Is some GD philosophy *too* gentle??? - Page 7

[IncaMama]

Originally Posted by faithnj

some people just want to insunuate that the rest of us who aren't doing CL are "...imposing our wills on our children to create an adversarial relationships, intentionally getting into power struggles..."

and some people want to insinuate that those of us who practice CL are either a) trying to add a useless label to the kind of parenting more accurately referred to as PD or GD in an attempt to make us feel superior or b) letting our children make every decision for us, including those that would put their safety in jeopardy.

My preference is to do what works for/with my daughter each and every day, not to put myself under some "umbrella" or "tent." And I could not care less about having comaraderie with people I've never seen, or appearing to ascribe to any one person's book or philosophy.

that is my preference as well...and i suppose it's pretty clear in life, in general, who doesn't care much about feeling a false sense of camaraderie with others. i'm often in that group myself. i don't do things because someone else told me to, or because someone wrote a book about it. in fact, i've never read a book about consensual living. i'm not even sure what books include that. it's just something that my own personal philosophy shows me is the right path for my family.

[faithnj]

Originally Posted by aira

Maybe it helps to make the distiction that if DC is screaming because I'm carrying him out of the restauant, and staying in the restaurant to have the conversation I mentioned in a PP would be preferable, then no, I would not carry him out.

I addressed a quote that said, "I would carry and screaming child..." And I would to - but not in every case.

The situation I was refering to before was that he was screaming no matter what - whether he was in or out of the restaurant - then I would take him to a safe place and talk there. The action of carrying him is not causing the screaming.

If my actions are inflicting the scream - I stop. Screaming stops. No reason to leave restaurant. Just regroup there.

It hasn't happened to me, but I suppose that if DS were screaming about leaving and I stopped, but the screaming didn't stop, I would point out that I really want to talk about what's bothering him - but let's go outside where we can focus, and so that everyone in here can eat in quiet...

I have to say, all in all, that DS rarely screams. Of course there is some, but usually he just talks to me and explains what he wants or needs. The vast majority of restarant screaming we've really had has been after a big fall or bump. But in those cases he's relieved to go outside, so I guess they don't really apply to this as well...

I hope that clarifies. I'm still wiping sleep gunk from my eyes and I'm really tired. I hope this makes more sense...

Frankly, I wasn't really referring to what was causing the screaming at all. Children scream in restaurants for a variety of reasons. I'm sure most reasons for screaming are justifiable to the child, but still-- most thoughtful adults carry screaming children out of restaurants so that the other patrons don't have to be disturbed, regardless of what the child is thinking or experiencing at the time.

I think the act of carrying your child out of a restaurant because he's screaming is exerting your will, power, authority-- whatever you'd call it, over your child. I've read your post twice, and I'm not sure what to make of it. But I'll just leave it with the understanding that you've said you'd carry a screaming child out of a restaurant, and skip getting tangled up in the minutiae of it all. After all, if I was in a restaurant, and your child was screaming at the next table, I wouldn't really care why you were carrying him out, and how consensual your behavior was or wasn't. I'd just be thankful you'd be sparing me the annoyance. And the fact that you agree you'd carry your screaming child out of a restaurant, is why I say many of us are doing the same thing in practice, regardless of how one wants to label the ideas behind the actions.

Faith

[faithnj]

Originally Posted by IncaMama

and some people want to insinuate that those of us who practice CL are either a) trying to add a useless label to the kind of parenting more accurately referred to as PD or GD in an attempt to make us feel superior or b) letting our children make every decision for us, including those that would put their safety in jeopardy....

Uhhhhh, if the shoe fits, then wear it already. Otherwise, it's for you to debate with somebody else what you want to lable yourself, useless, CL, PD, or GD-- it's not for me to get into what you're more "accurately referred to." : There are a few others who seem more interested in those lables. I've already said I couldn't care less because I'm fine with being called "mommy."

Please consider youself having had the last word with me, okay?

Faith

[aira]

Originally Posted by faithnj

Frankly, I wasn't really referring to what was causing the screaming at all. Children scream in restaurants for a variety of reasons. I'm sure most reasons for screaming are justifiable to the child, but still-- most thoughtful adults carry screaming children out of restaurants so that the other patrons don't have to be disturbed, regardless of what the child is thinking or experiencing at the time.

I think the act of carrying your child out of a restaurant because he's screaming is exerting your will, power, authority-- whatever you'd call it, over your child. I've read your post twice, and I'm not sure what to make of it. But I'll just leave it with the understanding that you've said you'd carry a screaming child out of a restaurant, and skip getting tangled up in the minutiae of it all. After all, if I was in a restaurant, and your child was screaming at the next table, I wouldn't really care why you were carrying him out, and how consensual your behavior was or wasn't. I'd just be thankful you'd be sparing me the annoyance. And the fact that you agree you'd carry your screaming child out of a restaurant, is why I say many of us are doing the same thing in practice, regardless of how one wants to label the ideas behind the actions.

Faith

Uh, wow. Thanks for taking me so seriously.

I won't bother you with all that minutiae again, but let's just say that it's the difference between thinking about all that minutiae and not that is the line for me.

And to imply that I don't consider those around me seems like willfully not understanding to me. I made that one pretty clear.


And BTW, though I used to dine at $400/meal per couple restaurants, I stick to local cafes and Crackel Barrel now (oh, and Ikea!), so that there is fast access to the door, and DS is comfortable. If he screams at a table next to you, it won't last more than 10 seconds - whether I take him out or not.

[aira]

It seems that you are saying (in a dismissive way, BTW) that we are all doing the same thing but calling it something else, but then also that you don't understand the point of entire posts.



Could it be that there is a difference in our parenting, but that you arent' seeing it?

[captain crunchy]

Okay for those who completely reject that you see your children as *selfish* or bratty* or whatever (you don't neccessarily have to use those exact words), how do you feel? I mean, when your child is expressing an opinion or preference that you won't budge on, I imagine you have to approach it with a different mindset than people who practice consensual living -- so what is that mindset?

We look at issues that arise like this: there is a need that is unmet. There is a voice that is not being heard, there is something I am not understanding about why something is so important to her, there is a valid reason why she doesn't want to do __ or does want to do ___ .. so we work on it until a solution can be reached.

Are you seriously saying that you feel that way, you think "johnny has a need that I am not meeting but I am not going to explore that"?

That is why I said there has to be a different line of thinking. Okay, perhaps you don't think of your children as *bratty* and that was a bad choice of words, but I just can't imagine thinking "wow, johnny's feelings are as valid as mine and there is a reason he clearly doesn't want to do ___" ... then still imposing my will, and not feeling any guilt for it (as many posters have said they don't feel badly putting their foot down or whatever).

Okay, so you don't see them as bratty, but it leads me to believe some part of you feels their wants or needs in certain situations aren't as valid or important as yours, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[GalateaDunkel]

I used to dine at $400/meal per couple restaurants

Wow. Attempting to establish psychological dominance by dropping completely irrelevant and non-sequitur hints about one's personal wealth sounds really desperate.

[captain crunchy]

Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel

Wow. Attempting to establish psychological dominance by dropping completely irrelevant and non-sequiture hints about one's personal wealth sounds really desperate.

Wow. Attributing deeper meaning to a semi-humorous way to make a point (trading 400 a meal for cracker barrel, it's called *stark comparison*) seems to be attempting the same thing.

I got from it that she is not the type to take small children to fancy restaurants and expect them to "behave" the whole time, that she has modified certain things in the spirit of family harmony and to be considerate of others around her (eating).

[aira]

Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel

Wow. Attempting to establish psychological dominance by dropping completely irrelevant and non-sequitur hints about one's personal wealth sounds really desperate.

Or explaining that I gave up something I like for the sake of those around me...

I believe I was sneakily accused of not caring about fellow restaurant patrons.

Thanks for the snark, though, rude and uncalled for though it was.


.

[ShaggyDaddy]

Originally Posted by mamachandi

I would love to know what books your reading/have read on gd. I have a 12 year old and am dealing with issues that didn't come up when she was younger...and am having trouble dealing with it...suggestions?? thanks! love your posts!

Thanks for the compliment! No I actually haven't read any GD books, like Aja mentioned we had a lot of time to theorize, practice, and deconstruct everything we were going to do once we finally had kids. 5 years (of actively trying) is a long time to do soul searching and "parent planning" so we just started out way "ahead."

The reason why I am so passionate about consentual living and gentle discipline is because a consentual living attitude has allowed me to be very successful in life. Not just in dealing with children specifically, but in dealing with all people.

I really started to realize in high school that my "I don't bother them and they don't bother me attitude was not the best way to get what I wanted out of life." That is when I consciously tried to create a new life strategy (sounds epic right ). I realized that the best way to get what you want is to set things up so that:

1) Your expectations do not exceed the realm of realistic possibility
2) Your desires would not be harmful to others (preferably look for the benefit for others)

Now comes the hard part. If you truly believe a solution to a problem is mutually beneficial then you should be able to convince the other party or parties that it is true. If you can't convince yourself that it is the best thing to do, then you will probably not convince someone else. "It just is", "I said so", etc does not convince toddlers, kids, teenagers or adults.

Age and skill appropriate considerations have to be made. I am a tech geek, so I have had a lot of practice convincing people of things they don't understand and choosing my battles, both in what to argue and in what to try to explain.

When you are able to come to a mutual agreement we all win. People love to win. I don't care if you are meek, giving, and self-sacrificing or a power hungry control freak... If you feel like you "won" you will be happier. So obviously the way to succeed would be to set up situations so that as many people can win as possible. The ones you need the most effort, most consensus, and the most good will from should be the first winners.

Sometimes a hyper focused realization in how to foster good will in people can translate to an inapropriate power level. I have to admit that you can use a CL attitude to manipulate people if you need/want to. In high school I never read a single assigned reading except "Crime and Punnishment" and everything by Shakespear. I also "aced" every class (ended up with very high acedemic marks and a full acedemic college scholorship). I succeed in school through manipulation. I was successful at manipulation because the teachers "won" in every situation. Public school Teachers are generally hungry for a passionate student and I knew that. I made sure they saw passion, and in return they could not (or did not) see past my short cuts. I was able to swim through high school and do what I wanted to do: Learn about computers and learn social skills (not clique skills, but real social skills). I still am on the fence about how wrong this manipulation was. All I know is that we all got what we wanted. Did I cheat myself? Did I cheat them? All I know is this education in communication and human nature was far more valuable than anything they were trying to teach me.

My intense attitude of "Lets make everybody win" has really allowed me to succeed in the workplace with basically the same concept. Skills are great. Communication allows you to use your skills to their greatest potential. I can out talk, out teach, and out "benefit" most of the computer programmers I know, even the ones that are better programmers than I am. With managers, executives, clients, and shareholders the right person for the job is not the one that can do the job the best. It is the one that will give you the most "wins". It may not be fair, it may seem illogical, but it is true.

I know some of the "social engeneering" I have done could be considered unethical manipulation by some. I agree. But I am trying to get better. It is hard to not abuse a power, especially as a disempowered teenager. It is especially easy to use a manipulation tactic that lets everyone feel like they won. It feels good to give people what they want all the time.

Another flaw with my life philosophy is that I get very frustrated when somebody has to lose, and often I will choose myself when someone has to lose. But even then I am fulfiling my own need to let others win so it is not a total loss, but I have a very hard time deciding when it is ok to let someone else lose.

Fortunatly chidren's wants and needs are usually pretty compatible with "everyone wins." They are trying to learn how to deal with life. Show them by example, work with them to let everyone win and they will start to come up with "everybody wins" solutions very soon. We all live by bargaining and children should be no exception.

Here is a very common exchange:
"You need to clean your room"
"Why"

I think this is a valid question. In this situation I definatly have a strong opinion. The child's question is the pinnacle of valid. The parent has made what seems like a reasonable request. I, however, don't feel it is reasonable. In this situation the parent is contradicting themselves in philosophy. "YOUR" room... if you are going to set up a space and assign ownership to a child then you shouldn't make demands based on your own personal preference. If you need to control the "mess" in that room then it is not your child's room. I am a slob. I was allowed (except for some few and far between unreasonable outbursts) to keep my room however I wanted to when I was living with my parents. I actually try to keep the house fairly clean (sometimes it gets out of hand) but I do it because I want MY space clean. Not because I am required to by some higher power. You can educate your child as to why you think a clean room is better. You can make health requirements (like you can't have food or food trash or whatever) in there, but to require a child to keep their space a certain way transforms it from their space to your space. Of course the rules can be a little different for a younger child or if you are willing to do the cleaning (after all you are the one who wants it clean)

I guess from that example I am trying to say don't just pick your battles, but REALLY pick your battles. If you can't think of a way for everyone to win than is the request really reasonable?

Unfortunatly the experience I have with 12 year olds is just observing myself and my brother, and a few weeks here and there being in charge of the most well-adjusted 12 year old to ever live (My SIL who is currently 13). But I have lots of experience with people in the office that act like 12 year olds

Teenagers (you are almost there) have it worse than any other social group in my opinion. They are expected to act like adults, they try to act like adults, they are often treated worse than prisoners by adults, they have no real civil rights, they are expected to have civil responsibility. All of this and they constantly have whacked out hormones coursing through their veins. It SUCKS being a teenager. I think it is important to empathize with their pain. Many adults I have dealt with see a teenager's life as a life of ease and are actually jealous and have animosity for teenagers who hate their lives. Adults see someone who does not appreciate what they have. Teenagers rightfully see someone who does not understand their pain.

--- Sorry for the long post I bet you didn't expect me to write a book rather than listing ones I had read

[georgia]

I will ask that we each do our best to maintain a respectful environment, despite any perceived differences

Thanks!

[sunnysideup]

Originally Posted by faithnj

After all, if I was in a restaurant, and your child was screaming at the next table, I wouldn't really care why you were carrying him out, and how consensual your behavior was or wasn't. I'd just be thankful you'd be sparing me the annoyance.

Ok. But this is a parenting discussion board not a restaurant go-ers discussion board.

And the fact that you agree you'd carry your screaming child out of a restaurant, is why I say many of us are doing the same thing in practice, regardless of how one wants to label the ideas behind the actions.

It is about more than just removing the child from the restaurant. That action could seem very different to the child depending on how you do it and your reasoning behind it.

[aira]

ITA, sunnysideup.

This is what I said back in post #73:

Originally Posted by aira

Well, it's important to remember that intent goes a long way. Sometimes similar actions or words can be very different in different contexts and with different intentions...

I went on the explain what I meant further (though not as well as others have), but now I'm hearing that some don't care to be bothered with the distictions, and claim that we are just the same...

[IncaMama]

Originally Posted by faithnj

Uhhhhh, if the shoe fits, then wear it already. Otherwise, it's for you to debate with somebody else what you want to lable yourself, useless, CL, PD, or GD-- it's not for me to get into what you're more "accurately referred to." : There are a few others who seem more interested in those lables. I've already said I couldn't care less because I'm fine with being called "mommy."

what shoe am i not wearing? i've already stated multiple times that i see a difference between consensual living and positive discipline and other similar labels. i'm wearing the shoe that fits me. your contention throughout this entire thread is that there is no difference, and it's all just semantics and minutiae. from what i have read, you are the one most interested in the label thread of the debate, which is why i addressed it to you. and while you say now that you're fine being called "mommy" (as are most of the rest of us, i'd imagine...though some probably prefer "mama"), the rest of your posts in this thread suggest otherwise.

Please consider youself having had the last word with me, okay?

having the "last word" is of very little importance to me. i'd rather us understand each other.

[The4OfUs]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

Okay for those who completely reject that you see your children as *selfish* or bratty* or whatever (you don't neccessarily have to use those exact words), how do you feel? I mean, when your child is expressing an opinion or preference that you won't budge on, I imagine you have to approach it with a different mindset than people who practice consensual living -- so what is that mindset?

We look at issues that arise like this: there is a need that is unmet. There is a voice that is not being heard, there is something I am not understanding about why something is so important to her, there is a valid reason why she doesn't want to do __ or does want to do ___ .. so we work on it until a solution can be reached.

Are you seriously saying that you feel that way, you think "johnny has a need that I am not meeting but I am not going to explore that"?

That is why I said there has to be a different line of thinking. Okay, perhaps you don't think of your children as *bratty* and that was a bad choice of words, but I just can't imagine thinking "wow, johnny's feelings are as valid as mine and there is a reason he clearly doesn't want to do ___" ... then still imposing my will, and not feeling any guilt for it (as many posters have said they don't feel badly putting their foot down or whatever).

Okay, so you don't see them as bratty, but it leads me to believe some part of you feels their wants or needs in certain situations aren't as valid or important as yours, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

OK, I'll take a shot at this one.

I don't see my child as bratty or selfish or bad or whatever if he doesn't want to do something. He has every right to feel however he wants to about something. I don't see his opinions or feelings as less valid or important than mine.

What I do see (and this is where the great divide between us is, I think...) is that I believe that he doesn't have the intellectual capability, reasoning ability, or ability to see "the big picture" in situations, simply because he is 2-1/2. I live with him every day (and I believe that children grow into reasoning and negotiating and empathy and impulse control and what have you, that is it something that develops and grows with the help of a parent guiding them) and I know he's not able to see that [for example:] The momentary reason for not wanting to go indside when I want to go inside to cook dinner will be completely forgotten 2 minutes later when I have him set up at the kitchen sink playing in soap bubbles. If I try to talk to him about it, he gets upset and has a meltdown - I've learned this the hard way. So, I say it's time to go inside, tell him why, wait a minute for him to follow me, and if he doesn't I go gently take his hand and walk with him into the house, telling him while we walk that I'll get him bubbles and won't that be fun? And by the time we get to the bubbles, he's forgotten that he didn't want to come in in the first place. SO it's not that his desire to stay outside at that moment in time is less valid or important than my desire to go inside, I think they are equal, because they are our feelings. BUT, HE doesn't see it that way. He doesn't have the skills to be able to see the reasons why it's important for me to get dinner started, and how that will affect the rest of the evening...and frankly, at 2-1/2 I don't think he should have to realize this or care about it, either. As I said above, I try from time to time to discuss more with him, but he really doesn't respond well to it, it's too much information for him and he suts down and melts down. I've learned that much about him as a person, and I feel I need to respect that about him.

So, I don't de-value my child's feelings or thoughts or opinions...but I also do not believe that he is able to see "all the information" and use it rationally - as I said, I live with him, and see him do some pretty wacky stuff. And I don't believe that if I would have had him make all his decisions from the very beginning that he'd be different. Again, this is where I think the rub is for dividing us here on the board. I don't see children at birth as being able to make all decisions about their lives - I see them as growing into it - there is no set age for me, it's a process that depends on each individual child, and it's up to the parent to help the child get there as they grow - if you believe that children are born with the inherent ability to always make rational decisions, then that's where the divide is. I'm not saying I think my children are "lesser" because I don't think they are capable of complex reasoning from the get go, I don't think they're dumb or not valuable or unworthy. AND, I also do not believe that respect and coersion (for lack of a better way to put it) are mutually exclusive, with a child, because I believe they grow into their ability to reason. I respect my children for who I know they are and where I beleive they are at intellectually, mentally, emotionally, and socially at any given age/stage...but I do not beleive they have all the intellectual, mental, emotional, and social abilities that I have as an adult.

I love my child(ren) desperately, and firmly believe they deserve to be valued, validated, and accepted for who they are and what they think and feel. But I don't think that necessarily means they are my equal in all ways. They are different than I am; not lesser, not more, not equal, but different.

Does that help? I wonder what kind of reaction the above is going to get me. :

[Nora'sMama]

Originally Posted by The4OfUs

OK, I'll take a shot at this one.

I don't see my child as bratty or selfish or bad or whatever if he doesn't want to do something. He has every right to feel however he wants to about something. I don't see his opinions or feelings as less valid or important than mine.

What I do see (and this is where the great divide between us is, I think...) is that I believe that he doesn't have the intellectual capability, reasoning ability, or ability to see "the big picture" in situations, simply because he is 2-1/2. I live with him every day (and I believe that children grow into reasoning and negotiating and empathy and impulse control and what have you, that is it something that develops and grows with the help of a parent guiding them) and I know he's not able to see that [for example:] The momentary reason for not wanting to go indside when I want to go inside to cook dinner will be completely forgotten 2 minutes later when I have him set up at the kitchen sink playing in soap bubbles. If I try to talk to him about it, he gets upset and has a meltdown - I've learned this the hard way. So, I say it's time to go inside, tell him why, wait a minute for him to follow me, and if he doesn't I go gently take his hand and walk with him into the house, telling him while we walk that I'll get him bubbles and won't that be fun? And by the time we get to the bubbles, he's forgotten that he didn't want to come in in the first place. SO it's not that his desire to stay outside at that moment in time is less valid or important than my desire to go inside, I think they are equal, because they are our feelings. BUT, HE doesn't see it that way. He doesn't have the skills to be able to see the reasons why it's important for me to get dinner started, and how that will affect the rest of the evening...and frankly, at 2-1/2 I don't think he should have to realize this or care about it, either. As I said above, I try from time to time to discuss more with him, but he really doesn't respond well to it, it's too much information for him and he suts down and melts down. I've learned that much about him as a person, and I feel I need to respect that about him.

So, I don't de-value my child's feelings or thoughts or opinions...but I also do not believe that he is able to see "all the information" and use it rationally - as I said, I live with him, and see him do some pretty wacky stuff. And I don't believe that if I would have had him make all his decisions from the very beginning that he'd be different. Again, this is where I think the rub is for dividing us here on the board. I don't see children at birth as being able to make all decisions about their lives - I see them as growing into it - there is no set age for me, it's a process that depends on each individual child, and it's up to the parent to help the child get there as they grow - if you believe that children are born with the inherent ability to always make rational decisions, then that's where the divide is. I'm not saying I think my children are "lesser" because I don't think they are capable of complex reasoning from the get go, I don't think they're dumb or not valuable or unworthy. AND, I also do not believe that respect and coersion (for lack of a better way to put it) are mutually exclusive, with a child, because I believe they grow into their ability to reason. I respect my children for who I know they are and where I beleive they are at intellectually, mentally, emotionally, and socially at any given age/stage...but I do not beleive they have all the intellectual, mental, emotional, and social abilities that I have as an adult.

Does that help? I wonder what kind of reaction the above is going to get me. :

Once again The4OfUs gets it right, IMO. It is respectful of the child to respect his/her level of development. The ability to find consensus and consider others' needs besides one's own develops gradually. I just could not agree more with your post.

[slightly crunchy]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

We look at issues that arise like this: there is a need that is unmet. There is a voice that is not being heard, there is something I am not understanding about why something is so important to her, there is a valid reason why she doesn't want to do __ or does want to do ___ .. so we work on it until a solution can be reached.

I don't know who "we" is--I am assuming you mean you, yourself, as an individual parent. After all, that is what we are talking about here in the GD forum. I don't ever want to assume that something you say represents every other single person who calls themselves CL. And while I have every belief that you intend to parent your child this way throughout her life, at this point, wouldn't you agree, that it is mainly theory at this point in her life? I think that is what some other pp are getting at.

That said, your quote above, is exactly like I view things. And I consider that what I do is GD or perhaps closer to what some would call PD or UP. What I am saying is, that sometimes, working on it together til a solution can be reached is *impossible* unless part of the solution can include *in select circumstances, when no other alternative seems viable* bodily imposing a parent's will on the child, in cases of safety, consideration for other's persons and personal property, and other's physical needs.

I know other posters have said that CL is not TCS. But really, what is the difference to those of you who say they are CL? Do you agree with TCS that children at all stages are fully rational and can fully comprehend the consequences of every one of their actions? If not, then how can you say that a mutually agreeable solution can always be reached? I understand that 98% of the time, it can, and I agree with much of what you say there. What I (and I think others) are saying, and believe, is that sometimes, with young children in particular, it can't.

[aira]

Originally Posted by Nora'sMama

It is respectful of the child to respect his/her level of development.

Do you think that the rest of us don't respect our children's development?

No sarcasm... I really wonder about this.


.

[melissel]

Originally Posted by The4OfUs

So, I say it's time to go inside, tell him why, wait a minute for him to follow me, and if he doesn't I go gently take his hand and walk with him into the house, telling him while we walk that I'll get him bubbles and won't that be fun? And by the time we get to the bubbles, he's forgotten that he didn't want to come in in the first place.

I don't know, I'm really just learning about all this, but to me, this seems a good example of accomplishing CL with a child of this age, no? Had your DS, when you tried to gently lead him inside, pulled away and run to the other side of the yard to pick weeds, and then you went and picked him up bodily to carry him in while he cried and tried to get down, then I would say that was coercion. But I don't feel like you would have exerted your will over him, only that you gently guided him with the promise of a new adventure inside, which he was amenable to because he went with you.

Am I wrong in my understanding? And this is not to say I disagree with you on your assessment of working with a child's age level, only that in many cases I think the debaters here are talking about doing things in the same manner, yet under the guise of different labels.

(going back to my seat now )

[aira]

Originally Posted by slightly crunchy

And while I have every belief that you intend to parent your child this way throughout her life, at this point, wouldn't you agree, that it is mainly theory at this point in her life? I think that is what some other pp are getting at.

I wish I had more time to address this... Maybe I'll revisit my post later to expound.

It's a dedication to the ideals. Would you believe for a second that your non-spanking ideals may fade away at some point when things get more difficult than they are now?

Likewise, those of us who hold CL ideals would not resort to non-consensual interactions either, at any age. So the child's age is irrelevant to this, as much as your child's age is irrelevant to a discussion about spanking.

ETA: OK, just because I know someone is going to go here... No I am not equating non-CL and hitting. Please get that right out of your minds...