Whats wrong with "no!"?

[anothermama]

Let me start by saying I don't agree with hitting or shaming. I don't agree with teaching a child with anger.

It seems like there is this whole movement in AP mom communities to not be negative AT ALL, and it seems to be to their detriment and the detriment of their child.

Example: I run a daycare and work with strictly toddlers. I have a family who was adamant about not using the world "No!". She really fell into this "positive discapline" thing to the extreme. Of course, she just had to come up with all sorts of "creative" ways to say "no"........"not for babies" "don't", etc etc. What's the point?

But the worst part is that she'd say these phrases in a kind, sweet, doting voice. Her daughter would hit her in the face violently and she'd sweetly say "Please don't hit mama!!!". What the heck is that teaching the kid? Oh yeah.......that you get positive attention when you hit! :

It seems like the GD pendulum, if you will, has really swung to an almost dysfunctional extreme of being nice to your kids no matter what. What's wrong with saying "no"? What's wrong with setting boundries and limits? What's wrong with letting children know there are negative consequences to some things? I don't think that letting them know, say, hitting is a bad thing means you have to beat them. But firmly letting them now that it's not ok to hit friends just teaches them that...........if you hit friends, people will be unhappy with you! In real life, not everyone is always going to give you positive attention for everything you do.

I see a lot of posts here where parents ask for help with a big issue.........hitting, biting, other violent behavior.......and the first response is "well why are they doing it". I'm sorry, but I don't CARE WHY my 3 year old hit another kid, it's no ok. We'll talk about it and share our feelings AFTER he knows that it's not ok. It seems like it's just making excuses for bad behavior to say "Well, she hit because she was really tired". So you're teaching your kid that it's ok to be violent to others if you have a good excuse to do so?

I get a little worried at the AP label at times because it just seems so often lately it's associate with "those parents"..........those parents you see in the mall or the grocery store who have a child abusing the crud out of them and all the while the parent is gently cooing "Whats wrong bunny? Mommy doesn't like it when you hit me with that spatula!". YKWIM?

I guess what I want to know is..........why isn't it ok to say no? Why isn't it ok to teach children that they will evoke negative responses from people if they hurt them? I understand the concept of GD in terms of not wanting to abuse or harm a child. Does that mean it's not ok to allow a child to feel badly abut their actions?

[Fuamami]

Originally Posted by anothermama

But the worst part is that she'd say these phrases in a kind, sweet, doting voice. Her daughter would hit her in the face violently and she'd sweetly say "Please don't hit mama!!!". What the heck is that teaching the kid? Oh yeah.......that you get positive attention when you hit! :

Well, I think that also teaches a kid really poor methods of enforcing boundaries. I agree that it's very unhealthy, but not because of the "negative/positive" attention thing.

Originally Posted by anothermama

It seems like the GD pendulum, if you will, has really swung to an almost dysfunctional extreme of being nice to your kids no matter what. What's wrong with saying "no"? What's wrong with setting boundries and limits? What's wrong with letting children know there are negative consequences to some things? I don't think that letting them know, say, hitting is a bad thing means you have to beat them. But firmly letting them now that it's not ok to hit friends just teaches them that...........if you hit friends, people will be unhappy with you! In real life, not everyone is always going to give you positive attention for everything you do.

Again, I don't think is particular to GD. I have a friend who uses T/O and CIO, but here's how she puts her kid in T/O.

"Sweetie, you can't hit. Mommy doesn't want you to hit honey, okay? Come on, you're having a time-out for that, okay? No more hitting, okay?"

I don't think that's a very clear or effective message.

Originally Posted by anothermama

I see a lot of posts here where parents ask for help with a big issue.........hitting, biting, other violent behavior.......and the first response is "well why are they doing it". I'm sorry, but I don't CARE WHY my 3 year old hit another kid, it's no ok. We'll talk about it and share our feelings AFTER he knows that it's not ok. It seems like it's just making excuses for bad behavior to say "Well, she hit because she was really tired". So you're teaching your kid that it's ok to be violent to others if you have a good excuse to do so?

You really don't care? You don't think it would make any difference in your discipline if you knew the exact reason your three year old hit someone? What if it was because a bigger kid kept taking away her toys? What if it was because she was resentful of a younger sibling?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you should condone hitting. But I think most people post because they have a CHRONIC hitting problem, and want to stop it. If that's the case, you've got to look at the causes.

I don't think GD is about being "nice" to your child at all costs. Just like all of AP, it's about being proactive rather than reactive. Instead of focusing on the punishment that will be harsh or scary enough to get your dc to stop hitting, GD parents tend to focus on setting their children up for success. What can be wrong with that?

[littleaugustbaby]

Originally Posted by natensarah

You really don't care? You don't think it would make any difference in your discipline if you knew the exact reason your three year old hit someone? What if it was because a bigger kid kept taking away her toys? What if it was because she was resentful of a younger sibling?

ITA. With kids, especially young ones, they act out because they are not mature enough to get a good handle on their emotions. So they resort to tantrums, hitting, grabbing, etc.

You can't fix a problem if you don't know what caused it. The whole point of GD is to teach kids to work through their feelings, rather than arbitrarily punishing them, which serves no purpose.

If a child misbehaves and your immediate reaction is to tell them that it is wrong or not ok, then it puts the child on the defensive (and IMO, it is shaming), which makes it really difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion about feelings, or how to better handle themselves the next time.

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by anothermama

I see a lot of posts here where parents ask for help with a big issue.........hitting, biting, other violent behavior.......and the first response is "well why are they doing it". I'm sorry, but I don't CARE WHY my 3 year old hit another kid, it's no ok. We'll talk about it and share our feelings AFTER he knows that it's not ok. It seems like it's just making excuses for bad behavior to say "Well, she hit because she was really tired". So you're teaching your kid that it's ok to be violent to others if you have a good excuse to do so?

I don't think there's anything wrong with no, per se. I have no problem with telling ds "DO NOT HIT ME!!!" But I think that a "no" should be followed by a "yes." That means that the reason he is hitting definitely matters. How else could I help him not hit the next time? How am I going to teach him better ways to express himself and his impulses if I don't understand what those impulses are?
It's not "oh, he hit me but he has a reason so it's ok." It's that if I know that he's hitting me because he wants my attention, I can help him learn acceptable ways to let me know that he wants my attention.

Just saying "no, don't hit" doesn't address what they need to learn. The impulse is still there. He'll still want to get my attention. So either he's going to keep hitting to get it, or he's going to have to try to figure it out on his own, which could take some time and go through some other less than acceptable methods. If I help him figure it out, we both benefit, and additionally he learns that even though some ACTIONS are not acceptable, I understand that the reason behind the action was legitimate, and that I will work with him to find better way to express it.

[MrsAprilMay]

Young children have a hard time understanding negative words. I remember an ECE professor in college telling me that when you say to a young child "Don't run" they actually hear "Do run."

I also feel that simply saying no or don't doesn't help the child figure out what they should do instead. For example, I say "Walk" instead of "Don't run" or "Hitting hurts. Use gentle hands with so&so." Instead of "Don't hit so&so." If I can see a reason why she hit, like so&so took her toy, I try to empathize with her. "So&so took your toy. You feel sad/angry/frustrated/whatever." And then I offer her a solution: "Do you want to ask so&so for your toy back, or do you want to play with this one instead?" As she gets older, I'll lighten up on my suggestions and encourage her to find her own solutions.

[DevaMajka]

See, Ime negative instructions like "don't grab toys from Lily" have a place, as long as they are followed by a positive instruction "If you want something she's playing with, offer to trade for something else."
I tried the no negatives before, and it left me feeling like ds had to figure out for himself exactly what I was trying to change, or if I was trying to change anything at all. So, to him, I might be saying "offer to trade something" as a helpful suggestion, and not that he shouldn't grab toys from her.

Additionally, I don't necessarily care if he offers to trade or not. I just want him to NOT grab.

[anothermama]

Originally Posted by MrsAprilMay

Young children have a hard time understanding negative words. I remember an ECE professor in college telling me that when you say to a young child "Don't run" they actually hear "Do run."

I also feel that simply saying no or don't doesn't help the child figure out what they should do instead. For example, I say "Walk" instead of "Don't run" or "Hitting hurts. Use gentle hands with so&so." Instead of "Don't hit so&so." If I can see a reason why she hit, like so&so took her toy, I try to empathize with her. "So&so took your toy. You feel sad/angry/frustrated/whatever." And then I offer her a solution: "Do you want to ask so&so for your toy back, or do you want to play with this one instead?" As she gets older, I'll lighten up on my suggestions and encourage her to find her own solutions.

I don't buy that one bit. I run a daycare with toddlers, and you know what? They all know what "no" means. They all know when I say "Don't hit your friend" that they need to stop. I think toddlers are more clever than we think. When I see parents avoiding no, I see toddlers little wheels turning, knowing they are going to get away with whatever they want to do.

[anothermama]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

See, Ime negative instructions like "don't grab toys from Lily" have a place, as long as they are followed by a positive instruction "If you want something she's playing with, offer to trade for something else."
I tried the no negatives before, and it left me feeling like ds had to figure out for himself exactly what I was trying to change, or if I was trying to change anything at all. So, to him, I might be saying "offer to trade something" as a helpful suggestion, and not that he shouldn't grab toys from her.

Additionally, I don't necessarily care if he offers to trade or not. I just want him to NOT grab.

I really hate that approach. A lot of parents here do it, and then for some reason it's the OTHER kids fault when the kid DOESNT want to trade, and the first kid still ends up upset. Whats wrong with "That's Junes turn now, you can play with X Y or Z". Whenever I have a parent try to do this "Oh you want this toy? Oh, your crying? Oh lets see if so and so will let you have a turn/trade/etc" it always leaves one kid crying and I don't think it teaches a good lesson at all. When I see parents using this approach, it's usually just a weak excuse to get their kid whatever he or she wants.

[anothermama]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

I don't think there's anything wrong with no, per se. I have no problem with telling ds "DO NOT HIT ME!!!" But I think that a "no" should be followed by a "yes." That means that the reason he is hitting definitely matters. How else could I help him not hit the next time? How am I going to teach him better ways to express himself and his impulses if I don't understand what those impulses are?
It's not "oh, he hit me but he has a reason so it's ok." It's that if I know that he's hitting me because he wants my attention, I can help him learn acceptable ways to let me know that he wants my attention.

Just saying "no, don't hit" doesn't address what they need to learn. The impulse is still there. He'll still want to get my attention. So either he's going to keep hitting to get it, or he's going to have to try to figure it out on his own, which could take some time and go through some other less than acceptable methods. If I help him figure it out, we both benefit, and additionally he learns that even though some ACTIONS are not acceptable, I understand that the reason behind the action was legitimate, and that I will work with him to find better way to express it.

I understand what you're saying, but it seems like it has flawed methodology. I don't understand why you can't, say, reprimand a toddler who's punching you to get attention and then, when they've calmed, say "If you want mama, just say Mama" or whatever you want to use to get your attention.

Just saying "dont hit!" certain does teach them that they need to find other ways to get your attention/get what they want! Kids are SMART! If Timmy can't hit to get your attention, he WILL find another way to get it. Caudling it seems counterproductive, in practice, to me.

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by anothermama

I really hate that approach. A lot of parents here do it, and then for some reason it's the OTHER kids fault when the kid DOESNT want to trade, and the first kid still ends up upset. Whats wrong with "That's Junes turn now, you can play with X Y or Z". Whenever I have a parent try to do this "Oh you want this toy? Oh, your crying? Oh lets see if so and so will let you have a turn/trade/etc" it always leaves one kid crying and I don't think it teaches a good lesson at all. When I see parents using this approach, it's usually just a weak excuse to get their kid whatever he or she wants.

Hmmm...it seems like you are making a lot of assumtions about something that I picked simply as an example.
I could have said "Ds, don't hit me with that book. If you want me to read to you, put the book in my hand." Or "Don't let the water run if you're not using it. Turn it off when you're done." I was just saying that negatives seem to be useful in telling kids exactly WHAT isn't ok for them to do, and that positives are useful in telling them some options that they can do instead.

In the situations that I tell ds to offer to trade, half of the time "Lily" (who is a year younger, and generally doesn't care what she's playing with) is happy to trade. In that case, it works for everyone. The other half of the time, she doesn't want to, and she keeps what she had, and I go from there with ds. "She doesn't want to trade. You can play with x while you wait for her to be done with y."
I REALLY don't see anything wrong with trying to trade a 2yo for a different toy that she's likely going to be just as happy with anyways. Ds is aware that it's Lily's choice whether to take the trade or not.

Just because you see that particular phrase used in a certain way, doesn't mean that everyone who uses it is doing the same thing.

I don't use that method with kids who are closer to ds's age, because it's just not the same. But with kids closer to his age (actually the friends he has are a bit older), they find solutions between themselves most of the time. When they don't, we (the parents) just facilitate solution finding.

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by anothermama

I understand what you're saying, but it seems like it has flawed methodology. I don't understand why you can't, say, reprimand a toddler who's punching you to get attention and then, when they've calmed, say "If you want mama, just say Mama" or whatever you want to use to get your attention.

Just saying "dont hit!" certain does teach them that they need to find other ways to get your attention/get what they want! Kids are SMART! If Timmy can't hit to get your attention, he WILL find another way to get it. Caudling it seems counterproductive, in practice, to me.

I'm not sure where you're getting coddling from. I'm not talking about coddling. I'm talking about helping my 3yo find acceptable ways to express himself.
I do not allow hitting. It's not ok. I don't even allow him to play hit me. It makes me very uncomfortable. But I'm not sure what you mean by "reprimand." I tell him "Don't hit me. I don't like to be hit." I might explain further why I don't like it- it hurts, I don't like the way it feels, etc. That's the extent of the "reprimanding" that I do. That's all that it takes for ds to know, um, not to hit me.

I'm sure that ds would find other ways to express himself, but why not help them find a solution that works for both of us? That way, he doesn't have to go through trial and error, and *I* know what he's trying to express by it. I can certainly envision a dc trying a different tactic, only to find that it doesn't work, or that Mom doesn't intrepret it correctly, etc.
Also, in the heat of the moment, it's hard to think of and use alternatives, and not resort to our instinctual response. It's hard for adults too, and we are more capable of looking back and evaluating our interactions. We have a better understanding of how our actions affect others, and what is likely to work, and what effects certain actions are likely to have.

Example- when he was about 2 (a little younger) he went through a phase of hitting me with his book. He was trying to get me to read to him. I did the "don't hit me" thing, I left the room, I threatened to not read at all, I yelled ...he KNEW that hitting me with the book wasn't the best way to get me to read to him. But he was still doing it, because he hadn't yet figured out what to do instead.
As soon as I said to him "if you want me to read to you, put the book in my hand" he stopped hitting me with books. He hasn't hit me with a book since the minute I said those words. He knew a better way to express himself, so he used it.

I've had so many situations like that, that I totally believe in giving acceptable alternatives. It just works, at least for us.

[ktmama]

Personally, I don't use "no" a lot because, if I overuse it, it loses it's effectiveness when I DO need it, like in a safety related situation. Also, it's not very instructive in terms of teaching my dd what I WOULD like her to do.

If a child misbehaves and your immediate reaction is to tell them that it is wrong or not ok, then it puts the child on the defensive (and IMO, it is shaming), which makes it really difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion about feelings, or how to better handle themselves the next time.

Just wanted to add that I totally disagree with this. It's not shaming to tell a child that their behavior is wrong/bad/inappropriate/unacceptable, but it IS shaming to tell a child that HE/SHE is wrong or bad. IMO, it's our job as parents to guide (discipline) our children into adulthood and interpreting our culture's norms for them in a gentle way is the best way to do it.

[babygrace]

agree with ktmama. nothing wrong, per se, with 'no'.

[dulce de leche]

Anothermama, it sounds like you expect these scheming, manipulative children to do the worst thing possible that they "can get away with".

[Fuamami]

Originally Posted by ktmama

Just wanted to add that I totally disagree with this. It's not shaming to tell a child that their behavior is wrong/bad/inappropriate/unacceptable, but it IS shaming to tell a child that HE/SHE is wrong or bad. IMO, it's our job as parents to guide (discipline) our children into adulthood and interpreting our culture's norms for them in a gentle way is the best way to do it.

I think it's hard for most young children to separate their behavior from themselves. An older child, yes, they can understand that they are not made entirely of what they do. But a two year old? I don't think so. You tell them, "Hitting is bad!" I think they're going to hear, "You are bad!"

[Fuamami]

Originally Posted by anothermama

I don't buy that one bit. I run a daycare with toddlers, and you know what? They all know what "no" means. They all know when I say "Don't hit your friend" that they need to stop.

So why does it keep happening, then?

[chfriend]

My life plan is to be nice to my kids no matter what. And my family is not particularly dysfunctional.

The best reason I've heard in discussions around this is that people (including children people) hear you best when you frame things positively. So, if you want to communicate effectively, tell people what they can do.

For example, my just turned 7 year old was talking to her 23 month old cousin when we were drawing with salt on the table, "That's [your brother's] salt. He wants to draw in it right now. Here is your salt. How about you draw in that?"

To which I said, "Someday you are going to be an amazing mother."

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

See, Ime negative instructions like "don't grab toys from Lily" have a place, as long as they are followed by a positive instruction.

I agree with this, but I also don't have much of a problem with saying "no" followed by explanation of why not.

I think GD is much like AP - there's no one definition, but there are guiding principles.

For me, I don't use harsh punishment, I don't spank, I don't shame, and I don't say something without trying to explain why/why not or making into some sort of learning experience.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by ktmama

Personally, I don't use "no" a lot because, if I overuse it, it loses it's effectiveness when I DO need it, like in a safety related situation. Also, it's not very instructive in terms of teaching my dd what I WOULD like her to do.

If a child misbehaves and your immediate reaction is to tell them that it is wrong or not ok, then it puts the child on the defensive (and IMO, it is shaming), which makes it really difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion about feelings, or how to better handle themselves the next time.

Just wanted to add that I totally disagree with this. It's not shaming to tell a child that their behavior is wrong/bad/inappropriate/unacceptable, but it IS shaming to tell a child that HE/SHE is wrong or bad. IMO, it's our job as parents to guide (discipline) our children into adulthood and interpreting our culture's norms for them in a gentle way is the best way to do it.

Originally Posted by babygrace

agree with ktmama. nothing wrong, per se, with 'no'.

I agree with you guys.

[anothermama]

Originally Posted by natensarah

So why does it keep happening, then?

I think that in the toddler years in particular, there will always be slip ups. It's their nature. They will often act before thinking and thats ok, but I don't think it's helping them to just go on as if their actions have no negative consequences. My son got to a point where if he pushed or hit he'd immediately look at me, because he knew it was a no no. Actually, now, my son is to the point where if he hits or pushes, I just say his name, and he cries because he knows he's going to not be able to play with his friends.