Manipulation...am I missing something? - Page 2

[gabysmom617]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

Threads like this always intrigue me, because I really cannot fathom spending so much time concentrating on how I phrase things. Just the back forth subtleties of how to word a simple sentence, that, in grand scheme of things, is going to achieve the same effect. It really resembles egg-shell parenting, where you get so paranoid that every little thing is going to be damaging to our children. I don't think we're giving them enough credit for being the resilient, critical thinkers that they are.

But, I'm openly a coercive, manipulative parent. And I'm fine with that.

:

[ShadowLark]

Originally Posted by nina_yyc

Not speaking from personal experience here (DD is 2yo and does whatever I do. I pick up blocks, she picks up blocks...) but wouldn't this be a matter of what is age appropriate and whether the child understands the relationship between the action and the consequences? If the rule in question is "you must do chores before watching TV," I can see how it might be manipulative for a young child who does not understand that chores are a priority in the home and mom/dad feels better when the house is kept clean. On the other hand, an older child should have that understanding and would be aware that leaving a mess or not doing chores is disrespectful towards others in the home - therefore not watching TV until X is done is totally reasonable. I would expect the same from myself.

But for a kid that young, isn't it just "mommy's setting the limits, that makes me feel good"? If that's manipulation, then isn't it manipulation in the positive sense of the word?
Because little kids NEED boundaries and limits, and if the person who they love most in the world DOESN'T set them, the poor kid feels TOTALLY lost and bereft. That sounds like the exact OPPOSITE of what everyone is trying to accomplish, here.
As kids get older (read "more mature" - the age is ENTIRELY relative, here) the kids get more say in things, because they CAN handle limits of their own devising. But isn't that because they were taught that skill by their caretakers?
I'm so confused!

[ShadowLark]

I would also add that even a baby will understand the fact that mommy and daddy feel better when X is done. They might not understand WHY X makes mommy and daddy feel good, but they can tell the difference between a happy mommy and daddy and an upset mommy and daddy.

[nina_yyc]

Originally Posted by ShadowLark

But for a kid that young, isn't it just "mommy's setting the limits, that makes me feel good"? If that's manipulation, then isn't it manipulation in the positive sense of the word?
Because little kids NEED boundaries and limits, and if the person who they love most in the world DOESN'T set them, the poor kid feels TOTALLY lost and bereft. That sounds like the exact OPPOSITE of what everyone is trying to accomplish, here.
As kids get older (read "more mature" - the age is ENTIRELY relative, here) the kids get more say in things, because they CAN handle limits of their own devising. But isn't that because they were taught that skill by their caretakers?
I'm so confused!

I'm confused too!

I guess I was trying to see how both ways of thinking here could be right...because we're all really going for the same goal here, so I feel like everyone means the same thing but is maybe thinking of different contexts or wording.

I certainly didn't mean to imply there should be no limits. I am with PP who can't imagine spending so much time on the phrasing.

I really just use my internal sense of whether something is manipulative or not and try to see things from DD's perspective. I also don't overthink things...if something doesn't feel natural to me to say DD isn't going to respond to it anyway. She's good like that.

[ann_of_loxley]

Because little kids NEED boundaries and limits, and if the person who they love most in the world DOESN'T set them, the poor kid feels TOTALLY lost and bereft.

I guess this is the main difference in view from those of use on here who might call themselves CL (or not if you have a hangup about lablels lol) and those who add a smiley and say they are happily manipulative. I do not believe I need to set boundaries and limits with my son...and trust me, he is far from a poor lad who is lost and bereft!

I would also add that even a baby will understand the fact that mommy and daddy feel better when X is done. They might not understand WHY X makes mommy and daddy feel good, but they can tell the difference between a happy mommy and daddy and an upset mommy and daddy.

I also do not want to teach my son he should do certain things to make/keep me happy. In the same way I wont make myself unhappy just to ensure that he is always happy and never cries. We live together, we work together...its not one way or the other.

[popsicle sticks]

I would also add that even a baby will understand the fact that mommy and daddy feel better when X is done. They might not understand WHY X makes mommy and daddy feel good, but they can tell the difference between a happy mommy and daddy and an upset mommy and daddy.

When my oldest was a toddler my main goal was that I would always show love and acceptance regardless of what I happened to feel, but I'd be honest about how I felt too.

It's not manipulation to consider someone else's feelings and I do think little kids can do that. Person A considering the feelings of person B doesn't indicate that person A is taking responsibility for how B feels, either. If that were true, relationships would be all about manipulation and weak emotional boundaries.

Basically, I don't use my feelings as a motivational tool to get my child to do something, but we are open about how we feel and we take responsibility for our own emotions and the reactions we have to them.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by ann_of_loxley

I guess this is the main difference in view from those of use on here who might call themselves CL (or not if you have a hangup about lablels lol) and those who add a smiley and say they are happily manipulative.

Feel free to quote me or refer to my post when you refer to something I said. My point was simply that I don't feel bad about my parenting, and I don't want those who are reading (er, lurking) to feel bad either.

For some people, spending a lot of time on wording and phrasing doesn't come easily or naturally, and being "false" in their interactions with their children can be just as detrimental as being unintentionally manipulative because something wasn't phrased quite right. Conversations like this make me feel bad for the parents who come down heavy on themselves for simple wording when, in the grand scheme of things, they are otherwise great parents. The persecution complexes I've seen over parents who came on here upset that they said *gasp* the word "no" is sad!

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

Feel free to quote me or refer to my post when you refer to something I said.

Err.. or not. I mean, it would be nice if you did. But if you don't, that's fine too.

[mamazee]

I don't think we need to create limits. There are plenty of limits in life and we can simply help our children navigate those without creating new ones on top of those. No one has to "learn" limits - they by definition can't be avoided - they limit our ability to do something.

I'd probably say something like, "Oh look at all these blocks that need to be cleaned up. What should we do?" Now, at 6, my daughter is usually able to just clean up. I enlisted her help to find an organizational system for toys that worked for her and made it easy for her to keep things clean. But if she wanted to clean them up while watching TV, I wouldn't see any reason to say she couldn't watch TV until they were cleaned. And if she wanted to play outside because there were other kids playing then who might not be playing outside later, she'd probably say she'd clean them up when she came back in. I'm not too concerned about when the blocks get cleaned up so long as the floor is clear so I can vacuum after she goes to school in the morning, and so long as they aren't where I'll trip on them. And it's understandable to want to play when her friends are playing rather than later when she'd be alone. But that might be specifically an only child thing. I love her having opportunities to play outside with other kids and wouldn't mind blocks waiting.

[DevaMajka]

I don't know that kids necessarily benefit from someone setting limits, per se. But I think they do benefit from *knowing* what the limits are, if that makes sense.

I see manipulation as using a sneaky way of getting things your way, or using some "false" emotional plea ("it makes me so sad when you don't eat your veggies"), or withholding something that the other person wants/needs in order to get your way.

I don't see straight up insisting as being manipulative, though. Coercive, perhaps. (Not that that's a bad thing. It just is.)

I also think that "false" choices tend to be manipulative. When you give the child a "choice" between something that you want done, and something that is unpleasant for the child and that you REALLY don't want the child to choose. So, "Pick up your toys or sit in time out." That's not really a choice, even though it's offered up as one. The parent isn't going to be happy if the child "chooses" a time out over picking up toys.

Where I'm confused is in situations where I offer a choice, and either choice by ds is perfectly fine with me. Like..."Put on your helmet and you can ride your bike, or you can leave your helmet off and NOT ride your bike."
Is that manipulative? Maybe I guess. But I don't care which he chooses. Either way is a-ok with me. I'm not trying to offer one unpleasant choice in order to make the one I want appear to be a good choice. Does that make sense? hmmm...

[wallacesmum]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

Threads like this always intrigue me, because I really cannot fathom spending so much time concentrating on how I phrase things. Just the back forth subtleties of how to word a simple sentence, that, in grand scheme of things, is going to achieve the same effect. It really resembles egg-shell parenting, where you get so paranoid that every little thing is going to be damaging to our children. I don't think we're giving them enough credit for being the resilient, critical thinkers that they are.

But, I'm openly a coercive, manipulative parent. And I'm fine with that.

Do you feel this way about interactions with other adults, or just with children?

[Surfacing]

:

[nina_yyc]

Originally Posted by ann_of_loxley

I guess this is the main difference in view from those of use on here who might call themselves CL (or not if you have a hangup about lablels lol) and those who add a smiley and say they are happily manipulative. I do not believe I need to set boundaries and limits with my son...and trust me, he is far from a poor lad who is lost and bereft!

I also do not want to teach my son he should do certain things to make/keep me happy. In the same way I wont make myself unhappy just to ensure that he is always happy and never cries. We live together, we work together...its not one way or the other.

Makes sense, but just to clarify - that's not really what I meant about children doing things to make parents happy. I do not want to teach my DD to do meaningless things or to constantly martyr herself to make me happy - but I do want to teach DD to respect the needs of others, as we respect her needs. I don't see how that would be at odds with CL.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by wallacesmum

Do you feel this way about interactions with other adults, or just with children?

Being direct? Saying what I mean? Not being passive aggressive? Um, everyone.

[stickywicket67]

Originally Posted by Shami

I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I wouldn't classify myself as a selfish person. I am reasonably generous and like to do things for others. However, I was raised like this: As long as I did what was asked of me and followed the rules, I got privileges. If I misbehaved I got grounded or things taken away for a period of time. This didn't make me selfish as a previous poster said. And I never wondered how the punishment fit the crime, so to speak.

After all, I do good because it makes me feel good. I am honest because it makes me feel good. I don't want to have a guilty conscience, therefore I do my best to avoid doing wrong things.

Thanks to all of you for the input. It is helping me to formulate my thoughts a little.

if you do good things simply because you liked to help other people that would be unselfish. if you don't do bad things simply because your actions would hurt other people that would be unselfish.

doing bad or doing good based on how it makes you feel is "selfish".

it was really hard for me to get my head around when i first started thinking about it...

there are many things i do because i want people to like me (or to be socially acceptable) and many things i don't do because i don't want rejection. it takes a lot of self awareness and letting go to interact with people outside of those ingrained motivations.

when i've been around someone who is honest because being honest is simply respectful to the other person or someone who is a giver out of pure abundance of spirit (not keeping track or using their giving to guarantee some kind of loyalty) it is a very freeing and wonderful energy! (dang! that sound all hippie like. )

i guess i aspire to be like that to with my lo. and i want him to grow up to be that sort of really clear, kind, genuine person.

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

Threads like this always intrigue me, because I really cannot fathom spending so much time concentrating on how I phrase things. Just the back forth subtleties of how to word a simple sentence, that, in grand scheme of things, is going to achieve the same effect. It really resembles egg-shell parenting, where you get so paranoid that every little thing is going to be damaging to our children. I don't think we're giving them enough credit for being the resilient, critical thinkers that they are.

But, I'm openly a coercive, manipulative parent. And I'm fine with that.

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

Feel free to quote me or refer to my post when you refer to something I said. My point was simply that I don't feel bad about my parenting, and I don't want those who are reading (er, lurking) to feel bad either.

For some people, spending a lot of time on wording and phrasing doesn't come easily or naturally, and being "false" in their interactions with their children can be just as detrimental as being unintentionally manipulative because something wasn't phrased quite right. Conversations like this make me feel bad for the parents who come down heavy on themselves for simple wording when, in the grand scheme of things, they are otherwise great parents. The persecution complexes I've seen over parents who came on here upset that they said *gasp* the word "no" is sad!

are you really "intrigued" or a you just busting on those of us who are interested in the semantics of discipline?

I don't think it's "egg shell parenting" at all. i'm not paranoid about saying the wrong thing to my kid. i'm sure i'll manipulate and coerce and do and say many things that aren't 100% conscious and aware. do i think my kid is going to be damaged?- um, no.

i don't think that we are talking about never saying the word "no". i do think we are talking about saying "no" in a way that shames, punishes, and is disrespectful to boundaries of both parents and children.

i think it's good to push oneself to be more aware about the subtlety of language and phrasing, especially the language we use with our children. to me this is just a really interesting discussion about how people relate to each other.

Originally Posted by DevaMajka

I don't know that kids necessarily benefit from someone setting limits, per se. But I think they do benefit from *knowing* what the limits are, if that makes sense.

I see manipulation as using a sneaky way of getting things your way, or using some "false" emotional plea ("it makes me so sad when you don't eat your veggies"), or withholding something that the other person wants/needs in order to get your way.

I don't see straight up insisting as being manipulative, though. Coercive, perhaps. (Not that that's a bad thing. It just is.)

I also think that "false" choices tend to be manipulative. When you give the child a "choice" between something that you want done, and something that is unpleasant for the child and that you REALLY don't want the child to choose. So, "Pick up your toys or sit in time out." That's not really a choice, even though it's offered up as one. The parent isn't going to be happy if the child "chooses" a time out over picking up toys.

Where I'm confused is in situations where I offer a choice, and either choice by ds is perfectly fine with me. Like..."Put on your helmet and you can ride your bike, or you can leave your helmet off and NOT ride your bike."
Is that manipulative? Maybe I guess. But I don't care which he chooses. Either way is a-ok with me. I'm not trying to offer one unpleasant choice in order to make the one I want appear to be a good choice. Does that make sense? hmmm...

right on- to the first part that is bolded.

with wearing a helmet and bike riding there is no choice.
being manipulative would be implying that there was a choice.
i would say "if you are riding your bike you have to wear your helmet. it is the rule in or family. it is for safety and it is non negotiable. if you don't wear you helmet you are not allowed to ride your bike." straight up. end of discussion. we all know that he *could* ride the bike, it will still work, but in our family our rule about bikes is that we don't ride them without a helmet. same goes with carseats and seatbelts. we don't ride without buckling up.

it is my responsibility to keep my child safe. it is not "my whim" or "my need". it's for the child's protection. i fulfill my duty and set the boundary and then i can engage my child to participate in the rule by offering him a choice of what kind of helmet he would like to wear.

[ann_of_loxley]

Well I think sticky just said everything I was about to say in reply to the most recent posts! lol

To add to Devas - I also think , though this may just be plain obvious! lol, its also important to talk about it with your child. If a bike must be worn with a helmet, thats obvious safety reason, then I think its important to talk to your child about it. I only mention this because I know many of my friends have a 'because I say so' attitute and a 'well thats life - tough - live with it!' attitude...which I do not think is very healthy or helpful for the child and could turn into a potential manipulative situation.

I would also like to add to what sticky said about the subtlety of language and parenting and I completly agree. Its not something I spend my day fretting over and stressing on. However I do find it very interresting and a lot of truth in it. And at the end of the day, I see parenitng as my job. I am always looking to better myself and to improve - this invovled a lot of research and thought and then putting things into actions if I feel they fit our family. A lot of it comes easy...ive not been at this before, so im kinda a blank slate in some areas so if I take up doing something I can just do it. But some things have been a bit of work. Take the praise thing for example (which I also find manipulative depening on how it is used) - that took some work not doing because I found myself saying 'well done! Good boy!' to everything my son did without even thinking about it simply because that is what I have been surrounded by. I have a friend who says 'cool man!' (lol - shes from south africa) and because im around her, its rubbed off on me. If I wanted to stop saying that, it would take a bit of thought on my part because I end up saying it without even thinking about it. Its the same idea.

[mamazee]

I'm always surprised when people don't expect people to discuss the nuts and bolts of parenting on a forum dedicated to discussing parenting. If we didn't want to talk about parenting decisions and how to discipline more gently, we probably wouldn't spend much time on a parenting discussion forum entitled "Gentle Discipline".

[jackson'smama]

Originally Posted by ann_of_loxley

I do not believe I need to set boundaries and limits with my son...and trust me, he is far from a poor lad who is lost and bereft!

Originally Posted by mamazee

I don't think we need to create limits. There are plenty of limits in life and we can simply help our children navigate those without creating new ones on top of those.

Originally Posted by DevaMajka

I don't know that kids necessarily benefit from someone setting limits, per se. But I think they do benefit from *knowing* what the limits are, if that makes sense.

This fascinates me. Maybe OT, but I'm really intrigued b/c you hear all the time about one of the roles of parenting regards either "setting" or "teaching" limits. You hear "kids thrive on knowing" what the limits/boundaries/rules are. Now, maybe i'm hearing this from all the wrong places, but I do try to strike a balance in my quest for parenting info, and the majority comes from MDC mamas, but I can't help but get mired up in the other stuff too and constantly questioning myself about what kind of adult i'm slowly creating here. So, for those who believe limits are not something parents need to set or enforce, how do they get learned? I mean, obviously, we'll come across things such as speed limits later in life and our parents aren't the ones enforcing them. we learn to respect them, or not, for some reason - good or bad. how do we learn that? do we not speed in order to keep us and everyone around us safe? do we speed when we think there are no cops around? do we speed because we fear a ticket? do we speed b/c we could care less - who cares about another ticket? seems to me that the most basic limits of childhood would be where you start and the other stuff comes at you as you age rather than saying you'll get enough when you're older, so let's not worry about it now. maybe i'm reading this all wrong though... and by "basic limits of childhood" i'm thinking of things like cleaning up your toys when you are finished with them, not dumping a bowl of soup on the table, splashing it with your hand, and then leaving the table like it never happened when mom wasn't looking, not whacking your little brother over the head with a piece of train track because he tried to take it from you (btw, these were the issues of yesterday at my house with my almost 4 yo ds). without setting a limit/striking a deal/manipulating/whatever, tell me how to handle a child who refuses getting ready for bed despite all the help, playing, sing-songing, etc... you can offer. i've been "reduced" to saying "you are wasting your story time. we were at three (our usual number of stories) and we've gone to two. if you can't calm down and get dressed, it will be one." now i feel like a totally craptastic parent because i've manipulated him into getting his act together and getting his uware and pjs on rather than running like a lunatic naked thru the house simply because he doesn't want to admit he's tired and ready for bed. however, without said manipulation, i'm left looking dumbfounded and waiting for him to decide when he's ready to sleep, without a care in the world about myself? or my dh? or my youngest ds? (because letting HIM decide his own bedtime is a recipe for disaster -we've tried).
so basically, i feel that i cannot be a good parent - i'm destined for screwing up no matter what i do!

Originally Posted by stickywicket67

if you do good things simply because you liked to help other people that would be unselfish. if you don't do bad things simply because your actions would hurt other people that would be unselfish.

it is my responsibility to keep my child safe. it is not "my whim" or "my need". it's for the child's protection. i fulfill my duty and set the boundary and then i can engage my child to participate in the rule by offering him a choice of what kind of helmet he would like to wear.

ok, in the same vein as my posting above - is it selfish to avoid speeding in order to avoid a ticket? is it bad if that answer is "yes"? and let's take this down to a child's level...how do you teach a child to clean up a mess? i fully believe in modeling, but how long do you model and do it yourself? at what age do you expect the child to do it? or are you ok with them leaving the nest not knowing how to wash a load of clothes, pick their socks off the floor, or wash their dishes? if you constantly say, "it's time to pick up the ____" and they say "no" and you do it anyway (because *you* are the one who wants it clean) with the thought that they either a) will help you or b) will someday realize "this is what we do" then at what point is this over and you can just say "clean this up please" or don't have to say it and they do it on their own accord? is it quite possible that day would never come? i mean, i try to do the "clean up time" thing and my ds NEVER involves himself. NEVER. EVER. He consistently chooses his own happiness over the happiness of the family. maybe this is just 3-4 yo behavior but at what point, if ever, would he, on his own accord, magically decide it's time to step in and become an integral part of the family choretime without some parental work in this area?
i don't think we give enough credit to individual personality here and realize that while for some kids this will work, for others you could literally spend your whole life cleaning up after them and they'd be happy to let you do it. so, for those personalities, what do you do if NOT manipulation? and let's use manipulation here in the "nicest" sense of the word. i'm not saying, "clean this up or go to your room for the rest of the day" .

thoughts please!

[wallacesmum]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

Being direct? Saying what I mean? Not being passive aggressive? Um, everyone.

Perhaps I am misreading you, but your tone seems quite hostile. That's why I asked. I feel it IS important to think, very carefully, about what, exactly, I am trying to say, before I say it. We can look at our own language for indication as to what is really going on in ourselves.

For instance, your comment above doesn't answer the question that I meant to pose. So maybe I posed it wrong. What I meant was "do you think it is important to think before you speak, do you think it is always reasonable to assume that others will and should absorb the hurt from a misunderstanding, do you believe in coercion and manipulation when dealing with adults?" because that is what I thought your post was saying about dealing with children.

That is not a way that I choose to operate. I suspect that you might not really think that is a good way to operate either. That's why it is important to me to think about what is behind my words, and how they will be interpreted.

[heartmama]

double post