Toy Snatching - Page 3

[ann_of_loxley]

I'm sorry, but grabbing is completely age appropriate and happens, regardless of how kids are parented. I decided when ds was a baby not to grab things out of his hands if it was at all possible. I find it a little offensive that you seem to assume that kids who grab toys from others do so because they were shown how to do so from their parents always grabbing things from them.

Yes - it is age appropriate...I do think I said that in an earlier post?...maybe I didnt, but I never said it wasnt. I also never said it was as black and white as you are making it out to sound - I used that as an example because basically - it does not surprise me at all that 'snatching' is so much of an issue...or an issue enough we have to ask other people for advice on it...when we are completly ignoring the fact that a big part of the problem is that as the parents, we are not modeling appropriate behaviour for our children...by also snatching (or if you want to sugar coat it and call such behaviour 'gentle removing') from our children when they snatch a toy from another child. I have replied to toy snatching issue on this forum many times, I always say its best to model the behaviour to our child and make sure that we are also never snatching from them...and then theres and 'Ohhh...' from the OP about it as it was a thought overlooked. ...so it doesnt seem that theres any coinscidence to me at all about children who have a toy snatching 'problem' belong to those parents who are constantly 'gently removing' items from their children.

I also never said that you ignore your childs behaviour if they are the one snatching - or you ignore it when they do not give the toy back. You work with them, you talk to them in a non shaming way... but I did say never to force...this includes removing items from their gasping little fingers (gently or otherwise - its snatching). This may mean they dont give the toy back, this may mean there are tears from both parties. Yes, I would comfort and deal with the offended child first, but I would never just let the ofender walk away without a word.

I gave my advice - the OP can take it or leave it. I have personally seen how it works and I still stand by not snatching back from a child - gently removing...however you want to justify it - whatever. This post is getting a bit childish IMO and slightly off topic so I am leaving this now and going to focus my energy elsewhere.

[Magella]

Grabbing Our Way To Peace

[sunnmama]

From Sledg's article:

If Jacob had not shifted, I would have turned to Ray to see if he would shift.
(Ray being the 3 yo who did not want Jacob to take his car home with him).

Something about that really bothers me. I have a difficult time recognizing the "choice" that Jacob has in returning the car, because Ray doesn't want him to take his car home. It doesn't feel right to me to turn to Ray and see if he would "shift," especially if he has already okayed Jacob taking an alternative toy home (very generous, imo!). I feel that his "no" should be respected, because it is his toy.

When dd was 2-6, we had a big group of like-aged friends. These children all loved to "trade" toys after a playdate--and they enjoyed borrowing as well as lending toys until the next playdate. But the owner of the toy always had "veto" about any given toy any given day, and that was always, always respected. The adults attitude was simply "R said that is a special toy this week. How about you choose another toy?" The author of the article attributes Ray's ease in sharing toys to NVC, and I attribute our dc's ease in sharing toys to always having a special toy respected without question. The "rule" was the same for everyone. Everyone had a right to say no to a specific toy, and that no was always backed up by the adults. This never involved taking toys out of dc's hands, because our dc were past that stage by then--even though I did "gently remove" toys from dd's hand when she was younger. It was never a big issue, and she matured out of the grabby stage as expected.

I guess what I am saying is, I don't think that there is only one "right" way to handle this. The NVC way will work well for some families/groups, and a more authoritative way will work better for other groups. Both can be done gently and with full consideration of everyone's feelings, and both can result in generous children. At the same time, from my perspective, neither approach is perfect, and both have potential downsides.

I don't subscribe to the "adult-child" analogies, generally....but for those who do, if someone asked if they could borrow your car, your computer, or your favorite skillet that you use daily, wouldn't you want them to respect the answer no? I just feel that, in situations like this, if the answer is no it is no. If the asker has an issue with that, it is the asker's issue to deal with, kwim?

[Magella]

I agree that there is no one, single, infallible "right way" to do things.

What I take from that article is that it's possible to do this without taking the toy from the hands of the child who did the grabbing. Indeed, this is how we ended up dealing with grabbing when my third child was a "grabby" toddler. Our advantage was that the grabbing happened between siblings, at home (usually), so there was little in the way of embarrassment or pressure for me or for them-and we were able to take our time working through it (a couple of minutes) without actually getting to the point of taking the toy back out of her hands.

What I took from the article regarding choice was more that Jacob was given the choice to have autonomy over his own body, not that he should have the choice to keep what Ray did not want him to keep (I took from the article, too, that if she'd asked Ray to shift and he did not want to, she would have respected Ray's choice not to shift and looked to another solution).

In our home, the child who had the toy initially (who was grabbed from) had the right to say "no." The child who did grab might, while still holding the toy, ask for a turn (when prompted-and I don't think it's always wrong to ask that the child who initially had the toy reconsider letting the other child use it), but the child who grabbed was always expected to respect "no" as an answer. In that case, there were options like trading for another toy-which sometimes worked. The rest of the time, what worked was simply for me to wait expectantly ("waiting for the bus") until it was given back. Authoritative, I think so--it was always made very clear that grabbing was not right, that we expect our kids to ask and/or wait their turn, that we expected the grabber to return the toy to the grabbee. Yet it was authoritative without the physical act of taking it from her hands against her will, which may seem like a minor thing but which didn't sit super well with my desire to teach her not to take things from others against their will. Kids learn so much from watching what we do. That's just me.

[AbbieB]

I have had a lot of success with the idea of trading toys. Many times I would give my toy snatching child another similar toy to go over to the other child and "trade" with.

Sometimes she would offer the trade. Sometimes she would be distracted and play with the new toy. Rarely did it get further than that. If it did I would just work on helping DD to be patient and everyone involved would agree to letting DD be next.



I agree with the pp's that said if nobody seemed upset than there is no need for action. Sometimes we parents are guilty of creating a problem where none exists. We are talking about toddlers here. Toy snatching WILL happen but it's not always traumatic.

I have had many experiences at the park where another parent's insistence that their child share at all costs has ruined a nice play experience.

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by sledg

Yet it was authoritative without the physical act of taking it from her hands against her will, which may seem like a minor thing but which didn't sit super well with my desire to teach her not to take things from others against their will. .

Ok, I can understand that and see that working. What I don't always get from these articles and discussions, though, is the expectation to return the item. It makes much more sense to me when that is explicitly included (as in the "waiting for the bus" strategy, when other strategies have fallen flat).

I guess I have trouble reconciling choice with expectation. I see it as a point of honesty; I only phrase it as a choice when there is an actual choice in my mind. If the item must be returned, then it isn't really a choice to me. Even if the object isn't physically removed, the handoff may be coerced through social pressure (which isn't nec a bad thing, imo). Over time, and having the dc I have, I have realized that it can be better (for us) to just "rip off the bandaid" so to speak and get past a situation....which can mean me removing the object and helping my dc move on *now*, rather than going through the emotional angst of talking it through and unhappily handing it over in the end.

[mamazee]

This is an area where I don't mind being coercive. If you don't coerce child #2 to give up the toy, then child #1 has been coerced by having the toy taken away when it shouldn't have been. Because of what? Child #2 is more of a snatcher? My sense of justice just can't handle that. Child #1 has no rights? If child #1 doesn't care, then no problem. But what has child #1 learned if no one stands up for him/her? And kids that age have no impulse control. My daughter might have punched child #2 I don't think she would have accepted that someone just didn't want to give the toy back. Maybe she would have just snatched it back from child #2. And then child #2 could snatch it back again, and she could snatch it back again, and that could go on for a while till someone hit someone or had a tantrum. Anyway, it's not fair and I think very young kids can see what's fair or not pretty well.

I use distraction. "Oh, you wanted to play with XXXX. Too bad Tommy was already playing with it. Here's YYYY. (quick switch) Maybe you'd like to play with that for a bit until Tommy finishes playing with XXXX."

[Hoopin' Mama]

Originally Posted by mamazee

This is an area where I don't mind being coercive. If you don't coerce child #2 to give up the toy, then child #1 has been coerced by having the toy taken away when it shouldn't have been. Because of what? Child #2 is more of a snatcher? My sense of justice just can't handle that. Child #1 has no rights? If child #1 doesn't care, then no problem. But what has child #1 learned if no one stands up for him/her? And kids that age have no impulse control. My daughter might have punched child #2 I don't think she would have accepted that someone just didn't want to give the toy back. Maybe she would have just snatched it back from child #2. And then child #2 could snatch it back again, and she could snatch it back again, and that could go on for a while till someone hit someone or had a tantrum. Anyway, it's not fair and I think very young kids can see what's fair or not pretty well.

I use distraction. "Oh, you wanted to play with XXXX. Too bad Tommy was already playing with it. Here's YYYY. (quick switch) Maybe you'd like to play with that for a bit until Tommy finishes playing with XXXX."

Yes, through all this talk of not gently removing object from the "snatcher" i couldn't help but wonder how this all looks to the "snatchee".

I have "gently removed" items from my son's hand often -- he now loves to take turns and we never have "snatching" issues.

[Magella]

Originally Posted by sunnmama

Ok, I can understand that and see that working. What I don't always get from these articles and discussions, though, is the expectation to return the item. It makes much more sense to me when that is explicitly included (as in the "waiting for the bus" strategy, when other strategies have fallen flat).

I guess I have trouble reconciling choice with expectation. I see it as a point of honesty; I only phrase it as a choice when there is an actual choice in my mind. If the item must be returned, then it isn't really a choice to me. Even if the object isn't physically removed, the handoff may be coerced through social pressure (which isn't nec a bad thing, imo). Over time, and having the dc I have, I have realized that it can be better (for us) to just "rip off the bandaid" so to speak and get past a situation....which can mean me removing the object and helping my dc move on *now*, rather than going through the emotional angst of talking it through and unhappily handing it over in the end.

Well, for me and my family in this situation I freely admit that there really isn't a choice about giving the item back-that is my expectation. Our way of resolving it felt peaceful though, and offered the opportunity for connection in a way in which taking the toy from her hand would not have (btdt with my oldest when she was a toddler, not a good connection time).

The larger point I took from that particular article--the main point, for me--was that if we slow down, if we're willing to listen to our kids and accept their feelings and show them respect, and if we convey to our kids that we do trust them to do the right thing, very often (though not always) they will do the right thing. It's not about getting them to do what we want (though they very well may and often do) through talking to them a certain way--it's about creating a quality of connection that allows them (that allows both of us) to freely give. So it's not necessarily about whether Jacob actually gets to (or should) keep Ryan's car, it's about slowing down and creating a kind of connection with Jacob--and this is a connection that likely will allow him to let go of the car (as opposed to clinging to it reflexively in response to a command to give it back).

I'm having trouble articulating it. And obviously, the experience of one family cannot be generalized to all families. It is really interesting, though, how differently people can perceive an article to be saying, isn't it?

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by sledg

It is really interesting, though, how differently people can perceive an article to be saying, isn't it?

Yes, it is! I sometimes wonder how much depends on the way that we were raised, and how we experienced our childhood. Interesting discussion!

[jdmcgee]

I agree...great reply... lol

[Carlyle]

I've read Sledg's article before too and I really love that approach when I can get it to work (and when the other kids' parents are willing to "sit" with things too and let it take the time-and tears-that it needs to). I've also found that I have more success using this method if there are two adults involved (so that one adult can hold/hug/calm each kid so that they can relax and trust that we're going to help them work it out).

I have more trouble though when one or both of the kids are screaming so loud that nobody can hear what's being said. Or if I'm the only adult and one kid is screaming and the other kid is running away with the toy. Or if both kids are pulling on the same toy and both screaming their heads off.

Anyone have suggestions for these types of situations? Do you put a kid on each knee and hold them both and whisper to them that you are there to help until they calm down enough?

I was in one situation where the other mom and I were trying to do this, but her dd was getting more and more hysterical when the object wasn't returned to her...then my dd was getting more and more hysterical kind of feeding off of the other girl's hysterical energy. It just kept spiraling upwards (even though we were trying to use this same approach) until we took the object away. Then they both immediately calmed down. It was weird.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but I agree that there's no "silver bullet" or "right" way to do things all the time, but I'm really enjoying reading other people's ideas about different ways to deal with the same situation. I'm sure that sometimes I will have patience for things that take more time, and sometimes I won't. And sometimes it will be better for the kids to decrease the tension by taking the toy away for a minute or so (like in the above example). Hm. Keep the stories coming...

[prothyraia]

Originally Posted by mamazee

This is an area where I don't mind being coercive. If you don't coerce child #2 to give up the toy, then child #1 has been coerced by having the toy taken away when it shouldn't have been. Because of what? Child #2 is more of a snatcher? My sense of justice just can't handle that. Child #1 has no rights? If child #1 doesn't care, then no problem. But what has child #1 learned if no one stands up for him/her?

:

I am okay with my children seeing me model using force in order protect someone (or their property or their rights) who can't protect themselves. If nothing else has worked, yes, I will physically remove the toy and return it to the original possesor.

I do not want to model standing by while someone hurts someone else (physically or emotionally). I believe that if I have the power to stop it, I should (and will!). Now, if there's a way to do that without physically taking the toy yourself, that's much better, and if the original possesor doesn't care, then there's no harm done. But as an adult with the size, strength, and reasoning capacity to make the situation "right" for the victim, I firmly believe it's my responsibility to do so.

[GooeyRN]

Originally Posted by kathteach

I'm in a similar situation as Elissa so I would like to hear from more mamas too.

DS1 who is two will grab a toy from DS2 who is 8 months old and scream when I ask him to give it back. To pacify DS2 I find something he will like but DS1 will immediately want the new toy because his brother has it and so on and so on. I would like a better way of dealing with this.

We have the same situation.