, and I feel like there ought to be a balance - some things I modify for her, other things she needs to learn to leave alone.

I'm all for having expectations, but developmentally realistic ones. I think expecting a 2.5 yr old to have the impulse control and emapthy to be able to interact safely with household pets without constant supervision is asking to much.

To be clear, she is not unsupervised with the pets. I supervise and also do other things. I'm just not right there doing nothing but watching/helping every time she is with the pets. I keep a close eye and give verbal reminders, and also sometimes go over and assist with the interaction.

I guess I'm not seeing this as a developmental thing re: not knowing how to interact with pets. If that were my view, I would get rid of the bunny in a heartbeat, no doubt. But the bunny is great for her in many ways, 90% of the time her interactions with it are positive and appropriate, and she loves it.

And I see the problems we do have with the pets as a manifestation of another thing that IMO is happening developmentally right now. I believe she is testing at this point, looking to see where the limits are with me. Last night she took off running down the street (on the sidewalk), and wouldn't come back and hop in the car to get our friend despite my calling. I ran to get her, and when I caught her arm she went all noodly so it was hard to bring her back.

This to me is not about developmentally not knowing it's not cool to run down the street, or to grab the scissors, or chase the old dog. It's about deliberately pushing the boundaries and doing things that are not allowed, with intention, kwim?

[morning glory]

I really agree with the wording stuff...its something I'm trying to remember to do with my sons. Instead of saying *I* will impose a consequence I try to say *you* will have to x,y,z....

Like..."You can't chase the dog. She is trying to rest. You will have to sit on the couch if the chasing doesn't stop." or "You can't chase the dog. Please sit on the couch until you feel like you can stop chasing the dog." Because really I think sometimes they actually CANNOT stop what they are doing...its just too good to stop. And it may help the meltdowns for her to know that its not *punishment* its just down time.

I can see that you don't want to crate the dog. We had the same dog problem and managed to some extent to redirect it to caring for the dogs while they are sleeping...make a big deal about "oh look, Nikki is sleeping...shhhhh" and tip toe around for a bit. DS1 (3.5) would even take a baby blanket and cover them...or come into the kitchen and tell me to keep it down "Tagg is trying to sleep!"...that way helping the dog sleep is the activity rather than waking the dog up. And really they sort of lost interest in the dogs at all after awhile...in waking them up anyway. Now if they would just lose interest in the cats...

Really I think what you are doing is fine...I agree that what you are giving are consequneces not threats...just tweak your wording and carry on.

Casey

[thismama]

Originally Posted by morning glory

I really agree with the wording stuff...its something I'm trying to remember to do with my sons. Instead of saying *I* will impose a consequence I try to say *you* will have to x,y,z....

Like..."You can't chase the dog. She is trying to rest. You will have to sit on the couch if the chasing doesn't stop." or "You can't chase the dog. Please sit on the couch until you feel like you can stop chasing the dog." Because really I think sometimes they actually CANNOT stop what they are doing...its just too good to stop. And it may help the meltdowns for her to know that its not *punishment* its just down time.

Wow, that for me would be totally doable. And would feel better.

I can see that you don't want to crate the dog. We had the same dog problem and managed to some extent to redirect it to caring for the dogs while they are sleeping...make a big deal about "oh look, Nikki is sleeping...shhhhh" and tip toe around for a bit. DS1 (3.5) would even take a baby blanket and cover them...or come into the kitchen and tell me to keep it down "Tagg is trying to sleep!"...that way helping the dog sleep is the activity rather than waking the dog up. And really they sort of lost interest in the dogs at all after awhile...in waking them up anyway. Now if they would just lose interest in the cats...

Again, totally doable. She loves the pets, and loves to make games out of being sweet to them. With the bunny, she knows it is not okay to ever pick it up, because bunny will be scared. She knows that we try to sit still and wait for bunny to come to us. And she gets really excited, and says, "Mama! My bunny is smelling me!" And I say, "Awww, bunny loves you, doesn't she? When you sit still, bunny comes right over!"

I could do more positives, I guess. I think too often if it's going well I ignore it and use the opportunity to get my stuff done, and I only intervene when it goes sour. Which is a mistake.

I could also be more sure to make a contract with her before the activity. Like, if she wants bunny out of the cage, I could make sure to say, "We can have bunny out of the cage if you can be gentle with her. Can you be gentle?" Usually if she has agreed to something in advance she is likely to follow through. Or if she doesn't follow through, she is less likely to freak out when I do something like put the bunny away.

[DevaMajka]

Some great suggestions so far, for sure. I agree with Donosmommy, and others, that just because "the real world" is a certains way, that doesn't meant that your house and your family have to be that way.
Could you try saying something like- "I don't want you to keep pushing that button. I'm worried that it will break. Perhaps we could cover it up to take away the temptation to touch it?" and have her help find something to cover it with. OR ask her for another solution. "Perhaps we could go play in the living room, to take away the temptation to touch it." Have her assist in that solution too.
I think its a lot to ask a young kid to just STOP doing something that they already have their mind set on doing. Find another activity for her to transition her thoughts to. One that's related, so it doesn't feel like "stopping" it feels more like "finding a mutually agreeable solution." It's helping HER find ways to help control her own impulses, too. Helping her to do the socially acceptable thing.
I'm big on "honoring the impulse." So, what's her impulse? Playing with buttons? It kinda seems like there is more to it than that.

As far as chasing the dog and bunny, tell her that "Dog doesn't like to be chased. Look, he's running away." Tell her other ways that she can play with the dog. Or find other things she can chase But I see nothing wrong with physically stopping her from bothering an animal, if nothing else helps.

Originally Posted by thismama

I could also be more sure to make a contract with her before the activity. Like, if she wants bunny out of the cage, I could make sure to say, "We can have bunny out of the cage if you can be gentle with her. Can you be gentle?" Usually if she has agreed to something in advance she is likely to follow through. Or if she doesn't follow through, she is less likely to freak out when I do something like put the bunny away.

The only thing I'd be concerned about there, is that if you say that to her, she will know that you don't *expect* that she would be geltle with bunny, of her own volition. And even if you don't, I'd be wary of letting dc *know* that you expect she would be rough.
Perhaps "bunny wants to be played with gently. If anyone is accidentally too rough, he'll want to go back in his cage."
I dunno- that's not perfect, by a long shot. But you get the point. Something to say "i know you'll play gently if you can, but if its hard to stay gentle, we'll try again later." something like that.

[The4OfUs]

Originally Posted by blessed

Gosh, our dogs and cats were integral members of our family. I can't imagine a kid growing up without a dog. I could see not having some tiny frail animal, or an animal prone to aggression.

The best thing is if you can get a puppy while the child is still very young. They play together naturally and bond much tighter than if the dog is older when baby arrives.

Our dd loves our two dogs tremendously, and they her.

But I did grow up with a dog. I was 6 when we got him, and he died when I was in college....and I cried for days....we were totally bonded.

I just see so many people having problems with animal/toddler interactions, that it's not worth it to me, and not fair to either the pet or the child.

DH agrees, and we WILL be getting a dog in a few years, just not now. It's what works for us.

[Piglet68]

Originally Posted by rmzbm

What I would do it TOTALLY ignore her when she is doing that. Leave the room. When she sees you don't care I bet ya anything it's no longer a fun thing to do!! Good luck!!

Withdrawing from a child in this way is using your attachment as a weapon. It is not GD in any sense of the word, and it will also backfire immensely. You'll end up with an insecure child with a whole host of behavioural problems such that you'll long for the day when pushing a dryer button repeatedly was the worst of your issues.

[Evan&Anna's_Mom]

Originally Posted by thismama

This to me is not about developmentally not knowing it's not cool to run down the street, or to grab the scissors, or chase the old dog. It's about deliberately pushing the boundaries and doing things that are not allowed, with intention, kwim?

Ah... but at 2.5 she may know that she's not supposed to run down the street or whatever, but she probably doesn't have the ability to stop herself. Impulse control developes at about age 3, give or take. But just because she is old enough to UNDERSTAND what she is or isn't supposed to do doesn't mean she has the ABILITY to make herself comply. Two totally different skills. And the same applies with empathy with the pets -- it really is expecting too much of a 2 YO to have that ability and apply it.

You might want to check out some books on what developmentally appropriate expectations are. I know I have seen lots of recommendations here before, but I can't come up with anything off the top of my head. I know, you said you were in school and more reading is probably the last thing you need. But it does sound like it might help you reorient your approach.

I think someone really tagged it when they suggested that you need to be more proactive rather than reactive, especially during the times when you need to do things like make dinner. She's not going to get anywhere near the dryer or the pets if she is helping you with dinner. Or doing some other really cool activity at your feet. And avoiding a situation is so much better than having to react to it.

[Evan&Anna's_Mom]

Originally Posted by Piglet68

Withdrawing from a child in this way is using your attachment as a weapon. It is not GD in any sense of the word, and it will also backfire immensely. You'll end up with an insecure child with a whole host of behavioural problems such that you'll long for the day when pushing a dryer button repeatedly was the worst of your issues.

Um, this is a bit over the top, isn't it? I mean, we're talkinga bout ignoring a behaviour, not locking her in the closet for the day or beating the child. Let's not blow it completely out of proportion.

[oceanbaby]

We need to function as a team, and to be honest a lot of the solutions suggested here sound like a LOT of work to accomplish basically the same thing as I am accomplishing with the time-out.

Yeah, but the time out scenario, however it is worded, is a short term fix. She's getting older, and bigger, and pretty soon the "you'll have to go sit on the couch" may be met with "NO! You can't make me!" as she runs from you. Then what? Are you going to chase her through the house to make her sit on the couch? Are you going to pry her hand off the button and carry a kicking flailing 3yo onto the couch? I say it's better to take the time now to lay the foundation for how you two interact. Relying on threats will always backfire, in my experience.

Here's how I learned how ineffective it is: My ds went through a phase of throwing toys. We used to warn/threaten/explain, whatever you want to call it, that if he threw the toy again we would take it away. He would throw it again, we'd take it away, he would get hysterical and beg for it back. Then we had to decide, well, when does he get it back? 5 minutes? A day? A week? Already we're feeling ridiculous, but we've got to stick by what we said, right? So we decide on a day. Fine. Then we get into a situation where he throws toys that he doesn't care about, just to tweak us. So we take it away, and he doesn't care. Now what? If we had taken a different approach, more along the lines of "Throwing toys is not a good idea, someone may get hurt or something may get broken, so how about we go play some baseball in the backyard/make cookies/play chase" or "you seem to be really upset about something" or just simply gone over and given him a hug and then initiated a tickle game, we would have saved ourselved not only a lot of agony, but a lot of time when all was said and done. We had of course explained these things to him before threatening, and done some half hearted distraction, but we we didn't take it to the next level of being proactive to head off the inevitable. We were too focused on needing to "teach him a lesson." The only lesson he learned was that he can piss us off by throwing toys.

And someone once pointed out something that I thought was very true: Threatening "if you do that one more time . . ." is basically giving them permission to do it one more time. I remember when my neighbor's son dumped sand over my son's head, and she said to him "If you do that one more time, we have to leave." Well of course, he did it again. She followed through, but still, my son had to have sand dumped on his head again.

I say put in the time and energy now to lay the foundation. It seems overwhelming thinking about it, but it is surprisingly rewarding.

[BohoMama]

The dryer, however, really could get hurt. My little laundry helper also loves to push all the buttons and spin all the knobs. Not only does he frequently change the water temperature and level and stop the dryer before the load is done, but he also pulled the whole front off the control panel. Now it falls off all the time and just hangs there dangling by tons of internal wires.[/QUOTE]


HOLY BUCKETS!!!!!! YOU LET YOUR CHILD PLAY WITH EXPOSED WIRES IN A PLACE WHERE WATER SPLASHES AROUND?????

The real reason I wanted to post was to address the rabbit and dog problem. My suggestion is to invite a family over with a YOUNGER child than your own. That child will go for the animals and try to do some inappropriate things with them. You can then let your daughter "teach" the "baby" how to treat the animals right. This is likely to profoundly impress on her that she KNOWS how to be nice to them.

[Brigianna]

I don't know whether time-out is gd or not, that seems to be a slippery term, but it is punishment. Mild punishment, yes, but still punishment.

I can't help you with the animals, but here is what I would do about the dryer button: child pushes dryer button. I take her hand and say "please don't push the dryer button. That could break the dryer. We need the dryer to dry our clothes. It belongs to all of us." Child says "I will press the dryer button" and reaches for it again. I pull her hand back while saying "please don't push the button." Child reaches for it again; I pull her hand back while saying "please don't push the button." Repeat as necessary. The important things with this method are to do this *every time* she pushes the button, and to maintain a calm appearance and tone of voice (don't get visibly frustrated). That way, you are actually teaching her to refrain from pushing the button, not just punishing her into complience.

Of course you're still thwarting her desire to push the button, so maybe that's not totally gd either, but I think it's better and also more effective than punishment.

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by oceanbaby

And someone once pointed out something that I thought was very true: Threatening "if you do that one more time . . ." is basically giving them permission to do it one more time.

and also telling them than you *expect* that they WILL do it again.

I thought of something else to help with the dryer button. Have her help you push it, when you need to turn the dryer on. Let her know that it is only for drying clothes, and etc etc. That way, she gets to push the button (which she wants to do) AND she gets to do it in a positive way and not a negative way.
Do the redirection when she pushes it when you didn't ask her to, and tell her that you only need the dryer on when there's wet clothes in it.
This may not help right away if its already become too much of a "power struggle" (less about button pushing, and more about you saying "no" and her doing it anyways) but I think it will help in taking that away.
(I hate using the term "power struggle" because I think a lot of people see it as the *child* choosing the power struggle. I think a lot of it is attributable to parents, and could easily be averted early on)

[HerthElde]

I'm just going to lurk here and see what else is said. I find myself getting into power struggles with my 2yo, and I really want to find a better way. This thread has some great ideas

[blessed]

Do you all ever use humor and teasing? I find myself using this ALOT and it seems to keep everything not so serious and maintains a good natured quality to our interactions.

For instance, this morning dd was standing on my laptop computer which was laying on the bed. I said 'oh no! That can break the computer. Please don't stand on it.'

She stepped off but then looked at me a little defiantly and hovered her foot over the top of it. My first inclination was to take some sort of stand and rise up to meet her challenge to my authority. Instead I crouched over with hands poised for tickling. She smiled and dropped her foot a little closer and I pounced on her, playfully tickling her and saying 'no, I said I DIDN'T want a baby on my computer! I DIDN'T want it! I didn't say that I WANTED a baby on my computer! I said I DIDN'T want it!!' We rolled on the bed, hugged, kissed and giggled and then she happily moved on to some other diversion.

I think some people might say that I'm giving positive reinforcement for misbehavior, but I don't think so. I think that keeping the constancy of our love and closeness has a much better effect on helping her to govern her behavior than reprimending her would. Because we are good friends and she feels affectionate and loving toward me, she WANTS to please, so she stayed away from my computer after that of her own accord, kwim?