Is some GD philosophy *too* gentle??? - Page 8

[Nora'sMama]

Originally Posted by aira

Do you think that the rest of us don't?

No sarcasm... I really wonder about this.

Well, no, I wouldn't put it that way, at all. And let me be clear that I respect and have learned from the proponents of consensual living, and I think it is a very useful framework for interactions with people of all ages. However, I do not think it is an *adequate* framework for parenting young children. Until a child is fully communicative, it is up to the parent to discern the child's needs. The immature child (before a certain point that will of course vary from child to child) simply cannot be fully cognizant and empathetic to the parent's need. So, for me, it is more respectful of the child to acknowledge that and work with it rather than working from the assumption that the child can be a full decision-making partner in finding mutually agreeable solutions.

There are times when the only solution agreeable to the child will require the parent to set aside their needs. That is only natural, but I see a real imbalance in "consensual living" with the young child. The parent is the one who is able to bend and reconsider their wants and needs in order to accommodate the child. The child does not choose to alter their desires in order to accommodate the parent, even when doing so will ultimately benefit them. So a totally CL paradigm is very child-directed by necessity, and I don't think that is healthy. However the idea of trying to find mutually agreeable solutions whenever possible is very powerful and has been a real paradigm shift for me. So I am not anti-CL at all. I just think that it is not an adequate framework for parenting and that taken to an extreme it results in a way of life that I do not find...agreeable!

But I have found that I am unable to express myself very precisely on this issue because I am still sorting out my thoughts and, like CC, I have a 14-month-old, so yes, this is all mainly theoretical. I do feel like I need to add that disclaimer. IMO parenting a baby is very different from parenting a toddler is very different from parenting a school-age child, etc. Not to say that I can't have an opinion on parenting a school-age child but my understanding will necessarily be of a different sort than that of someone who is going through the actual parenting at this time. Kind of like how I was sure I knew every contingency that could happen during labor and birth and how to deal with that but when I actually went through it it was much different than I expected and I had different ideas about it afterwards than I did going in. Not that my ideas weren't valid beforehand, but they came from a different place and after giving birth I realized why some people are not really interested in hearing about labor and birth from a woman pregnant for the first time! So that experience humbled me and I do try to give a disclaimer when I discuss my opinion on things that I have not yet had personal BTDT experience with. Although I would hope my opinion is still valued, it may be valued in a different way.

[aira]

Well, yes, I agree that we all participate in familiy to our capacities.

But I don't see how that is different in any family, CL or not - well, with the exception of parents who neglect and such. I think the above statement applies to the average MDCer.

And furthermore, as children grow and their capacities deepen, they become more invloved in family interchanges. But I don't really foresee that my participation will lessen as DS's grows - I surmise that we will all grow more intimate and connected.

For now, I listen to what he has to tell me, and he carves the niche for himself in our family that he likes...


I guess I just don't see why the nature of families to grow and change over time, means that CL is out of the question. To me, CL is all about embrasing those changes, and honoring each stage along the way.


Sorry, this is a totally distracted ramble... I'm not sure if it makes sense. I'm doing about 4 things at once...

[Nora'sMama]

Originally Posted by aira

It's a dedication to the ideals.

This is another problem I have with the consensual living framework. It is very idealistic and I sense a real rigidity in some people's adherence to the ideal of CL and an inability to admit that it may not be the best way to look at every situation. It seems as if some think that admitting this would reduce the power of the consensual living paradigm. I truly believe that no one philosophy or system is adequate to determine our responses to every contingency in life, or a subset of life such as parenting, but that that does not mean that a given philosophy is not valuable or life-changing. I have also found that dedicating myself to ideals, no matter how beautiful, inevitably results in my rejecting out of hand solutions that are unorthodox, even if they could ultimately be reconciled with my ideals. It is the fervor itself, not the ideals, that causes this tunnel vision.

Of course I am only speaking for myself, but I have observed that this is a pretty common phenomenon with people who are very dedicated to a cause or an ideal.

[aira]

It's funny to read that perspective!

I actually see CL as infinitely flexible, and not rigid at all...

I have a few guiding principles that I strive to live by - all of which are complementary. CL is one of them.

[Nora'sMama]

Originally Posted by aira

I guess I just don't see why the nature of families to grow and change over time, means that CL is out of the question. To me, CL is all about embrasing those changes.

CL is definitely very much 'in the question' for me, I just don't think it is ENOUGH or that striving for all interactions to be consensual (in the strictest sense of consensual) is always the best way. It depends on the situation. I like CL very much as a way to think about interacting with people but for me it is not the only framework out there that makes sense, and while I might describe much of my parenting as consensus-based, I don't think that is the best way to describe how I parent my very young child. 'Consensus' is an idea that requires a level of maturity that my 14-month-old just does not have. So...mutually agreeable solutions whenever possible? Yes. Consensual living, at this point? No. Additionally, I see the parent's role somewhat differently from the CL advocates, although that does not mean I think the parent should "dominate" the child.

[aira]

I don't know if I'm gonna be able to articulate this idea well, so forgive me if it's foggy...

But for me I can't understand a principle as a sometimes thing... Indeed I may fall short or fail, but the principle doesn't really go anywhere. It's not rigidity that makes many of us hold fast to the ideal of treating others in this way, it's that we don't agree that principle fades in and out. It's just always there.

Other principles I strive for (incomplete list) that I often fall short in:

• seeking truth... see my senior title and this article
• leaving the planet healthier than I found it, aka "treading lightly"
• actively choosing peace (I've ranted about pacifism here on occasion)
• spiritual evolution
• compassion for all life
• living in harmony with the ecosystem of which I am a part - natural eating and living

[Nora'sMama]

Originally Posted by aira

It's funny to read that perspective!

I actually see CL as infinitely flexible, and not rigid at all...

Actually, I thought it was, too. But as I have learned more and seen how CL proponents defend CL and describe their interactions with their children, I no longer feel that it is *necessarily* flexible. I mean, it's flexible in a certain way...in that everything is open to reconsideration when it comes to getting everyone's needs met. And this is a very refreshing way to look at life. However, it depends on the goals you have for yourself and also for the individual circumstances of your family, but it is not always best (again just IMO!) to operate with that level of flexibility. The rigidity, to me, is in the idea that it is desirable and possible to negotiate EVERYTHING. I think it is disingenuous not to admit that for all practical purposes, most people have things in their lives that are not at all negotiable or that are not at all easy to negotiate, and that there are limits to the CL paradigm.

Ah, I am not saying exactly what I want to say, I can't seem to find the words, and now I have to go.

[The4OfUs]

Originally Posted by melissel

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.

(going back to my seat now )

You know what? You're right. The above is what happens about 90% of the time at our house....it's pretty darn consensual at our house when I think about our daily interactions. But OK, on a "bad" day when he starts to pull away from me and tries to run to the other end of the yard:

I go to him, get down on his level, and say again that we need to go inside because it's time for me to start dinner, that daddy will be home soon and we want to have time to play after dinner and before bed when we have so much fun together, and that we'll have fun in the sink inside while I cook dinner. And if he still tries to run away, then...Yes. I do pick him up and go into the house. There. I've admitted it - I'm not always a consensual parent, and that's OK with me. : But, it's because of all of the reasons in my other post about him not being able to see the big picture, etc. etc. If I try to talk more with him, he absolutely loses it and starts crying. It's happened before.

I don't get a thrill out of thwarting him and imposing my will...and I don't get mad because he's unhappy about having to go inside. But I also don't stay outside for an hour. It just is what it is. DH and I are not OK with dinner being delayed an hour because our family time is limited and precious as it is. And DS is unable to see the big picture, so, I pick him up.

AND.....as I said before, 2 minutes later he's completely forgotten about being outside and is squealing with joy while playing in a sink full of bubbles, making himself a bubble beard and moustache (his favorite thing to do with bubbles right now). .

[Nora'sMama]

Originally Posted by aira

I don't know if I'm gonna be able to articulate this idea well, so forgive me if it's foggy...

But for me I can't understand a principle as a sometimes thing... Indeed I may fall short or fail, but the principle doesn't really go anywhere. It's not rigidity that makes many of us hold fast to the ideal of treating others in this way, it's that we don't agree that principle fades in and out. It's just always there.

Other principles I strive for (incomplete list):

seeking truth... see my senior title
leaving the planet healthier than I found it, aka "treading lightly"
actively choosing peace (I've ranted about pacifism here on occasion)
spiritual evolution

Well, I agree with you. I am not disagreeing with the principle of striving for CL but with its application and with the way that its limitations are not acknowledged.

OK I really gotta go!! Nice chatting with you, aira.

[The4OfUs]

Originally Posted by Nora'sMama

Actually, I thought it was, too. But as I have learned more and seen how CL proponents defend CL and describe their interactions with their children, I no longer feel that it is *necessarily* flexible. I mean, it's flexible in a certain way...in that everything is open to reconsideration when it comes to getting everyone's needs met. And this is a very refreshing way to look at life. However, it depends on the goals you have for yourself and also for the individual circumstances of your family, but it is not always best (again just IMO!) to operate with that level of flexibility. The rigidity, to me, is in the idea that it is desirable and possible to negotiate EVERYTHING. I think it is disingenuous not to admit that for all practical purposes, most people have things in their lives that are not at all negotiable or that are not at all easy to negotiate, and that there are limits to the CL paradigm.

Ah, I am not saying exactly what I want to say, I can't seem to find the words, and now I have to go.

I totally get this, and agree with it, too.

[aira]

I think I get your point. But to reiterate, I think the times when negotiation fails (and it does) are due to an inability to keep seeking the solution, not that one doesn't exsist.

Now, I'm not saying that it makes us bad or failures. But that principle and human ability are not the same. Many things can prevent us from seeing that CL solution - fatigue, marital disharmony, work stress, lots of stuff. But that's our "stuff" and not a failing of the ideal.

Originally Posted by Nora'sMama

Nice chatting with you, aira.

Back at cha!

[majikfaerie]

After wading through 145 posts, (sheepishly admitting that I skim-read a bunch after the first few pages), I just wanted to come back to the original question:
Is some GD philosophy *too* gentle???
I think the answer is NO, and it seems to me, according to the majority of GD-parent responses here, is that we all agree.
GD philosophy is NOT *too* gentle.
however, I think the question was worded wrongly; perhaps what the OP meant was "is some GD philosophy *too* permissive"
And here, I think the answer is "yes".
Some parents take the basic idea of GD and take it over the edge to mean that they never say 'no', put all their needs in third place to their child's first and second place, and basically let their kid 'get away with murder' in order to never let them become upset or frustrated.

I used to have a friend like this. She literally never put her child down unless she asked to go down, never ever left the child out of her sight (even with the father), never let the child cry, always gave in immediately to *every* whim of the child. This woman had the kind of infinite patience with her child that makes Gandhi look like Hitler, however she turned into the opposite if she ever saw another parent who wasn't just as AP and GD as her. I have seen her 'holding it' for over an hour until her eyes were watering rather than go pee when her child didn't want to leave the park. Though my dd is 11 months older than her dd, and a totally different person, she always felt that she knew best what I should be doing with my dd.

One time she came to visit on a day that I was a bit sick and suffering badly from depression (a chronic illness I struggled with my whole life until I discovered a year ago that I'm allergic to chocolate and quitting cocoa brought about a miraculous recovery).
My dd (21 mo at the time) was over-tired, and super-fussy, and I got to a point beyond the end of my rope. there came a moment where I simply couldnt offer my breast any more, it was all I could do to just hold my dd tight and let her cry in my arms, crying myself. My friend was furious with me for not nursing my dd, she just couldnt see that in that moment, I really was unable to give what my child wanted, and I was comforting her as best as I could. She totally overlooked the fact that I was deeply in need myself.

Many times similar incedents happened (usually not as a result of my depression, but just having an over-tired crying dd) where I was okay with letting my dd cry while I hugged her and comforted her (she is like me, and gets totally irrational and hysterical when she's overtired), but this friend would be bending over backwards, offering anything and everything to get her to stop crying. She would often snatch some toy out of the hands of my child

In the end, she insulted me one too many times in this way and we are no longer friends.

children do need boundaries, but these boundaries need to be real ones, with real consequences that they can understand. Children need to have these limits explained to them and discussed with them. When the child finds these boundaries hard to stay within, we need to work with the child so that they can feel comfortable about staying within them.

Washing hands after we go to the toilet is a good example.
We always wash our hands after using the bathroom, and we find it unaceptable that our dd might not do this too. We start with lead by example, and of course washed her hands from the beginning. When she gets to a point that she doesn't want to wash her hands, we explain why we do it, and the reasons why it's not optional or up for negotiation (some other examples are up for negotiation, of course). We discuss with her about germs and disease. We listen to her desire not to wash her hands and reply thoughfully. We try to brainstorm together with her solutions whereby she can be happy about washing her hands (like; what if we buy pink soap?). And we (try to) have the patience to keep the discussion respectful and gentle until dd washes her hands by her own will.

There is always a gentle solution and GD often involves a lot of compromise.

[MissRubyandKen]

This may be ot, but it seems relative to me. There are reasons I don't feel comfortable with labeling myself CL. One reason is I am very comfortable labeling a set of ideas for clarification and unity of ideals purposes, yet I have issues with labeling people(myself). It seems to imply more than is there. With an ideal it is what it is, it is 100% what it is. Yet a person could not be that 100%. I realize some people can seperate that and be comfortable with it and some can not. To some the label will imply an all or nothingness. To some the label will imply a striving for. What I see when people are labeled is that it does tend to put up a barrier for some people. Does this make sense? It puts a question in my mind I guess as to how racist, homophobic, consensual, gay, etc(whatever the label is) the person is and how it fits into their individual life. I'm aware it probably lumps them together with an amazingly vast and different bevy of people. It is the individuality that can and does exist within a label that makes it hard for me to apply to a person rather than an idea. I'm not sure if anyone else has this issue with labels or if its just my own quacky thing.

ETA- Btw I'm not saying I don't, won't, can't, or refuse to use labels, just that I have issues with them. I understand their purpose and usefulness, just feel that like everything else in this world labels aren't perfect and definitely aren't perceived the same by everyone.

[aira]

Originally Posted by majikfaerie

I think the question was worded wrongly; perhaps what the OP meant was "is some GD philosophy *too* permissive"
And here, I think the answer is "yes".
Some parents take the basic idea of GD and take it over the edge to mean that they never say 'no', put all their needs in third place to their child's first and second place, and basically let their kid 'get away with murder' in order to never let them become upset or frustrated.

Well, yes. But most here would say that it isn't GD that you're descibing, but No-D.

You have clarified something worth dicsussing, but it is not in any way CL. But this is the pervasive misunderstanding.

[IncaMama]

Originally Posted by slightly crunchy

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.

just a guess, but mightn't she have been referring to herself and her husband? the parents of her child? the child that she is only raising "in theory" since she's only 14mos old at this point? like i said to faithnj, there are many people with children older than CC's (like myself) who parent the same way. since i notice you have no signature, might i ask how old your children are that make your views on this infinitely more valid?

Originally Posted by slightly crunchy

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.

so what's your beef? that she chose a different term for her philosophy than you did? i don't get it.

Originally Posted by slightly crunchy

in cases of safety, consideration for other's persons and personal property, and other's physical needs.

is this meaning to suggest that those of us who say we follow a consensual living philosophy don't have contingency plans for issues of safety, other persons, personal property, and physical needs? that these issues don't matter to us?

[captain crunchy]

I am really becoming frustrated at the dismissal of my life philosophy due to the fact that my daughter is only 14 months old. I think it is a clever (or not so actually) way to divert the discussion towards a very "you just wait" attitude that is truthfully, annoying.

Being a proud mama, I would love to believe my child is the most intelligent, enlightened, aware, communicative being and that I am in touch with her every need and want, but honestly, that is not the case (though she is wonderful). I believe ALL children are capable of living in the manner we live, regardless of personality type. I am not suggesting certain things won't be more challenging or at times, frustrating, or that a balance of meeting everyone's needs and wants is always easy --- but to suggest that it must work for us because our daughter is *only* 14 months old or *must* be agreeable all the time, or *must* not express differences to our opinion or agenda is simply not true.

I choose, yes it is an ACTIVE choice, I CHOOSE to believe my daughter has the best of intentions and is a social being who genuinely wants to do the "right" thing. I choose to believe she has her own purpose for being in this world, and though I have been given the special gift of being one of her *guides* or *caretakers* or whatever you like -- that it is not my place to force my agenda on her because I am older and bigger and because I gave birth to her.

Do you honestly believe she never has her own opinion? That her opinion or wants never differ from mine? That she always goes along with my agenda? That we don't have our own unique struggles or situations? Is it a fair assumption to make that because she is *only* 14 months old, that when she reaches a certain arbitrary age, I am simply going to say "fuggit" and throw my whole philosophy out the window? That is a bit offensive.

Certain people seem to think that mutually agreeable solutions means a 4 hour conversation over every single choice. Sometimes the act of simply not protesting is a mutually agreeable solution. For instance if I say to my daughter, "Do you want to go to the park? Okay, let's go honey" and I begin to put her in her carseat, if she goes in happily, I don't need to have a 30 minute conversation "I see you are not protesting, I see you are okay with going, are you sure you want to go, even though you are happily getting in your carseat I want to make sure you are okay with it, are you sure you're okay because if you aren't you know, we can not go". That is ridiculous. She is happy to get in, she knows she can protest if she is not okay with it, and she knows I will honor that.

I guess I will never understand despite trying to be eternally convinced, how people can claim their parenting is exactly like our family's, that it is all semantics, it is all the same at the end of the day -- when there are fundamental differences. The fundamental difference being, it is in your toolbox to force if neccessary (after trying different ways). It is not in our toolbox to force anything --- the only exceptions (and even then it would be an absolute last resort to coerce) would be the damaging of someone else's body or property -- it is my job to protect the boundaries of others if they can't themselves (i.e. if my daughter was hitting another child etc).

[irinam]

ShaggyDaddy, once more

Somehow your style of posting really speaks to me (I am not even mentioning that I completely agree with the spirit of it)

May be because I am a techie as well? May be because I am intimately familiar with the corporate environment you speak of? Or may be it's simply because you make sense?

[aira]

Originally Posted by CC

I am really becoming frustrated at the dismissal of my life philosophy due to the fact that my daughter is only 14 months old. I think it is a clever (or not so actually) way to divert the discussion towards a very "you just wait" attitude that is truthfully, annoying.

[irinam]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

I am really becoming frustrated at the dismissal of my life philosophy due to the fact that my daughter is only 14 months old. I think it is a clever (or not so actually) way to divert the discussion towards a very "you just wait" attitude that is truthfully, annoying. .

Will it make you fell better if I say - I completely agree with your philisophy and I think I've done all the "waiting" there is - my olders DS is about to turn 19 (years that is) in a few weeks?

I just can't post "yeah dat's" after each one of your posts, LOL, and everytime I come to those discussions like this - you or Aira or Pat or IncaMama already said what I wanted to say

[ShaggyDaddy]

Captain crunchy:

You just wait till your child is older







(then people will say you don't remember what it is like with a babe, or that you only have 1 or only 2 etc etc)

The point I keep trying to make is that CL is how I deal with everybody in my life. I think it is terribly non-productive to try to deal with one person one way and another a different way. Of course there are considerations based on love, skill level, etc.

The fact that my child is 13 months has nothing to do with the philosophy that I have used for years to deal with people of ALL ages.

I understand where you are comming from, but you will ALWAYS run in to that opposition.