Observations of traditional discipline - Page 7

[ruhbehka]

I think it's also common and possible for parents to appreciate the item that their child wants without encouraging "affluenza."

There is middle ground between, "I wish I could buy you a hundred Hot Wheels, and everything else you want, Snuggly Huggly Bear," and "You don't need another Hot Wheel, you materialistic little grub."

Plenty of children would feel validated with a simple "Ooh, that one is pretty. It reminds me of the blue one you have at home."

[mytwogirls]

I agree!!!!!!!!

[allgirls]

Originally Posted by mz_libbie22

I disagree. In some situations it would be indulging the child to empathize with them, even if you don't give them what it is they are wanting. This comes up very rarely for us, but if the child's 'want' is really excessive, showing empathy or turning it into a fantasy sends the child the message that it's okay to be materialistic, it's indulging that feeling of selfishness that prompted the child to say "I want___" in the first place. When your child is whining for a toy for example (which apparently many here are so lucky this has never happened to them...but anyway) if your repsonse is "yeah, wouldn't that be nice to have that" it seems like a reinforcement of materialistic values. I don't think that's the best response for kids who already have so much more than they need anyway. I think the distinction between wants and needs must be taught and reinforced by the parents. That's my opinion. I show my DS loads of empathy and kindness, he isn't going to be filled with resentment because I occasionally tell him matter-of-factly that he doesn't need yet another hotwheels car or box of legos. On the contrary, I've found it works the best for my DS (who was born to argue) because it's a very common sense, blunt, and truthful answer.

Possibly "in some situations" but alternatively simply by being satisfied by the fantasy means that you didn't really "need" the material object you were wanting. So that kind of proves itself to be a want rather than a need.

It is OK to want things. It's not so ok to expect them and feel entitled to them.

So anytime you "wished" for something that wasn't a need, didn't get it right away and went on without it means you learned that lesson, that wants and needs are different. I just like doing that gently with my kids.

I think there is a vast difference in "wanting something" and being materialistic. Simply wanting legos is not materialistic, wanting them enough to find solutions and ways to enable you to get legos is not materialistic.

Being materialistic simply means that you don't understand(or that you don't care) that things are just things and that they really don't define you. Yeah, they are fun to have but they are not important and that what is important is the friendships and people you cultivate, not the car you drive.

I don't think wishing in fantasy cultivates materialistic attitudes at all. I think it's just a fun way to get through the disappointment of not being able to get what you want when you want.

I think giving kids whatever they want without a thought possibly cultivates materialism in them. Teaching them to earn what they want by working towards a goal or teaching them they can actually be fine without that wish is teaching them the difference between wants and needs.

We all have wants. I don't know anyone who doesn't want some thing. Everybody who participates on MDC has a computer and usually it started with wanting one.

That doesn't make a person materialistic.

Mammal_Mama...no damage done...I think this has been a very productive thread. Thanks for sharing all you have with us.

PS..I was wondering who said their children haven't ever whined for a toy...

[allgirls]

Originally Posted by ruhbehka

There is middle ground between, "I wish I could buy you a hundred Hot Wheels, and everything else you want, Snuggly Huggly Bear," and "You don't need another Hot Wheel, you materialistic little grub."

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by ruhbehka

Not at all. I think this thread has been useful, despite the derailing.

That's good to know! I still feel there's lots of good to be gained from continuing this discussion, and I'm glad there are some others who feel this way.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by sledg

I have found that empathizing with them regarding their disappointment over not being able to buy something, absolutely does not reinforce materialistic values. It reinforces compassion for other human beings and their feelings. It moves the focus from the material to the human, and teaches a lot about considering others.

I agree! And you've put it so much better than I could have ... I wanted to respond to that other post but wasn't sure just how to make my point. You've done it for me!

[nathansmum]

Originally Posted by sledg

I hear what you're saying, OP. It is neat--the sudden realization one can sometimes have about how differently one thinks now as opposed to "back then." When you realize how much you're perspective has changed. And how good that realization can sometimes feel, when you recognize all the good your change in thinking/perspective has brought to your life.

Yep, I hear what you're saying too OP. I felt it like I was on a totally different plane of thought when I realised how far I'd come in my own thinking. I find now though, I don't think about it so much - I used to analyse "myself then" and "myself now" quite a lot - more about my own journey than actually judging others on what they were doing though. It was about *me* not them. Now I generally just exist in my own bubble with my own kids and do what I do without observing scenarios around me.

[allgirls]

Originally Posted by nathansmum

Yep, I hear what you're saying too OP. I felt it like I was on a totally different plane of thought when I realised how far I'd come in my own thinking. I find now though, I don't think about it so much - I used to analyse "myself then" and "myself now" quite a lot - more about my own journey than actually judging others on what they were doing though. It was about *me* not them. Now I generally just exist in my own bubble with my own kids and do what I do without observing scenarios around me.

ditto this. I do mull it about on here which often helps me further develop as a parent, grow, change, etc. So much to be learned from moms like Sledg and Mammal_mama and Monkey's mom..and even the moms that I don't necessarily agree with..sometimes just the conversation helps be put things in place and decide for myself if "yeah, that makes sense" or "nope, don't think that's right" etc.

and I do have moments of "I used to think that way" but it's a realisation not a judgement if that makes any sense.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by allgirls

PS..I was wondering who said their children haven't ever whined for a toy...

I felt the pp's comment (that you're commenting on) really highlights the distinction between behaviorism and gentle discipline. With behaviorism, there's a belief that children are born without any intrinsic motivation to live cooperatively with others or to care about others' feelings.

So any time there's an undesirable behavior, there's a corresponding attempt to make sure nothing is done to "reinforce" the behavior. Hence the idea that empathizing with a child who's whining, will result in continued and worse whining.

This is in direct contrast to gentle discipline, which promotes a view of children as little people who desire to live in happy, loving, cooperative relationships with others, but who need our help to learn empathy and to learn about the effects of their behavior on others.

There may seem to be some overlap on the surface. For instance, LLL says that a baby who learns that he has to scream to get the breast, quickly learns to skip the preliminary phases of signaling hunger, such as rooting around, and just moves straight to screaming to get the fastest response.

So LLL recommends snuggling Baby close, and being attentive to those initial hunger cues, so you can latch Baby on and show him that screaming isn't necessary to get his needs met.

Therefore, gentle discipline advocates, such as LLL, do believe there's a relationship between what parents do and how children behave -- but it's still really the opposite of behaviorism, whose advocates often advise mothers to let babies fuss a bit before feeding, so they won't think their screaming will get "rewarded."

There are two very different attitudes toward infant screaming being expressed here: whereas I think all parents agree that screaming is unpleasant to listen to, behaviorists tend to perceive it as something that needs to be "negatively reinforced" out of the child (by withholding the sought-after "reward" ... which is really just punishment plain and simple).

Parents who practice gentle discipline view screaming as communication: it's the child's method for getting his needs met, if his more quiet hunger cues have consistently been ignored. Therefore, to avoid things reaching the screaming phase -- or to show an infant who was previously ignored, that things have changed and the parent is no longer going to make the child scream for his supper -- the gentle discipline parent is going to start holding Baby close and responding quickly at the first signal.

In the same way, I don't think any parent finds whining pleasant -- but a gentle discipline parent is more inclined to respond to the need beneath the whining -- such as the need for empathy and attention. There's less focus on making sure the whining is "nipped in the bud," and more focus on creating a situation where the child no longer feels he has to whine to get his needs met.

Edited to Add: Therefore, to try to finish my thought: the behaviorist perspective would be that any parent who believes in responding to every, "Mommy, I want ..." with empathy, must simply have a child who never whines. Because if the parent had a child who whines, she'd understand that empathy "doesn't work" in every situation and can sometimes "reinforce" the whining.

[allgirls]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

Therefore, to try to finish my thought: the behaviorist perspective would be that any parent who believes in responding to every, "Mommy, I want ..." with empathy, must simply have a child who never whines. Because if the parent had a child who whines, she'd understand that empathy "doesn't work" in every situation and can sometimes "reinforce" the whining.

I have 4 children...I would have been so darned lucky to have even had one that didn't whine.

I do feel an immediate and primal need to stop it immediately..it is the most aggravating thing in the world so I understand the desire to stop it as soon as possible. But I think kind of long-term generally so I try to work with the children, teach them how to ask me without whining, model how to say it.

I also know from experience that it will eventually go away with patience, understanding and guidance. I work really hard to find out the underlying reason for it...

you will not believe it but my 4 year old is out there in the dining room and just gave a big whine about something that has gone wrong..

ok..that's taken care of. She didn't like the macaroni and cheese so I am making her a burger

anyway...thanks Mammal_mom..makes a lot of sense.

Thanks for taking the time. Off to eat dinner with the kids.

Cheers

[mz_libbie22]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

I felt the pp's comment (that you're commenting on) really highlights the distinction between behaviorism and gentle discipline. With behaviorism, there's a belief that children are born without any intrinsic motivation to live cooperatively with others or to care about others' feelings.

So any time there's an undesirable behavior, there's a corresponding attempt to make sure nothing is done to "reinforce" the behavior. Hence the idea that empathizing with a child who's whining, will result in continued and worse whining.

This is in direct contrast to gentle discipline, which promotes a view of children as little people who desire to live in happy, loving, cooperative relationships with others, but who need our help to learn empathy and to learn about the effects of their behavior on others.

There may seem to be some overlap on the surface. For instance, LLL says that a baby who learns that he has to scream to get the breast, quickly learns to skip the preliminary phases of signaling hunger, such as rooting around, and just moves straight to screaming to get the fastest response.

So LLL recommends snuggling Baby close, and being attentive to those initial hunger cues, so you can latch Baby on and show him that screaming isn't necessary to get his needs met.

Therefore, gentle discipline advocates, such as LLL, do believe there's a relationship between what parents do and how children behave -- but it's still really the opposite of behaviorism, whose advocates often advise mothers to let babies fuss a bit before feeding, so they won't think their screaming will get "rewarded."

There are two very different attitudes toward infant screaming being expressed here: whereas I think all parents agree that screaming is unpleasant to listen to, behaviorists tend to perceive it as something that needs to be "negatively reinforced" out of the child (by withholding the sought-after "reward" ... which is really just punishment plain and simple).

Parents who practice gentle discipline view screaming as communication: it's the child's method for getting his needs met, if his more quiet hunger cues have consistently been ignored. Therefore, to avoid things reaching the screaming phase -- or to show an infant who was previously ignored, that things have changed and the parent is no longer going to make the child scream for his supper -- the gentle discipline parent is going to start holding Baby close and responding quickly at the first signal.

In the same way, I don't think any parent finds whining pleasant -- but a gentle discipline parent is more inclined to respond to the need beneath the whining -- such as the need for empathy and attention. There's less focus on making sure the whining is "nipped in the bud," and more focus on creating a situation where the child no longer feels he has to whine to get his needs met.

Edited to Add: Therefore, to try to finish my thought: the behaviorist perspective would be that any parent who believes in responding to every, "Mommy, I want ..." with empathy, must simply have a child who never whines. Because if the parent had a child who whines, she'd understand that empathy "doesn't work" in every situation and can sometimes "reinforce" the whining.

Hmm...I guess my view is the opposite of both--I do think kids are born wanting to live cooperatively and I don't think they need to be taught empathy. How can you say kids are born social creatures but aren't born empathetic? That seems like an oxymoron. When it comes to being able to resist advertising and consumerism though, yeah I think my DS was born a pretty "blank slate" with regard to that. I don't think he whines for stuff because he has unmet needs (at least not always), he does it because he's a kid and naturally if he sees a cool toy he's going to want it. I don't see that as a character flaw or even something that needs to be "nipped in the bud." But it's definately not something that I feel warrants empathy. I don't really go out of my way to be negative either. To me, "you don't need another toy right now" is just telling it like it is. Am I risking my DS growing up with a crushed spirit and an inability to empathize with other people? I doubt it.


I also think there's a huge difference between infants and preschoolers and older kids, nobody was advocating CIO.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by mz_libbie22

How can you say kids are born social creatures but aren't born empathetic? That seems like an oxymoron.

I don't see it as an oxymoron to say that children are born social creatures, with a desire for loving relationships -- and also to say that they view themselves as the center of the world, and think of everything in terms of how it affects them. A person can be social and still need help learning to see things from others' points of view (which is empathy).

I also think there's a huge difference between infants and preschoolers and older kids, nobody was advocating CIO.

I made the comparison with CIO, to illustrate the difference between behaviorism and gentle discipline ... and went on to tie it in with parents' differing responses to a child saying, Mommy, I want ..." Gentle discipline (as I see it) doesn't advocate worrying that empathy will "reinforce" whining or materialism.

Also, I guess I misunderstood you in your previous post: I understood you as saying that empathizing might send your son the message that it was okay to want things he didn't need ... in other words, I thought you were concerned about "reinforcing" materialism.

Now you say that you don't see anything wrong with your child wanting things, and you don't see this as behavior that should be "nipped in the bud." So ... where's the harm in empathizing, then?

While I agree that there are many differences between infants, preschoolers, and older kids -- I still see behavior as communication to be listened to, and I think I should take my children's dreams and desires seriously.

I realize it's often more complicated than when they were infants, and so much was solved by the breast. Whereas the nursing mama succeeds in meeting her infant's needs by giving him the breast when he asks for it -- the mother of an older child isn't necessarily meeting the real need by unthinkingly buying every toy the child asks for.

As an example, I know a mother who couldn't stand her toddler's shrieking, so when he shrieked she quickly moved to stop the noise. Since he often shrieked for whatever toy his older brother was playing with, she got into the habit of making her older child hand the toys to the baby, just to shut him up.

He was still a very discontented child ... though on the surface it looked like what he wanted was the toys, I think he was really seeking for more interactive play -- a need which might have been met by his mother getting down on the floor, and playing and talking with him. He saw his brother having fun with the toys, and wanted to have fun, too.

Also, I think in families where there's a lot of "trumping" going on (i.e. "I know you want X, but so-and-so wants Y, and his want trumps yours this time, so you can't have X"), a child may get the idea that the way to know he's important, is to see his wants "trumping" others' wants as much as possible.

As our children grow, I think parenting becomes more complex, and we have to do more listening to figure out what is really being sought. Sometimes, for sure, the best way to help our children to achieve a dream is to buy the item they're asking for. Sometimes it's better to find out what experience it is that they're really seeking, and help them brainstorm other ways to get the experience they want, without, for instance, having to go into thousands of dollars of debt.

I don't know for sure if cutting the conversation short by saying, "You don't need that," will stunt a child's ability to develop empathy. But it does seem to close the door on at least one opportunity to think, imagine, and problem-solve.

[ruhbehka]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

I don't know for sure if cutting the conversation short by saying, "You don't need that," will stunt a child's ability to develop empathy. But it does seem to close the door on at least one opportunity to think, imagine, and problem-solve.

:

I also think it's just a strange thing to say. "You don't need another Hot Wheels car." He didn't need the first or second Hot Wheels car, either, but you presumably bought those for him. What makes the 25th car different?

The message it seems to me to send isn't that there's a difference between wants and needs. The message I'd get, if I were the child, is that you, the parent, decide what you're in the mood to buy on a particular day, by some seemingly arbitrary criteria.

I guess it would make more sense to me if you always told your children, "You don't need that," when they asked you for anything beyond the basic necessities of life, but who actually does that?

[allgirls]

Originally Posted by ruhbehka

I also think it's just a strange thing to say. "You don't need another Hot Wheels car." He didn't need the first or second Hot Wheels car, either, but you presumably bought those for him. What makes the 25th car different?

The message it seems to me to send isn't that there's a difference between wants and needs. The message I'd get, if I were the child, is that you, the parent, decide what you're in the mood to buy on a particular day, by some seemingly arbitrary criteria.

I guess it would make more sense to me if you always told your children, "You don't need that," when they asked you for anything beyond the basic necessities of life, but who actually does that?

This is a really good point. I hadn't thought of that before.

Also..I remembering looking at candles at a department store and my MIL said "you don't need any more candles" (I have quite a few, I love them) and I was like "where does she get off..." I can't imagine why a child would appreciate being told that anymore than I did.

She could have simply said "you have a lot of candles, you must really like them"

I work really hard to not say things to my children that I don't want said to me. I try to present things in a way that is respectful of them as a person.

and sure, I didn't need any more candles..but I don't think it was her place to tell me what my needs were(even though she was right) and I don't think it's my place to tell my children. What I will do though is help them figure out for themselves. They are young and even when they know what their needs are they don't always know how to express them.

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by allgirls

Also..I remembering looking at candles at a department store and my MIL said "you don't need any more candles" (I have quite a few, I love them) and I was like "where does she get off..."I can't imagine why a child would appreciate being told that anymore than I did.

She could have simply said "you have a lot of candles, you must really like them"

So true.

And what's the fastest way to prove that person wrong? Buy the thing, of course. Prove to them that you DO need it (even if you don't) and that YOU will decide what you need and don't thankyouverymuch.

I don't think most people like it when others make those sorts of calls for them. I know I wouldn't.

It's just one of those, "it only takes a minute to be kind," situations for me. And in the case of your MIL: "Manners are free."

[allgirls]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom

So true.

And what's the fastest way to prove that person wrong? Buy the thing, of course. Prove to them that you DO need it (even if you don't) and that YOU will decide what you need and don't thankyouverymuch.

I don't think most people like it when others make those sorts of calls for them. I know I wouldn't.

It's just one of those, "it only takes a minute to be kind," situations for me. And in the case of your MIL: "Manners are free."

I did..I bought it

My Mil...it's just simply the way she is...irritating but harmless.

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by allgirls

I did..I bought it

Oh, no!

It's human nature, I'm telling ya.

[allgirls]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom

Oh, no!

It's human nature, I'm telling ya.

I'm so easy....it's in the bathroom..it smells nice and it is really good quality and burns a really long time...I really did need it, I really did

[madskye]

Originally Posted by mz_libbie22

How can you say kids are born social creatures but aren't born empathetic? That seems like an oxymoron.

I posted upthread that my upbringing was very traditional, and honestly, I don't think I learned empathy until I graduated from college--and I think I learned then because the people I worked with talked to me, and let me see the world honestly. My parents simply didn't talk to me about anything that mattered.

[Jescafa]

Mammalmama, I think you've been really unfair on a couple of points here. The Nazi comment was really quite out-of-line, and hardly an original analogy (as you yourself pointed out).

You seem to assume that (with the hypothetical situation that thas been frequently discussed here) my honesty about the impossibility of ever buying my daughter a horse is akin to my complete shutting down of any desire she may ever have to learn more about horses or to interact with them directly. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wholeheartedly agree with you that figuring out how to satisfy that curiosity nd interest in more logistically feasible ways would be an elegant and empathetic way to approach the situation. That, indeed, is what I would choose to do, to the degree that is reasonably possible.

But buying a horse is, now and always, an impossibility, and I cannot believe that being honest about that, in a kind and sympathetic way, would erode attachment. In fact, I think that a kind "no" in this regard--with the understanding that, when she is an adult, she may choose for herself--is more ethically sound than leading her to believe that she may someday be successful in talking me and DH into buying her a horse, when I know, now, that will never happen.