What all is Non-negotiable? [Archive] - MotheringDotCommunity Forums

WuWei

01-31-2006, 04:10 PM

TeaBag

01-31-2006, 04:22 PM

Well, one of the key phrases in our house is Safety Rules are Non-Negotiable. And everything else is. :wink Seriously. If it's a safety rule, it is never going to be negotiated. You either hold my hand crossing the parking lot, or you will get carried. It is your choice. You will ride in your carseat. You will not touch sharp knives (which, obviously are kept out of reach, but when they are helping prepare dinner). I will run your bathwater to ensure a safe temperature. Anything that threatens their being, or someone elses' is a safety rule.

But anything else, negotiable. Diapers? Negotiable....which, honestly is why I think my girls potty learned before they were two. Dessert before dinner? negotiable. Eating on the floor like a picnic. Fun!

But we find mutually agreeable alternatives on a daily basis. :twothumbs When I want to do______ and they want to do _________, we compromise. I want to go to the store, like this morning, but dd wanted to dally over her breakfast. :rolleyes We had to get to the store, and she had dance, and ds had a dr appt, so it couldn't wait until later. So we brought her pancakes with us, and she ate them like a sandwich. :lol Hey, whatever works. She didn't go hungry, I got more food for us, and there was no meltdown.

Think of Winter

01-31-2006, 04:25 PM

Well, I have one for you. My son is diabetic. Most of the time he is very accepting of his blood sugar tests, but lately he's been saying no. We've tried waiting, offerring different sites, and doing mommy's at the same time, but sometimes it's still no. Eventually we have to do it anyway, and we do it as quickly and gently as possible. This is not usually a "life-threatening" issue, but the impact on his health is immediate and significant. Any suggestions on this? I know it's not a common activity by any means, but it's important to us and I welcome advice.

We also occassionally put him in his carseat against his will. I just don't have the patience to wait out his reluctance to get in, and you've gotta get home/store/etc sometimes, right? Suggestions for this, too?

One more question. How much reluctance on your child's part gets your attention, so to speak? Any at all, or somewhere between mild and requiring physical force?

maya44

01-31-2006, 04:45 PM

I don't think that it is one bit suprising that only life or death things are UNIVESALLY non-negotiable.

Of course people will disagree as to other things.

While I respect your position I think it that you fail to really understand that some of us believe that it is our role as a parent to make decisions for our childen that are non-negotiable because they simply do not have the life experience/judgment/impulse control to be able to make these decisions for themselves. And that it our duty to do so.

I do not necesarily believe some of these things are UNIVERSALLY non-negotiable but they are NON-negotiable FOR ME.

These do include school, vaccinations (no debates here please, I am well informed), taking medication, kindness torwards others, sitting with the family during meals etc...

Now when I say they are not negotiable what I mean is that I am not going to negotiate with my child to reach a different decision. But I am not going to use the same AMOUNT of "force" (as you put it) for all of them. I am going to use more "force" to keep my child safe (for example physically restraing them from running in the street) then I am for the sitting at the table at family dinners.(where my "force" is that I tell my children that this is what I expect of them and if they don't do it, I would tell them that I expect them to do it the next time).

In other words, I am not going to negotiate the "sitting at the family table" rule, but I am not going to use much force to enforce it.

karlin

01-31-2006, 04:52 PM

Interesting thread.

I only have a few things I don't negotiate on. All relate to safety. One is having to be in the carseat when the vehicle is moving. I will negotiate how long it takes to get in, whether he puts himself in or I do, etc. If I have the time, I will wait for him to get in, because I doubt I could force him to sit there if I wanted to.

My son is never forced to bathe, eat, sleep, brush teeth, wear diapers, etc. He does choose to do most of those things on his own right now (except bathe for some weird reason, but he doesn't mind being washed with a washcloth...so we're cool..lol).

I admit I can be kind of snippy with him when I'm PMSing and in a hurry, but most times if he protests something, we try to work on a solution.

Yooper

01-31-2006, 04:55 PM

There are no "non-negotiables" in our house in theory. I can think of a handful of times that I failed to either read cues or be creative enough and we got backed into a non-negotiable situation. The last one I can remember is grocery shopping right before Christmas. Our co-op closes at 8pm and we got out just as they locked the doors and turned the sign. I had my arms full of groceries and the wind chill was well below zero with snow whipping all over. Dd did not want to get in the car but was also crying because she was cold. Apparently she had wanted a fruit leather but did not mention it while we were inside because she was being played with by one of the emplyess. I dropped the groceries in the trunk and tried knocking on the door, but no one heard us. There are no nearby businesses. She was adament about not getting in the car. I ended up putting her in the car against her will. I did not put her in her seat, but did get the car and heat going until she calmed down enough to go in her seat. She ALWAYS gets a fruit leather in the store and I just forgot. So after she calmed down, we drove to another grocery store and got the leather and she was OK (but still offended). I felt bad. Stuff like this has happened a few times. And while I can see what I could have done to prevent it, I did not know what to do once we got to that spot (in the parking lot).

For us, it is never the "Classic" stuff like shots or meds or carseats. Dd had blood drawn today at the WIC office. I started to explain to dd what was going to happen (I did not know beforehand) and the nurse said that I should not tell ehr, just do it. Um, no. I explained that we needed the blood to see how healthy her blood was and that it was going to hurt a little. I showed her the stuff, explained the procedure, showed her the bandaid she would wear afterwards then asked if it was OK to do. She said yes. If she had said no, I would have told the nurse no. The whole explanation took 60 seconds.....much shorter than I remember my doc taking to pull me out from under the examination table to get a shot forced on me as a child. If she had siad no to the draw, I could have rescheduled the blood draw and spent the time to get some books from the library or a video to show dd what was going to happen. We could practice on her baby or bear. We could talk to other kids that had it done. We could pick out a special bandaid. As long as I am honest all of the time, dd trusts that I am only suggesting things in her best interest. We have done docs, xrays, meds, etc with no problem at all.

TeaBag

01-31-2006, 04:57 PM

Maybe I misunderstood the question. Just because I only say that safety rules are non negotiable, does not mean that we do not have rules. But we use other means to enforce those rules. Yes, we like everyone to sit at the table for family dinner. This is expected of our family. So we all sit down to dinner together. If someone is finished eating and ready to leave the table, I engage them in further conversation, not to force them to stay, but because we are enjoying their company. However, if they insist on leaving the table, for whatever reason, that is their choice. But they will excuse themselves and take their plates to the counter. Not because we've *forced* this behavior, but because that's what's been modeled to them. We model behavior we wish to see, we make decisions based on what is best for the family as a whole. Yes, sometimes ds is disappointed because I won't let him have yet another cookie before dinner, but as the adult, I know that if he eats too many cookies 20 minutes before dinner, he will not be hungry for dinner and then will have a stomach ache from eating nothing but junk. We also have done a "Well, I am not going to say you may not have another cookie, but if you get a stomach ache from eating too many, please do not complain to me." So that he learns from his own experiences what happens if you eat junk instead of healthy food....so it's not to say there are no rules, what I mean is that safety rules are the only ones that are completely non negotiable. In fact, it's funny to hear my 2 yr old say "everyone in your carseat, safety rules are non negotiable" :laugh:

Magella

01-31-2006, 05:08 PM

I don't think that it is one bit suprising that only life or death things are UNIVESALLY non-negotiable.

Of course people will disagree as to other things.
I agree with Maya on this. I don't think that you'll see people agree on what is non-negotiable except on life and death issues (and even then I'm not so sure everyone will always agree).

Now when I say they are not negotiable what I mean is that I am not going to negotiate with my child to reach a different decision. But I am not going to use the same AMOUNT of "force" (as you put it) for all of them. I am going to use more "force" to keep my child safe (for example physically restraing them from running in the street) then I am for the sitting at the table at family dinners.(where my "force" is that I tell my children that this is what I expect of them and if they don't do it, I would tell them that I expect them to do it the next time).

This is more or less what non-negotiable in my home looks like as well. I'm not going to use physical force except to protect my kids, which is rare. But there are things I don't negotiate on, we just find other ways to engage cooperation and we model it and make it clear that's what we expect. No punishment, but no negotiation either. That said, the number of non-negotiable matters is small as compared to the vast number of issues on which we are happy to negotiate. (non-negotiables here, by our choice, include going to school, going to pick up children from school, and assisting in care of the house, among probably a few other things. How (or under what conditions or when) any of it gets done may be negotiable in some way, but getting it done is not negotiable, yk?)

But I'm not sure that I'm entirely clear about what you object to and wish to discuss, Pat. Is it the use of physical force you're objecting to in this thread? Or is it the idea of "non-negotiable" (even if physical force isn't used)? Or both?

aira

01-31-2006, 05:09 PM

For us there are degrees of negotiation for almost everything - barring times I might physically move him from the street, or something. The life-threatening things. But I suppose that there are limits to how far a negotiation can go. Like, I'll work with DS about how he's dressed to go outside, but it won't end in his playing naked in the snow. But I think that's still in the realm of negotiation, because from DS's side, he won't be going out in a snowsuit, hat, and mittens! We find a happy medium.

Even exploring knives is negotiable! If I'm cooking and DS wants to cut with me, I give him a butter knife to use. He usually decides after a minute that it's not a cool as mom's and want's my knife. If I am at a point I can pause, I help him explore it. We work out something that we both like. Sometimes I'm too wrapped in cooking and tell him I'll be happy to show him the knife when I get to a stopping point. It doesn't end with DS juggling knives, even though he sometimes gets very insistent about doing just that. But I still consider that negotiating. He can explore the knives and I can feel safe about it.

About the carseat... I feel that my rediculous amounts of time spent when DS was very little getting him out of the seat every little time he cried or whimpered or wanted anything, was an investment. He loves the car now. But I also employ (and did even when DS was an infant) DVDs and music. I always thought it was unfair to expect a little one to be strapped down with no stimulation that they enjoyed and expected not to fuss. So at this point it's almost unheard of for DS to resist the carseat. But it did happen once just the other day. He was very tired, hungry, and my mother was there yapping at him to calm down. He melted down whe I put him in. So I took him back out (had to push my mother out of the way because she was trying to restrain me :irked: ) and walked him around until he was calm. He was happy to get beck in within 3 minutes.

I don't know. It doesn't seem that hard to me at all. :shrug Way easier than trying to break a child's will. I will say that it's hard to deal with unsupportive friends and relatives, but that's not the same thing.

Sorry for the ramble... :blah Been interrupted lots! :D

sweetest

01-31-2006, 05:54 PM

For us, it is never the "Classic" stuff like shots or meds or carseats. Dd had blood drawn today at the WIC office. I started to explain to dd what was going to happen (I did not know beforehand) and the nurse said that I should not tell ehr, just do it. Um, no. I explained that we needed the blood to see how healthy her blood was and that it was going to hurt a little. I showed her the stuff, explained the procedure, showed her the bandaid she would wear afterwards then asked if it was OK to do. She said yes. If she had said no, I would have told the nurse no. The whole explanation took 60 seconds.....much shorter than I remember my doc taking to pull me out from under the examination table to get a shot forced on me as a child. If she had siad no to the draw, I could have rescheduled the blood draw and spent the time to get some books from the library or a video to show dd what was going to happen. We could practice on her baby or bear. We could talk to other kids that had it done. We could pick out a special bandaid. As long as I am honest all of the time, dd trusts that I am only suggesting things in her best interest. We have done docs, xrays, meds, etc with no problem at all.

:clap :nod :clap :nod :clap

This is such a fantastic example of why I love the MDC mamas :love

This approach takes more time, patience and energy but the end result is having such trust from your child is so worth the investment.

I was thinking about this issue last night (related to what I wrote on another thread). I think that there might be a time when I just had to make dd do something - for instance if there were a medical emergency and it was life saving measures.

As APmom said - we do have saftey "rules" in our house - and dd says "thats a rule" and respects it. For instance, we dont play on the stairs, and we do not pick up the chihuahua by the neck. But there is always an age appropriate explanation involved when dd is told not to do something.

I think this Hathor comic is on point:
Y knot (http://thecowgoddess.com/archshow.asp?var=205)

4evermom

01-31-2006, 06:06 PM

While I respect your position I think it that you fail to really understand that some of us believe that it is our role as a parent to make decisions for our childen that are non-negotiable because they simply do not have the life experience/judgment/impulse control to be able to make these decisions for themselves. And that it our duty to do so.
I agree with this even though there is only one thing on that list that is non-negotiable for me (toothbrushing- and I'd probably let that go if ds didn't have 10 cavities). When ds was an infant, like all mothers, I made most decisions for him. The issue is partially what age do you turn the decision making over to dc. As mine has grown, I've slowly turned over much of it to him as I felt he was able to handle it. I used to make him hold my hand in a parking lot. Now, I trust he will stay near me. He was very distressed at preschool so I withdrew him and am planning on homeschooling for the time being. He is welcome to play with fire with the condition that a grown up is with him. :blah

irinam

01-31-2006, 06:17 PM

I was thinking long and hard trying to find non-negotiable things in our family, but failed to find them.

Maybe safety *would* be non-negotiable, but both of my kids enforce it more than I do sometimes, LOL When DS was small, he would tell me “Mom, the sign says 35mph and you are going 40! Slow down!” DD would literally scream if I even started the car before she was fully buckled up. *She* insists on holding my hand when crossing the road. *She* asks for a “safe” knife when we cook.

I did/do spend significant time explaining the reason we have to mind safety and I guess it sticks. It never had to be a “mommy’s rule”, it is just something that all of us do.

I am sure I did not experience all of the possible “if’s” and “when’s”, just relaying our experience.

PS. Some negotiations do take a long time though! I am learning patience that I did not know I was capable of :) and I admit I loose it now and then :o

loraxc

01-31-2006, 06:24 PM

But I'm not sure that I'm entirely clear about what you object to and wish to discuss, Pat.

Me, neither.

I think it's fairly obvious that outside of "No, you may not lie down in the street in front of the bulldozer", people are going to draw the line in different places. I don't know if there is a point to *debating* that line.

I do not personally accept the idea that everyone can always "negotiate" everything to everyone's satisfaction. I don't think it's a bad thing to try for, aim for, or consider, but I think it is, frankly, an enormous thing to ask of a parent, especially parents with multiple children, high-needs children, special needs children, their own emotional issues (such as being an abuse survivor), economic constraints, partner problems, family issues...that's starting to sound like just about everyone, isn't it? Such is my point.

The4OfUs

01-31-2006, 06:31 PM

I don't think we'd ever agree on what's "non negotiable", outside of the running in the street thing, either.

I also agree that what separates us is what happens when those of us who do not insist on mutual solutions get down to it. Those who would simply force with no consideration of alternatives, no explanation, no sympathy, and perhaps a snide remark or whatever are different from those who would try to come up with alternatives, but then explain and symapthize and make the best of the situation, who are different from those who wouild do whatever possible to come up with something that worked for everyone.

I would guess that most of us just have different 'breaking points', and different ways to handle the situations as they arise. I don't have a formula, like: "well, if after 5 minutes, and 3 suggestions he doesn't do x, I'm going to do it for him" - I gauge each situation and see what the outcomes and possible solutions might be, and then act from there. And YES, in my family, as the parent I do take more of the responsibility on judging situations, because, well, he's 2. He just cannot understand the long term ramifications of some situations, or see the big picture as opposed to the "right now"....that's why he was born tiny and dependent on me for everything, and will GROW into a fully independent human...how many 2 year olds could live on their own without a guardian?

This morning, after DS's appointment, we headed out of the hospital (him walking on his own near me, me pushing his little collapsible stroller) and I told him that when we got outside he either needed to hold onto the stroller, hold my hand, or I would carry him. It was raining pretty heavily, that nice, cold rain we get in upstate NY :irked: . Well, he didn't want to hold onto the stroller....and he kept pulling his hand away from mine when I tried to reach for it...the whole time I'm talking to him about being safe near moving cars. So, I told him that since he didn't want to hold the stroller or my hand, I would carry him, because it wasn't safe for him to cross the street and walk in the parking lot by himself. He's 2 - he just doesn't have the judgement to walk in moving traffic. So, I picked him up - and he kind of whimpered for a minute as we were walking along. I asked him if he wanted to try walking holding my hand or the stroller, he nodded, so I put him down. He still wouldn't hold either my hand or the stroller, so I picked him up again and carried him the rest of the way. I sympathized with him that he wanted to walk, but reminded him that it just wasn't safe for him to walk on his own. So, yes - I physically forced him by picking him up, and invaded his body integrity, I suppose. However, the option of standing there chasing him around in the cold rain with the stroller, when I had a conference call scheduled for work in an hour, it just wasn't going to happen. Even in nice weather....there just wasn't any place for him to go. Right outside the hospital is the valet parking circle, then the road, then the parking lot...and it's not aprticularly saf eor considerate either for him to run the halls of the hospital. WHen we got home, he zipped around on the porch for a few minutes, to work his legs out - which is fine. But me telling him he could run at home, while we were at the hospital still, didn't mean a lick to him at that moment. So, I decided on a course of action, and got us home.

So, let's see. I gave him a couple choices, and a couple chances to be safe in the situation we were in, and it didn't happen. I wasn't mad or upset at all, he's only 2 and just cannot grasp the situation. However, that doesn't mean to me that I need to find a way for him to walk around, when it's something that would have required quite a bit of flanagling and not been agreeable to me at all.

I suppose in matters of road safety, and personal hygiene (changing dirty diapers), I will do a certain amount of negotiating to make the situation more appealing to him (changing standin gup, in the tub, watching a video, whatever) but in the end, the diaper is goign to get changed, and he's not going to walk in moving traffic on his own. Personally, I cannot see at all that me "forcing" my son to have a dirty diaper changed to avoid him getting a huge rash ( or carrying him across a street and through a busy parking lot)would somehow translate into him acquiescing to someone trying to sexually violate him in later years.

My parents were gentle but definitely "in charge", and I'm sure sometiems they would pick me up to carry me, or put me in my carseat if I didnt' want to, or make me get my diaper changed...but I in NO way as a result of that felt like it was OK for anyone to do anything to me sexually that I didnt want them to. In fact, I can think of 2 situations when I was a young teenager that boys tried to get me to do more than I wanted to, and I literally walked away (one time calling my dad to come get me) and that was the end of that relationship. My parents instilled me with the knowledge that I was valuable and worthy, and THAT is what stuck with me, not the occasional coercion as a small child to do a function of daily living.

Sooooo...I just can't equate "forcing" my child to change his diaper, or get into a car seat without waiting somewhere for X amount of time, or whatever to having them not be able to distinguish a bad sexual touch from their mom cleaning their diaper or getting them into their car seat. It just doesn't register for me.

Having said all that, I will also say that if the diaper change or car seat scenarios (which seem to be very common ones here) were constantly met with resistance and fear, screaming, etc., like EVERY time, then I would definitely look to see what the underlying cause was. BUT - for the occasional time when DS just doesn't want me to change a poop that he made 15 minutes ago because he doesnt' want to stand still for 2 minutes, even if I play a video for him, even if I give him a piece of cheese, I just can't equate it to him becoming a person who would let anyone do anything to him without standing up for himself.

I just think that's a big, big leap to make, and doesn't give enough credit to our kids instinct to learn, be taught, and know good intentions from bad.

I do try to accomodate my son as much as I possibly can - we've gone out in some truly interesting getups, and with him bringing along some interesting 'toys' - gone bottomless many times at home - had a cupcake before dinner - carefully explore a stapler he found - so I'm not compeltely inflexible - just sometimes his "wants" do not outweigh my "needs". I guess that's what it comes down to for me.

MissRubyandKen

01-31-2006, 07:03 PM

Well besides life threatening I'd say if someone is being forceful to my dc or my dc is being forceful to someone else I will intervene. But intervening doesn't need to equate to my being physically forceful.
At one point I thought I had to brush my ds' teeth even when he didn't want to. I did it anyway. So from then on he refused often. I tried a ton of different ways to make it fun. Sometimes he agreed, sometimes he refused. When he refused I did it anyway. I TOOK HIS POWER FROM HIM- HE STRUGGLED FOR IT BACK. If I had had half a brain I would have waited 15 minutes that FIRST time and asked again, instead of doing it anyway. There most likely was an alternative. I see this clearly now in retrospect.
As soon as I LET GO (under the guidance of my dearest friend) and talked to him about it and gave him the power back the struggle ceased to be. He knew why I expected his teeth brushed we talked about it sveral times. He came to understand how important it was to me. He also understood I would not force him anymore. This did not lead to his teeth not being brushed. I needed to TRUST that he wanted to do the acceptable thing. His teeth get brushed 2-3 times a day now and he almost always wants my help. I deeply regret forcing my will on him.
In a hazardous situation you bet I'll intervene. In a safety situation you bet I'll intervene. For instance at the store the other day ds4 was walking with the rest of us. He does follow impulses quite a bit still, so my eye is almost constantly on him. CHALLENGING :lol . I turned for 2 seconds, then back and he was running off. I said 'Kendall' quite loudly. He turned and stopped. I quickly got to him and bent down. I explained to him AGAIN why I needed him to stay with me. He told me he wanted to look at the fish. I told him that was okay and I needed him to tell me if he wanted to see something so we could go together. And we did. I intervened but I did not need to be forceful.
Yesterday when I was suggesting something to my dd6 she told her dad, 'Dad you know why I listen to mommy's suggestions? Because I don't want to get hurt or be uncomfortable.' :love
I definitely believe that what our dc live with on a DAILY basis is much more imoprtant than a moment here and there. :thumb

maya44

01-31-2006, 08:36 PM

earthmama369

01-31-2006, 08:56 PM

I'm not sure I have the concept of non-negotiable down as intended by the OP, but as the PP mentioned, the one other situation that comes to mind (aside from safety) is how my child's behavior might affect someone else. Specifically, I was thinking about how she's recently gotten interested in the effects of waving objects around and hitting them on other things. Hairbrush meets coffee table -- fine. Big bang, lots of giggles, a few dents that don't matter much. Hairbrush meets cat -- not negotiable. That's not ok because it hurts the cat. A secondary issue is that the cat might hurt her back (kitty communication), but the core message I want her to learn is that it's not ok to hurt someone/something else, even when you're not trying to hurt them, you're just having fun. So the hairbrush gets taken out of her hand.

When she has a toy like that and I see her heading for one of the cats, I give her a verbal heads-up so she remembers not to hit them. (Be gentle with the kitty. Pet with an open hand, gentle touch, put the brush down first, etc.) I will try to redirect her attention and get physically close enough to the situation to intervene with a stronger redirect before she has a chance to hit the cat. I'll sometimes try to move the cat to safer ground. (Although wouldn't that be forcing the cat to do something, then, rather than the child?) But once she hits the cat, I do physically remove the tool in question, then explain again why that's not ok, what is ok, show her how to pet the cat, and so on. I don't know if that's a good example of a universal non-negotiable issue -- it just seems like an age-appropriate response to her natural curiosity and energy combined with what I feel is an appropriate non-negotiable issue. What would you do differently in that situation to avoid physically taking a tool/toy away from a child?

MissRubyandKen

01-31-2006, 09:44 PM

I also wanted to say that one other BIG area I consider non-negotiable are things that will effect someone else. An example from the past was if I needed to pick up DD 1 at pre-school in 10 minutes and DD 2 did not want to get in the car, I would defintiley "force" (gently) her into the car and into her car seat. I couldn't leave DD1 at pre-school while I take the time to negotiate with DD2. It would not have been fair to DD1 or to her teachers who were under strict time guidelines on many days. So that is a time I would have used gentle physical force because something was (for me) truly non-negotiable.

Yes, leaving a child possibly scared and waiting would not be an option for me. Is it okay if I throw out a couple ideas? If not you can of course just ignore me :shy . It's quite possible you already do these things.

Have a snack packed and ready to go with, or stock the car with special treats, leave ten minutes earlier so as not to be rushed, have a few books or toys in the car to hand to her, possibly a magnadoodle, those are fun. Encourage her to pick up a piece of nature on the way to the car to hold for the ride. Bring along her favorite tape or cd if you have a player in the car. Maybe one of those things would persuade her to get in her seat without physically forcing her?

maya44

01-31-2006, 09:51 PM

Yes, leaving a child possibly scared and waiting would not be an option for me. Is it okay if I throw out a couple ideas? If not you can of course just ignore me :shy . It's quite possible you already do these things.

Have a snack packed and ready to go with, or stock the car with special treats, leave ten minutes earlier so as not to be rushed, have a few books or toys in the car to hand to her, possibly a magnadoodle, those are fun. Encourage her to pick up a piece of nature on the way to the car to hold for the ride. Bring along her favorite tape or cd if you have a player in the car. Maybe one of those things would persuade her to get in her seat without physically forcing her?

Well as i said it was an example from the past, DD2 is almost 11 so its not really an issue anymore! :lol

But yes, I certainly tried to do what I could though our schedules were tight, there was no "10 minutes earlier". My point was just that for us with three under the age of four (which I had at one point) there were many times when things were not negotiable for one because of the needs of another.

MissRubyandKen

01-31-2006, 10:03 PM

When she has a toy like that and I see her heading for one of the cats, I give her a verbal heads-up so she remembers not to hit them. (Be gentle with the kitty. Pet with an open hand, gentle touch, put the brush down first, etc.) I will try to redirect her attention and get physically close enough to the situation to intervene with a stronger redirect before she has a chance to hit the cat. I'll sometimes try to move the cat to safer ground. (Although wouldn't that be forcing the cat to do something, then, rather than the child?) But once she hits the cat, I do physically remove the tool in question, then explain again why that's not ok, what is ok, show her how to pet the cat, and so on. I don't know if that's a good example of a universal non-negotiable issue -- it just seems like an age-appropriate response to her natural curiosity and energy combined with what I feel is an appropriate non-negotiable issue. What would you do differently in that situation to avoid physically taking a tool/toy away from a child?

Hairbrush meets kitty is not acceptable to me either :) . My first question is does she protest when you take the brush away? If not what you're doing sounds okay to me. If she does- What if you redirect her back to what she can use the brush on after she hits? 'It hurts the cat to be hit with the brush. I need the cat to be safe. You can bang the brush on the couch or you can brush your hair with it.' Possibly demonstrating with your hand like you're holding a fake brush? Or I guess I might keep the brush out of reach for a couple of months too if that the only object dc hits with. I might also call attention to how the cat looks or what it does when hit. See how kitty runs away when hit, it hurts/ scares her so she wants to go away. See how kitty scrunches down when hit, she looks scared.

johub

01-31-2006, 10:46 PM

I would think that if something were *truly* Non-negotiable, we could all agree on it. Besides making a child get into a stroller to go for a walk :eyesroll what else does *everyone* agree is "non-negotiable" and Must be forced against a child's will if they don't agree/consent/comply/obey? Besides that which is truly Life Threatening.

Btw, there was a study done of the same nature. Amazingly, not *everyone* could agree that some of the most common activities forced on children were "non-negotiable", so perhaps the actions forced on children are "selectively non-negotiable". http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/the_tcs_survey_1997

Obviously, wearing diapers is not universally non-negotiable even on this forum, "having to" get into the carseat and go somewhere is not universally non-negotiable, shampooing hair is not universally non-negotiable; vaccination is not universally non-negotiable; going to school/daycare is not universally non-negotiable; going to the dentist is not universally non-negotiable; brushing teeth, taking a bath, eating vegetables, eating what is served at dinner or going to bed without, bedtimes, leaving the park, timeouts, saying thank you, going to church, going to the grocery store, sitting at the dinner table, etc.

So, what activities do you feel comfortable forcing your child to do against their will because they are truly
Let's replace this "truly" with "universally" because many things are "truly" non-negotiable for each of us, which do not meet your above definition of "universally" non-negotiable.
I agree that likely only life or death situations would be "universally" non negotiable
non-negotiable? I am wondering if perhaps we could agree on what is truly non-negotiable; or is the use of coercion and force just a subjective *unwillness* to consider/continue negotiating for the sake of expediency? (ie. force is justified because 'I am in a hurry ("it is time to do xyz") and I don't want to deal with negotiating about this any longer in a more cooperative/respectful fashion'.) Or is it the lack of negotiation skills or lack of communication tools? Or is it just a commonly held belief that one has a right to decide to force others to do what one wants "for their own good", because she is the parent?
I think it is likely all of the above. There comes a point where many of us, even those who practice negotiation and playfullness and any other number of ways to gently manipulate our children to willingly do what we want run out of patience and time and become less willing to continue to do that song and dance. The number of things I am willing to try and the amount of time I am willing to give to any number of personally "non-negotiable" situations have limits. Does it mean I am unwilling to consider negotiating altogether? No it just means that at some point I am done. This point may be sooner or later depending on time contsraints and my personal level of creativity and patience.
And yes finally I believe it IS a commonly held belief that one has a right, nay, a Responsibility to decide to force others to do what one wants "for their own good" because he or she is the parent.

I honestly do not understand the paradox. We instruct our children not to use force to get their way. But....many adults model the use of force to get their way. How can our children learn from the inconsistency of our words from our actions? The Center for Non-violent Communications has many communication tools for more effective conflict resolution. See www.CNVC.org.
Some of us believe that the parent child relationship is unique and that children learn about how people should be treated from how adults treat each other, and how children should be treated from how parents treat children. In no other relationship does one person have such an awesome responsibilty over another, so to model all relationships based on the parent/child relationship simply is not the right mold. You may disagree and not understand. And that is ok and a very valid reason why you would choose otherwise. On the other hand, I see no paradox.

However, I believe there is a mutually agreeable alternative available which can be found that respects the child's body space integrity instead. Perhaps, we could continue to seek those together instead of advocating the default to force, except perhaps when it is *truly* and universally necessary due to a life threatening event. When is that?
Pat
Again, it comes down to a core difference in what we believe.
I have no objection to the default use of force (coercion, not necessarily always physical force). And while I am very interested in kind and fun ways to get my children to do what I need them to do. I do not think it is an either/or scenario.

boongirl

01-31-2006, 11:55 PM

I would think that if something were *truly* Non-negotiable, we could all agree on it.

I do not think it is possible for all of us, 100% of us, to agree on anything.

:lol :wink

MissRubyandKen

02-01-2006, 12:34 AM

Well as i said it was an example from the past, DD2 is almost 11 so its not really an issue anymore!

:blush oh! okay :lol, missed that.

loraxc

02-01-2006, 07:20 AM

There comes a point where many of us, even those who practice negotiation and playfullness and any other number of ways to gently manipulate our children to willingly do what we want run out of patience and time and become less willing to continue to do that song and dance. The number of things I am willing to try and the amount of time I am willing to give to any number of personally "non-negotiable" situations have limits. Does it mean I am unwilling to consider negotiating altogether? No it just means that at some point I am done. This point may be sooner or later depending on time contsraints and my personal level of creativity and patience.

:nod

Yup.

erika h

02-01-2006, 07:31 AM

Besides making a child get into a stroller to go for a walk :eyesroll what else does *everyone* agree is "non-negotiable" and Must be forced against a child's will if they don't agree/consent/comply/obey?A big one for us was "no running in the parking lot" - although not immediately life threatening, when our daughter was 2 and 3, she'd just take off running once she got out of the car.

I finally taught her "hands on the car" until we were all ready to go, and if I was carrying something with both hands, she had to keep her one hand on my coat or in my pocket.

rumi

02-01-2006, 07:56 AM

Besides making a child get into a stroller to go for a walk what else does *everyone* agree is "non-negotiable" and Must be forced against a child's will if they don't agree/consent/comply/obey?

did i miss something. i definitely do not think above exmple is 'non negotiable'

also i dont think that true = universal.

i think that for any rule we go through stages where up to a certain age we make the decisions for the kids and they have no say, like no solids before 6 months, no wheat before 12 months, etc. this i have no problem extending to non food items like no TV before x yrs and no sugar before x years.

in the next phase, i would differentiate the things that i think are healthy and lift restrictions in toto, and other things i would offer in a limited way, like sugar - which i also have no problem restricting / limiting. Or for that matter vitamin C. then there would be an age where i would lift the surveillance altogether. this age would vary for different things and i would set it dynamically according to a complex blend of factors.

life threatening things i think follow a similar pattern in that there is a stage where we physically remove our children from dangerous situations like traffic and eventually they get to a stage here they understand and internalise the rule themselves. but i offer the explanations even from the beginning. i dont see a need for anthig becoign nonnegotiable.

anyway, i am the same person who is putting vicks on my dd withut her consent, so go figure ....

Besides that which is truly Life Threatening.

ambdkf

02-01-2006, 09:33 AM

Some of us believe that the parent child relationship is unique and that children learn about how people should be treated from how adults treat each other, and how children should be treated from how parents treat children.

That is interesting, so you believe that they turn 18 and something changes, that they then know - 'now I can be treated x way and should treat others x way' ? Fascinating! Maybe it is different for us because my kids don't go to school, so we are living in the "real", "adult" world always and it wouldn't make sense for them to not understand how adults treat each other or to treat children differently.

captain crunchy

02-01-2006, 12:16 PM

While it is my goal to be completely non-coercive and strive to always find mutually agreeable solutions, I can't say that in the 18(+) years that our daughter is living with us that every single thing will be negotiable.

I can say however, that I intend to enter every situation with the pure intention of reaching a mutually agreeable solution and with the mindset, spirit, and determination to not force her to do something she doesn't want to do.

The reason I have to say that is because when someone like me makes a comment like "I would never force her into her carseat" ... someone will inevitably counter that statement with:

"but what if it was snowing and your daughter chose not to wear shoes that day and she was getting frostbite and gangrene and your mother was in an accident and you had to get to the hospital and a knife-weilding murderer was chasing you and your husband said he would divorce you if you didn't leave but your child STILL didn't want to leave... would you force them THEN?????"

So, I am put in a position where I have to relent and say, "well gee, I suppose then I would probably coerce her into the car."

Where the person responds "seeeeeeeeee!!! You are COERCIVE!!! You really don't mean what you say about consensual living!!!!"

*sigh*

So, in conclusion, I enter every interaction with my child with the spirit, intent, and determination inside me to live consensually with her and to honor her autonomy and to find a mutually agreeable solution to any issue that may arise. I think it can be accomplished in almost all situations and that is what I strive for.

The4OfUs

02-01-2006, 01:14 PM

I posted this to the other thread that has gotten into negotiation vs coersion, the diaper thread up towards the top - but really meant to post it here (even though it's kind of relevant in both places since the diaper thread has taken a kind of OT turn.....) SO, if you read it there, it's the same thing here! :o
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK, so I keep thinking about this....it's starting to become an obsession.... :lol

For me, I don't really go into any situation thinking it's non negotiable...I just have limits to what is agreeable to me, and if DS and I can't come to an agreement, I will make things as comfortable to him as I can, and then just move on. I'm certainly not looking for ways every day for me to exert my power, or impose my will on him, but if we can't come to an agreement fairly quickly, as the adult in the relationship I feel I am responsible for making the best of a situation, helping DS express and explore his feelings, and then move on.

I keep falling back to the feeling that if small children were meant to live on their own and make all the decisions regarding their life for themselves, we'd be like other mammals that are able to (and expected to) survive without their parents after a year or two. However, we are clearly not made that way...at the earliest, a teenager could make it on their own, albeit struggling. If you put a 6-year-old out into the world (even if it was back in the stone ages when there wasn't so much tenchology and rush, rush, rush) they still wouldn't be ableto survive on their own (and I'm not talking about emotionally, I'm talking about literal survival). I firmly believe that children grow into their ability to be independent, develop the ability to reason, gain the insight to see "the big picture", etc. etc. AND, that is why I will gradually hand over the reigns to my child(ren), base don their individual development and abilities.

I also firmly believe that every child is different, and what works in one situation for one child will not be the same for any other given child. This is why it is so important to be in tune with your children and their own individual needs and abilities, and not try to 'cookie cutter parent' by any one means.

I base a lot of my parenting on the way I was parented. I think I turned out pretty well :wink I don't have any resentment towards my parents, I don't have any boundary issues with my personal space, I don't have any feelings of resentment that my parents didn't value my opinions, and I certainly don't have any problem letting someone know if something they are doing to me or around me is NOT OK with me. AND, my parents were gentle, but sometimes coersive. Though I do live much of my life in the "mainstream world" (check out the sorta crunchy/sorta mainstream thread in Finding Your Tribe), I most certainly think critically about things that are going on in the world and do not believe anything told to me by "authorities" just because they say so.

So, for me it's not about things being non-negotiable - many, many times I negotiate with my child and find mutual solutions. However, when we come to stalemates because my son is not capable of *really* understanding the repercussions of things, I feel it is my job to move along the path of least resistance (not necessarily NO resistance), and just get the job done. This often means a compromise on *both* our parts, and I don't think that's a bad thing. I guess I just don't see the necessity for everyone to be 100% satisfied 100% of the time. I have a deep sense of satisfaction with my life, even though I don't always get exactly what I want/need, and quite frankly I have no desire to negotiate with people to be satisfied with the outcome all the time - a lot of things just don't matter that much to me...I'm trying to figure out how to say this nicely....I guess I feel that if someone feels the need to always be 100% satisfied with the solution or outcome to a situation (which to me is what mutually agreeable means, everyone is totally satisfied, but correct me if i'm wrong), there must be something going on (or have gone on previously in your life) that has left you feeling out of control or dissatisfied with your life somewhere...to me it seems, frankly, a bit naive. To me, part of growing into an adult is realizing that not being 100% satisfied with things all the time is OK, and that being mostly OK with things sometimes is just fine, you can have a joyous fulfilled life without always being totally satisfied with things...it seems like a burden to me to always have to figure out how to make myself happy AND make others happy at the same time. PLEASE realize I'm talking about everyday, mundane, daily living scenarios, NOT life changing situations or major life events.

I'm hoping to pass on this deepsense of satisfaction to my child(ren), and the resilience to always glean the best out of a situation even though it might not be exactly as they envisioned it.

AND, AGAIN - if my child was kicking, screaming, crying, etc. DAILY about any one situation or event, I would absolutely get to the bottom of what was causing the problem and find a way to work things out. However, for the occasional minor disappointment during a daily living situation, I just don't want to give it (the situation) that much power in my life, or my child's life. I want him to know that little situations shouldn't have that much power, that there is so much more to life than some of the minor inconveniences of daily living.

OK - I'm going to TRY to stop thinking about this now....at least for a few minutes. :nut

MissRubyandKen

02-01-2006, 01:53 PM

I posted this to the other thread that has gotten into negotiation vs coersion, the diaper thread up towards the top - but really meant to post it here (even though it's kind of relevant in both places since the diaper thread has taken a kind of OT turn.....)

:lol yeah I'm starting to feel dizzy from running back and forth.

I do not try to make every thing in our life mutually agrreable. I am striving towards consensual living (for a long time now without ever hearing the phrase) which to me seems quite different. I wish I knew all the things I know now since the beginning of motherhood. I did well for being ignorant simply out of pure love for my dc and a deep desire for them to be happy, respected, and attached. The forced toothbrushing has really been my biggest regret in life.
I do not expect things to always be agreeable to me and neither do my 4 yr old and 6 yr old. Quite often one of us consents to something that is quite obviously more important to the other person, among numerous other reasons. I will assume cooperation can be engaged. I am not perfect though! Frustration, anger, tiredness, hunger all CAN throw me (and dc) off at times, I do my best to work through it in the moment. I EXPECT my dc to listen to safety concerns upon my explaining them. I EXPECT my dc to listen to my needs, wants, concerns, and me theirs'. Doesn't mean all of these will ALWAYS in every instance be met immediately. I EXPECT these things not in a 'I expect this or else' way but in a 'I expect this because it seems like this will happen way'. I do believe my dc WANT to do the acceptable thing almost all the time. When not there is a reason I will do my best to find out and remedy. I DO NOT spend all of my time in negotiations. That is ridiculous and uneccessary. I will negotiate as needed. I do make my expectations clearly available. I do talk about my feelings, wants, and needs and encourage them to do so too. All that said I don't feel that defaulting to force is neccessary. I believe doing so will likely create MORE time-consuming issues and MORE stress and MORE acting out of anger, frustration, and aggression than not forcing my will.

The4OfUs

02-01-2006, 02:07 PM

MissRubyandKen, you know, I think when it comes down to it, a lot of us are probably a lot more alike than we're realizing....I think many of us are saying basically the same things, but in different ways, and with only minimal differences.

Gotta love semantics - or how do they say it? "The devil is in the details...."... :wink :Peace

re: toothbrushing (another popular coersion/non-coersion situation!), DS wasn't initially thrilled with the prospect - so we tried him having one and us having one - him brushing mine then me brushing his, and several other permutations, all with a little bit of grumbling and resistance but not a huge fuss....UNTIL, we stumbled across the fact that he LOVES DH and my Sonicare toothbrush! :lol We bought a set of extra soft gentle bristles, and he sits happily we "sing" (one sure fire way to get his mouth to stay open) while I buzz his teeth for a minute or two (incidentally, his ped thought this was a great idea - ha!).

Sooo, although there wasn't extreme resistance or tears or anything to it, there was enough protest by him with our other methods that it made us uncomfortable and we kept searching until we found something he liked!

Sooooo, maybe I'm a little more noncoersive than I thought! :wink

sweetest

02-01-2006, 02:40 PM

I can say however, that I intend to enter every situation with the pure intention of reaching a mutually agreeable solution and with the mindset, spirit, and determination to not force her to do something she doesn't want to do.

The reason I have to say that is because when someone like me makes a comment like "I would never force her into her carseat" ... someone will inevitably counter that statement with:

"but what if it was snowing and your daughter chose not to wear shoes that day and she was getting frostbite and gangrene and your mother was in an accident and you had to get to the hospital and a knife-weilding murderer was chasing you and your husband said he would divorce you if you didn't leave but your child STILL didn't want to leave... would you force them THEN?????"

So, I am put in a position where I have to relent and say, "well gee, I suppose then I would probably coerce her into the car."

Where the person responds "seeeeeeeeee!!! You are COERCIVE!!! You really don't mean what you say about consensual living!!!!"

*sigh*

.

:spitdrink :laugh:

This sounds like a conversation I would have with my father! :rotflmao

So many people I run across just dont get WHY I would let dd continue to play at daycare when I have come to pick her up. I see so many parents that are "in charge" and it just makes me feel so :( I look like an alien when I actually bother to speak to my 2.5 year old and tell her why its time to leave "its time to make dinner. Rico (the dog) is waiting for us to take him outside" The thing is dd gets it - yeah, its takes us 10 minutes longer to leave but she is happy, I'm happy.

For instance, yesterday when I went to pick her up she had just had a poop accident. I knew she was upset and needed some time to play before she was ready to leave. I know my daughter and I know that when she is upset she is especially closed to negotiation. So I helped pick up the toys while she played. Then we got on shoes to go outside. Then I let her play a bit more in the courtyard. Finally, I said "its time to go home and make dinner" and she left. When we got home we talked about it a little, and how important it is to leave daycare so we can come home and take Rico out.

I feel it is my job to teach her and guide her. I want her to do the things I ask of her because she knows it is the right thing to do, not because I said so. That does not happen overnight, its a long process. But I hope that when dd is a teenager and we talk about things like drinking and driving, she will listen to to me then, when I can no longer pick her up and carry her away, she will listen to me because she trusts and respects me, not from fear.

captain crunchy

02-01-2006, 02:51 PM

I find the suggestion that people who seek mutually agreeable solutions must be somehow damaged to be very insulting.

What people don't seem to understand about this lifestyle choice, is that I don't parent this way because of how I was raised -- I parent this way in spite of how I was raised.

I parent this way not because of how I was treated, but because of how I want to be treated.

I parent this way because my size advantage, age advantage, financial advantage and maturity will never give me the right to use force on another human being, especially one who is vehemently protesting said force.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that living consensually or finding mutually agreeable solutions meant that you are 100% satisfied 100% of the time. We all live in this world too ya know, we do know how it works. However, I do believe that one can be heard, empathised with, talked with, validated, considered and respected 100% of the time even if we don't always get what we want 100% of the time.

I reject the notion that just because human babies need their caregivers for a longer period of time, it means we as adults have free reign to impose our will over their bodies, choices, opinions, thoughts and actions.

Yes, part of the gift of motherhood is protecting our children and nurturing them, loving them and respectfully guiding them with their consent -- and I don't think anyone, non-coercive or otherwise wouldn't pull their child off the road if a Mack truck was seconds away from making them a pancake. Fortunately, those aren't situations that happen very often and I think hypothetical situations like that are a convenient way to deflect from talking about day to day situations that will occur 1000 times to every 1 mack truck incident.

irinam

02-01-2006, 05:30 PM

... someone will inevitably counter that statement with:

"but what if it was snowing and your daughter chose not to wear shoes that day and she was getting frostbite and gangrene and your mother was in an accident and you had to get to the hospital and a knife-weilding murderer was chasing you and your husband said he would divorce you if you didn't leave but your child STILL didn't want to leave... would you force them THEN?????"

So, I am put in a position where I have to relent and say, "well gee, I suppose then I would probably coerce her into the car."

Where the person responds "seeeeeeeeee!!! You are COERCIVE!!! You really don't mean what you say about consensual living!!!!"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: So true :lol

Magella

02-01-2006, 05:40 PM

I don't recall anyone ever saying that living consensually or finding mutually agreeable solutions meant that you are 100% satisfied 100% of the time. We all live in this world too ya know, we do know how it works. However, I do believe that one can be heard, empathised with, talked with, validated, considered and respected 100% of the time even if we don't always get what we want 100% of the time.
I think it would help, perhaps, if we understood that we're all operating on the same understanding of "living consenually" and "mutually agreeable solutions." I think that there might be some misunderstanding of these terms, and perhaps concrete examples of this in action, during the more mundane moments, might help. I do agree that one can parent while always striving to hear, empathize with, talk with, validate, consider and respect one's children-but I think this can be done even as I say that something is most definitely not agreeable to me as the parent, that when this happens I can be considerate of my children, I can empathize, I can work to make this situation agreeable to them. I just don't know if this is what Pat and captain crunchy mean consider finding a mutually agreeable solution. I don't think being considerate, respectful, and empathetic toward my children rules out my ever saying a particular thing is non-negotiable at this moment (like, picking up your sister from school is not negotiable, but you can choose to leave early and we'll walk or we can drive, or you can bring a toy if you like, or we can stop somewhere on the way if we leave early....).

I also think there's (at least for me) some confusion about what everyone considers "force."

So perhaps Pat and captain crunchy would elaborate? With examples? (I know cc has already given one about the blood draw.) I ask this in honest curiosity and with an honest desire to learn.

The4OfUs

02-01-2006, 05:40 PM

I find the suggestion that people who seek mutually agreeable solutions must be somehow damaged to be very insulting.
I apologize, insulting was NOT my intention - as I said, I was tryign to find a way to express myself, but clearly I didn't. However.....this part of your post

I parent this way in spite of how I was raised.
is kind of what I was (unsuccessfully) trying to to point out. Since you were dissatisfied with the way you were parented you are going in the opposite direction of your childhood...I never meant to imply that anyone was "damaged", and I do apologize if I offended you or anyone else.
Also,
I parent this way because my size advantage, age advantage, financial advantage and maturity will never give me the right to use force on another human being, especially one who is vehemently protesting said force. I totally agree - I do not feel I have free reign to weild force over my child(ren).....so, I feel that's an unfair assessment of my (occasionally coersive) parenting...I negotiate and come up with alternative solutions with my son a LOT....but it doesn't happen all the time, and based on the nature of our relationship and his continued joyful disposition, pleasant temperament, and strong attachment to me, I'm assuming the times I do occasionally play a trump card are not damaging our relationship....because he does not vehemently protest anything we're doing. If he does, we do find an alternative that though he may still grumble, he is not having a screaming fit...and I don't believe it's because I've crushed his will - hoenstly the times I end up picking him up, or putting him into his carseat when he really didn't want to be, or whatever, it's just not that often. Take today - we were headed out, he was wandering the yard and found a branch with some pine needles on it. I told him it was time to get in the car, and as he was getting in, I started to take the branch from him saying, "why don't we leave this outside?" He protested...so, I said, "OK, didn't realize it was that important to you", and we made the trip with him happily waving a pine branch around the car. No big deal. So, there you go - no coersion.
However, I do believe that one can be heard, empathised with, talked with, validated, considered and respected 100% of the time even if we don't always get what we want 100% of the time. Again, I totally agree with you. But to me, validated, considered, and respected does not always mean that the solution is going to make them happy (which is how I understand consensual/mutual living, that both parties are happy with the solution), because minor disappointment (which is different than vehemently protesting) or not being totally OK/happy with the solution is OK with me sometimes (including in my own life).

I reject the notion that just because human babies need their caregivers for a longer period of time, it means we as adults have free reign to impose our will over their bodies, choices, opinions, thoughts and actions. I agree here too...and I take umbrage with "free reign"...I would never try to tell my child how to feel or prevent them from expressing their feelings. I might ask them to do it respectfully, but would never tell them they were wrong for feeling a certain way. What I am saying is that after attempts at tryign to find an agreeable solution, I am not against finding a *mostly* agreeable solution for my child and going with it...which means he may grumble, but he is not hysterical.

As I said previously, I would bet in practice our parenting day to day isn't really that much different. :Peace

irinam

02-01-2006, 05:47 PM

But to me, validated, considered, and respected does not always mean that it happens "their way"....it would likely wind up a compromise.

Exactly. Compromise is a reason for negotiating. I don't think Pat meant "negotiable" as in "you do what kids say"

johub

02-01-2006, 05:56 PM

That is interesting, so you believe that they turn 18 and something changes, that they then know - 'now I can be treated x way and should treat others x way' ? Fascinating! Maybe it is different for us because my kids don't go to school, so we are living in the "real", "adult" world always and it wouldn't make sense for them to not understand how adults treat each other or to treat children differently.

No certainly that is not it at all.
Everybody knows that the way to teach a child generosity is not to give them everythign they want, but to have them witness giving to others.
I think this is true of many other things.
And certainly of course a relationship progresses and doesnt automatically change at some arbitrary age. But even at 18, ones relationship with ones parents is a different sort of relationship than any other relationship. Even at 30 it usually is not the same as a peer relationship, but is closer.

4evermom

02-01-2006, 06:00 PM

did i miss something. i definitely do not think above exmple is 'non negotiable'
Based on my limited knowledge of Scubamama's parenting style, that was just a joke.

ambdkf

02-01-2006, 06:05 PM

Based on my limited knowledge of Scubamama's parenting style, that was just a joke.

She's out tonight but it was a joke. There was a recent thread about *having* to get in the stroller and go for a walk.

ambdkf

02-01-2006, 06:18 PM

No certainly that is not it at all.

Well, what you said was:
children learn about how people should be treated from how adults treat each other,

My question is if they are learning it from how adults treat adults - when and with whom do they use it? When do they earn the right to be treated in the same way? It just doesn't make sense to me and I think a big reason is the fact that my kids aren't in school so they really don't see this arbitrary divide in how people are treated. In their lives, all of the people they interact with are treated with respect and reference - from toddler to grandmas.

ambdkf

02-01-2006, 06:33 PM

Everybody knows that the way to teach a child generosity is not to give them everythign they want, but to have them witness giving to others.

I think we learn about generosity by having a belief in the abundance of the universe. I can't imagine a child understanding generosity if they were not treated with generosity. Just like I can't imagine a child learning about treating others with respect if they are not treated with respect.

The4OfUs

02-01-2006, 07:42 PM

Exactly. Compromise is a reason for negotiating. I don't think Pat meant "negotiable" as in "you do what kids say"
You know what - thanks for pointing this out to me. I'm going to go edit my post, cause "their way" isn't really what I meant....I can phrase it better to get my point across better.

ETA: OK, I changed my initial wording...does this make more sense?

But to me, validated, considered, and respected does not always mean that the solution is going to make them happy (which is how I understand consensual/mutual living, that both parties are happy with the solution), because minor disappointment (which is different than vehemently protesting) or not being totally OK/happy with the solution is OK with me sometimes (including in my own life).

dharmamama

02-01-2006, 09:10 PM

I don't really have a list of "non-negotiables" because I think there are so many variables in life that it usually comes down to the specific situation. At times I might force my kid into a carseat. Other times I might not.

Several non-life-threatening things that come to mind where I have forced my kid/s to do something they didn't want to:

1) Have a facial wound stitched (11 stitches, so it was a large wound for a small face)

2) Left a child with a sitter (my mother) during a sibling's surgery. The hospital specified that children under 18 were not allowed in the pre-op and recovery areas, and my dh and I felt my son needed his parents with him more than our daughter did. Yep, we could have left one parent at home with our daughter, but we felt it was more important that we both be there for our son (and each other).

3) Left my daughter with a sitter (my dad) when we went to Ethiopia to bring our son home. Yes, we could have (theoretically) taken her with us, had our son escorted, had only one of us go to Ethiopia, not adopted in the first place, or one of several other options I am sure that someone else could throw out. However, we felt that it was in our son's best interest that we both be there to meet him and spend time with him before we transported him halfway across the world, we couldn't afford to pay an extra $1400 to take our daughter along, we didn't think the trip would be enjoyable for our daughter, and we were concerned about potential health risks to her. So we "forced" her to stay with grandpa even though she said she wanted to go with us.

I guess I see certain situations as non-negotiable at certain times not because I can't think of myriad alternative ways to handle them but because there are times when the available alternatives are just not practical.

Namaste!

aira

02-01-2006, 09:32 PM

I'm a little late to the party, but OMG Captain Crunchy! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I agree with absolutely everything you said.

With I could explain things so clearly! :thumb

MissRubyandKen

02-01-2006, 10:06 PM

donosmommy04
MissRubyandKen, you know, I think when it comes down to it, a lot of us are probably a lot more alike than we're realizing....I think many of us are saying basically the same things, but in different ways, and with only minimal differences.
I'm new around here but I admit I have pondered this myself numerous times.

donosmommy04
But to me, validated, considered, and respected does not always mean that the solution is going to make them happy (which is how I understand consensual/mutual living, that both parties are happy with the solution), because minor disappointment (which is different than vehemently protesting) or not being totally OK/happy with the solution is OK with me sometimes (including in my own life).
Sure, many times me or dc CHOOSE minor disappointment when consenting to something. KWIM? ie. Dd and ds want to watch a movie. Ds and dd both have a different choice. Ds is waving his choice around, jumping up and down, going on about how it is his favorite show and this and this happens and can he please please please please watch it. Dd sees how important this is to him and says, 'He can watch his mom, its okay with me.' Sure she was disappointed slightly but she CHOOSE that path. Or I may to agree to play a game of checkers with dd even though I had been planning on cuddling up with a book. She is excited and really wants to be with me, I consent knowing I'll have fun anyway and I can read later. Not exactly what I had in mind, not exactly what I wanted at that moment but okay anyway. There is a difference to consent and agreeable. Many things are agreeable between us, many things are consentual. I don't think I need to force my will on them for them to learn that minor disappointment is endurable.

dharmamama
I guess I see certain situations as non-negotiable at certain times not because I can't think of myriad alternative ways to handle them but because there are times when the available alternatives are just not practical.
In an emergency room visit situation I imagine one would have to wing it. But I would like to point out that if it seems the available alternatives are not ones I could consent to I might focus on my dc and get ideas from them about how we might make the situation that might not change consent worthy for them. Make sense?
I want to give an example of when I did this, I know it is nowhere near as drastic as your's. Maybe it could help, maybe not.
We all decided just over one hour before sunset to make a trip to the park before we went to the store to get supplies for dinner. At sunset, when it was time to leave no way was leaving agreeable or even consentual to either of them even though we had discussed our plans before we left the house. It was getting dark and I knew my dc would be hungry and on the verge of meltdown before I could get food bought and prepared if we didn't leave right then, so staying was not something I would consent to. So I focused on leaving being consentual for them. I explained to both of them the need to get food to eat before we felt yucky and reminded ds he had wanted to pick up some apple juice because we had run out. He said oh and asked if we could get hot dogs too and then was ready to leave then. Dd was disappointed because she had been playing a fun game of tag. I told her I understood leaving fun was hard and asked her if she wanted a piggy back ride to the car. She said yes and was ready to leave.

Now I bet you probably did try to make leaving your dc behind with grandpa agreeable to her. I would have definitely put alot of energy into making the situation consent worthy for her. If she was verbal maybe grandpa could have asked her what might make it okay for her and made a list of promises he would keep to her while she was there? That is a drastic example. Seems to me most situations in daily life can be turned into something consentual with minimal effort.

rumi

02-02-2006, 01:28 AM

well i just thought of one - dinner before dessert - though it is possible that i would make an exception if we had had a nutritious snack late in the afternoon or something, in general, i will not leave this up to my dd. anyway i think that this is also in line with my overall paradigm in that i am taking a hard line now but will gradually withdraw.

AND wanted to say - we have never forced carseats because we have never forced cars. of course we have ALWAYS enforced carseat when in the car. But we don't use the car much and I am equally happy to walk, take a bus or whatever. Only ONCE we had no option and it was a long (2.5 hours) ride where we had some crying / protest in the middle and I had to use the display screen of the video camera and show her last bda party scenes to 'quieten' my dd in the carseat.

IdentityCrisisMama

02-02-2006, 01:51 AM

I would think that if something were *truly* Non-negotiable, we could all agree on it.

Why?

johub

02-02-2006, 09:45 AM

Well, what you said was:

My question is if they are learning it from how adults treat adults - when and with whom do they use it? When do they earn the right to be treated in the same way? It just doesn't make sense to me and I think a big reason is the fact that my kids aren't in school so they really don't see this arbitrary divide in how people are treated. In their lives, all of the people they interact with are treated with respect and reference - from toddler to grandmas.

What I am saying is that there are some intracacies of the parent/child relationship which do not translate to model to other relationships. And those things which seem to contradict how adults act to each other ,children learn from watching adult behavior.
They dont "earn the right" to be treated the same way. Parental responsibility for them wanes and their independance grows and the relationship evolves. There is no arbitrary limit.
For example, when a child is old enough to reliably not run into the street AND be aware enough of his/her surroundings so as to not accidentally step in front of traffic, he/she has earned the right to walk side by side rather than be held by the hand or confined in a way that would be unacceptable to an adult.
Becuase children are not adults, their requirements for independance and autonomy are not the same, as such treating them the same is not respectful of them or their development.
And I do not see that treating my child as a child models to them inappropriate ways to treat others. My child will not attempt to control his spouse or peers or coworkers by holding their hands when crossing the street simply because this is what I modeled to him at age 2.
My child will not learn that he has the right to force others to comply to his wishes simply because I forced him to be in a carseat or wear shoes.

When and with whom do children practice it? Every day and with people they meet all over. They watch how people treat each other and they use these behaviors all the time. With each other, siblings, peers, parents, teachers, the cashier at the grocery store.
Children often model how babies and small children are treated with their dolls or with smaller children, and still treat each other of the same age and older differently.
In my childrens lives everybody is also treated with respect.
Treating children as children with unique roles, and abilities and needs and not exactly as adults IS respectful in my opinion.
I do not believe that treating all people with respect equalls treating all people exactly the same though.
Joline

johub

02-02-2006, 09:48 AM

I think we learn about generosity by having a belief in the abundance of the universe. I can't imagine a child understanding generosity if they were not treated with generosity. Just like I can't imagine a child learning about treating others with respect if they are not treated with respect.

I agree. But when we treat a child with generosity without modeling it towards others the only thing we are teacing them is greed and materialism.

Also I agree that children will not learn to treat others with respect if they are not treated with respect. But as in my previous post, I thinkw e differ in how we define respectful treatment. I do not think children need to be treated as adults in order to be respected.

WuWei

02-02-2006, 11:02 AM

Colleen95: This is a non-invasive blood gluose monitor: http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/glucosemonitor/

HTH, Pat

ambdkf

02-02-2006, 11:12 AM

I don't think of treating someone as an 'adult' or as a 'child', I try to treat people how they want to be treated. It has never been an issue here.

DevaMajka

02-02-2006, 11:55 AM

I'm coming in late, so forgive me here :)

I'd have to say that I would consider the *end result* of a situation basically "non-negotiable" when it is likely that someone (or something) will be harmed in the immediate future. (I say in the immediate future because I wouldn't apply this to, say, tooth brushing, or eating veggies lol)
So, if ds is hitting the dog, it HAS to stop. HOW it stops is negotiable, to a point. Meaning that I'm not going to allow him to keep hitting her, even if in that moment, THAT is not agreeable to him. But I'll redirect, give alternatives, and try to find some sort of agreeable solution, that doesn't involve hitting the dog. If, for some really strange odd reason, there is absolutely no agreeable solution that we can find in a short amount of time, then, sure, I'd be ok with coercing. But I can't really imagine that would be likely to happen, kwim?
If we're shopping, and ds doesn't want to be carried, or in the cart, and can't fight the temptation to run around where I can't see him, the end result is going to be either be carried, be in the cart, or stay close to me (there could be other options, but end result being that he's not running where I can't see him). I try to work on an agreeable way to get there. (I should say, that this rarely happens, and he generally loves being in the cart, or he'll stay close to me). In the meantime though, I'm not going to let him run off. If I don't have a cart and 2 heavy coats, and my purse, I can follow behind him, and am happy to do so. But with all that stuff, I can't easily leave the cart to follow wherever he wants to go. We might find some stuff to play with, some things to look at, he may play under the tall shelves (where the carseats are) for a while, whatever. I let him get his energy out. But, I'm not entirely opposed to picking him up, and taking him to another section of the store (like the toy section) where it will be easier for him to stay in one area.
So, I'm not sure exactly HOW that fits in.
But, I have to say that I think that kids learn best when they are not being coerced. When things ARE negotiable, and a mutually agreeable solution, or a consentual solution are reached. So, for that reason (and one of basic respect) I try to do what I can to not coerce.

MissRubyandKen

02-02-2006, 12:06 PM

Of course the parent child relationship is unique. That's what makes it so possible to live consensually with them. They look to their trusted mother naturally for information as to how the world works and how things are to be. In no way is force neccessary. I find it much easier to live consensually with my children than my dp, honestly. My children being my children makes it easier for me to be intuitive about underlying reasons for behavior I deem unacceptable and they are almost always quite willing to listen to me and accept my help.
Back to my forced toothbrushing example. My mind was so set that this was something that HAD TO BE DONE my mind was closed at the moment of the first refusal. It was not open to ideas and alternatives as it was in so many other instances and as it should have been in this one. I could have waited 15 minutes and asked again, I could have sought to understand why my child was refusing and done what I could to remedy it. What if the only reason had been becasue he was just so tired at that moment? I could have skipped one night of brushing. That would have been fine. I do not believe he would have then refused often just because 'he got his way' as he did when I turned it into a power struggle. I do not believe children are that way. My children are not that way. The 'this has to be done' mindset closed my mind unnecessarily.
I bet most of us have been forced to do things as children. That does not make it the right course. Many of us have been spanked too, we realize here that that is not the right course. A child who is daily forced to eat vegetables, wear socks or shoes, sit at the dinner table, get in the car seat, etc etc. surely will have more problems as a result than a child who is occasionally forced to do something against their will. I doubt anyone here is constantly daily forcing their will on their children because 'they know best'. Right?

loraxc

02-02-2006, 12:18 PM

don't think anyone, non-coercive or otherwise wouldn't pull their child off the road if a Mack truck was seconds away from making them a pancake. Fortunately, those aren't situations that happen very often and I think hypothetical situations like that are a convenient way to deflect from talking about day to day situations that will occur 1000 times to every 1 mack truck incident.

Well...I don't know. I don't think these situations are THAT uncommon, especially in the life of the typical somewhat accident-prone and impulsive toddler. I brought up the popcorn-in-the-nose example elsewhere: my DD told us she had popcorn up her nose, and we ended up having to restrain her while the doctors examined her. I don't know how else we could have handled it, guys. We explained, empathized and distracted, but the popcorn could have been a danger and the exam was necessary. I can think of lots of things like that, where a toddler would have to hold still or experience a needle or take some unwanted medicine. I plan to take my DD to her first dentist appointment soon. I am seeking out the best kid-friendly dentist in town, and we will talk about it and play-act it and prepare her for it. I will try my hardest to make this easy and not a struggle. But if it comes down to it and she absolutely refuses to be examined, yes, we will probably employ a bit of gentle force. I am not, most likely (barring a total freak-out, which I don't foresee--probably some "No, no, I don't want to" and 30 seconds of crying) going to leave the office without having the exam. Maybe some of you would. I do not have that kind of money, and frankly I do not have that kind of total surrendering patience.

I also have continued to point out that when we allowed DD to control when her diaper was changed, she got an excruciatingly painful rash; no one has told me how I was supposed to handle this noncoercively, except by suggesting that we no longer use diapers, which I do not consider in any way practical. (How would we ever leave the house?) There's the toothbrushing example: some kids really don't want to brush their teeth, ever, and some of those kids have cavities and really need good oral hygiene. There's the "sometimes you really just HAVE to go somewhere" issue. I can think of a couple examples with my DD--once we were at a public playspace and her diaper was leaking poop, so I had to take her and change her for hygiene's sake, although she did not want to be changed at all right then. Once she was playing at the gate at the airport, and we had to board the plane or it would leave without us. Another poster gave an example of a child who did not want to leave home when another child needed to be picked up at school. What if your child does not want to get in the car to go to daycare, and you really have to go to work?

I'm not saying we shouldn't try all that we can to avoid the situation where we have to hold the child down for the exam or haul the crying toddler to the restroom for a change. Of course we should try. I always TRY, and try hard and creatively, but sometimes I do not succeed.

I just don't think these situations are all THAT rare. I don't think they're *common*, either--I mean, I'd say we end up having to force an issue maybe once a month, if that. Most of the time it works: distraction, negotiation, empathizing, playful parenting, offering alternatives, giving 5-minute warnings...yes it totally works! That's why I love this forum--I learn methods that work! But SOMETIMES it doesn't. At least in my house.

maya44

02-02-2006, 12:24 PM

[QUOTE=MissRubyandKenA child who is daily forced to eat vegetables, wear socks or shoes, sit at the dinner table, get in the car seat, etc etc. surely will have more problems as a result than a child who is occasionally forced to do something against their will. I doubt anyone here is constantly daily forcing their will on their children because 'they know best'. Right?[/QUOTE]

Well what do you mean by "force." It is pretty broadly defined by some here to mean telling your child they are expected to do something with no negotiation.

By that definition I do/did "force" my kids to do things on a daily basis including get in the car seat, sit at the table, pick up toys, clean their rooms, take a bath etc...

What I didn't do was invest much force into my force. There were seldom consequences for not doing what I asked except a reminder that this is what was expected of them. (Though I did gently place recalcitrent children in car seats when a sibling needed to be picked up on a tight schedule)

dharmamama

02-02-2006, 12:30 PM

There's the toothbrushing example: some kids really don't want to brush their teeth, ever, and some of those kids have cavities and really need good oral hygiene. There's the "sometimes you really just HAVE to go somewhere" issue. I can think of a couple examples with my DD--once we were at a public playspace and her diaper was leaking poop, so I had to take her and change her for hygiene's sake, although she did not want to be changed at all right then. Once she was playing at the gate at the airport, and we had to board the plane or it would leave without us. Another poster gave an example of a child who did not want to leave home when another child needed to be picked up at school. What if your child does not want to get in the car to go to daycare, and you really have to go to work?

Yes, that's pretty much how I think of it, too. I do not beat around the bush with my kids when the outcome of something is non-negotiable. If we have to leave to pick Daddy up at the bus stop, then we are going to leave to do it, even if the kids don't want to. They can pick whatever coat they want (or no coat), whatever shoes they want (or no shoes), what we listen to on the radio, whether they take a snack, which of the zillion stuffed animals populating and procreating in our house that they take along, heck, they can even choose what coat and shoes *I* wear if it makes them feel better, but they WILL be getting in the car to go get Daddy. They have no choice about that. I don't try to humor my kids by distracting them from the fact that they must do what I want them to. I state absolutely and clearly that this is what we will be doing, now what do you want to do to make this situation tolerable?

Namaste!

The4OfUs

02-02-2006, 12:34 PM

A child who is daily forced to eat vegetables, wear socks or shoes, sit at the dinner table, get in the car seat, etc etc. surely will have more problems as a result than a child who is occasionally forced to do something against their will.
ITA with this, and would even go so far as to say that a child who is occasionally 'forced' to do something they may not want to *at that moment*, in an otherwise vastly gentle, consensual, alternative seeking, loving household will not have ANY problems. I'm living proof. I'm sure my parents coerced me into brushing my teeth sometimes, getting in the car sometimes, going grocery shopping when I didn't *really* want to sometimes....and I can't think of any problems it has caused me. Because, on the whole, I was listened to, validated, considered, respected, and loved. :thumb

I doubt anyone here is constantly daily forcing their will on their children because 'they know best'. Right?
I would bet our day to day lives don't look all that different, those of us who are strictly noncoersive, and those of us who try to be, but don't always succeed for whatever reason. I don't think ANYONE here starts the day out saying, "gee, I wonder what I can force my kid to do today?"

MissRubyandKen

02-02-2006, 12:40 PM

Well what do you mean by "force." It is pretty broadly defined by some here to mean telling your child they are expected to do something with no negotiation.

By that definition I do/did "force" my kids to do things on a daily basis including get in the car seat, sit at the table, pick up toys, clean their rooms, take a bath etc...

What I didn't do was invest much force into my force. There were seldom consequences for not doing what I asked except a reminder that this is what was expected of them. (Though I did gently place recalcitrent children in car seats when a sibling needed to be picked up on a tight schedule)

I don't believe making a request equates force if that is what you mean. My children usually are willing to fulfill my requests with no negotiation. That doesn't make my requests equal to force because they choose to fulfill it themselves. Force to me would be if the child's refuses and then 'I don't care if you like aspauragus you'll sit at that table until every last bite is gone', 'pick up your toys or no movie', if you don't brush your teeth I'm putting your lovey up for the night', or parent pinning child down to brush teeth, or restraining them to put on clothes, or picking child up and forcing them into the bath.

irinam

02-02-2006, 01:02 PM

DevaMajka

02-02-2006, 01:08 PM

Well what do you mean by "force." It is pretty broadly defined by some here to mean telling your child they are expected to do something with no negotiation.

By that definition I do/did "force" my kids to do things on a daily basis including get in the car seat, sit at the table, pick up toys, clean their rooms, take a bath etc...

What I didn't do was invest much force into my force. There were seldom consequences for not doing what I asked except a reminder that this is what was expected of them. (Though I did gently place recalcitrent children in car seats when a sibling needed to be picked up on a tight schedule)

I don't necessarily see this as force- "telling your child they are expected to do something with no negotiation." And I agree with what MissRubyandKen said in response to it.
I think that expectations are a completely different thing. Especially when there are no bribes, threats, physical force, no consequences for choosing otherwise, etc. Which, ultimately, leaves the choice up to the kid. That's the way your posts read, anyways. I'm guessing that they choose to do the "acceptable" thing most of the time.
Not everything has to be negotiable to be considered non-coercive, imo. Or consentual.

Tbh, I don't think that falls under force at all. Have you read TCC? They have a lot of expectations for their kids, but they don't coerce anyone to do anything (as far as the book says). The kids do what is expected, because it's expected. Not "I expect you to x" which implies that you don't really expect they would do x unless told to do so. But they just expect that their kids WILL do the socially acceptable thing.

dharmamama

02-02-2006, 01:09 PM

One is not better or worse than another.

I wish everyone here believed that. Or at least acted like they did. :lol

Namaste!

The4OfUs

02-02-2006, 01:24 PM

Bolding is my emphasis I think the difference in our opinions on the particulars of GD (as I saw in many threads about coercive/non-coercive, and this negotiable/non-negotiable thread) come from the difference in one of our core believes.

It seems that some of us firmly believe that no matter what, the parent is, how shall I say it, the head figure in family life. Yes, the parent will be gentle, considerate and respectful. Yes, the parent will attentively hear child’s point of view. Yes, the parent will go great length to educate him/herself on many subjects as pertains to parenting. But at the end of the day, it is the parent that will make a final decision and if need be, impose this decision on the kids because he/she felt it was best. Kinda “benevolent ruler” if you will

Then there are others that believe that the family is a homogenous entity, where albeit the parent has more experience, knowledge, physical strength, he/she is an equal “part of the clan”.

One is not better or worse than another. Just some of us identify ourselves as former and some as latter
irinam, I think this is a REALLY good observation.

WuWei

02-02-2006, 01:32 PM

One is not better or worse than another. Just some of us identify ourselves as former and some as latter

I guess it depends on if you are the parent or the child to wheather one's opinion agrees with this statement or not. The child's perception makes it so, not just intent of the parent.

It has been with a heavy heart that I have read about the extensive use of coercion, rules enforcement, non-negotiation and ignoring a child's emotional expressions of dissent that are repeatedly condoned on this site. I try to see how and why this prevails, and I do see that some choose to live as the one who makes the rules and others choose to honor the autonomy of the individual to make decisions about their own body. I will forever contest others usurping the right of the child or another to decide for himself. And some try to find a cooperative way, until they get frustrated, impatient and default to force to get their way.

But, seeing these parenting philosophies advocated, espoused and embraced is sucking the joy out of the life that I *choose* to live without the use of coercion and force.

Gotta go.

Pat

loraxc

02-02-2006, 02:21 PM

And some try to find a cooperative way, until they get frustrated, impatient and default to force to get their way.

You know, the way you phrase this makes it sound like the things in question are just things the parent selfishly wants. It's like you think we're all holding our kids down to force them to wear the green hairbow, not the blue one, because we think it looks cuter.

Yes, at times I default to force to "get my way" if "my way" is "making sure my child is safe and healthy." It is not about a power struggle and wanting to "win."

If it this board sucks the life out of you solely because not everyone here is completely noncoercive/TCS, perhaps another site where everyone IS noncoercive would be a better place for you. I'm not saying this snarkily. But I don't think this board will ever be 100% noncoercive/TCS, and I think it is unproductive to bemoan the fact that it is not.

johub

02-02-2006, 02:27 PM

I don't think of treating someone as an 'adult' or as a 'child', I try to treat people how they want to be treated. It has never been an issue here.

Yet I see a difference. A child might want to be allowed to run across the parking lot and an adult might want the same thing.
However because we care for and love our child and are responsible for them we might intervene, but if our spouse or friend were running around a parking lot we would respect their freedom (and responsibility to keep themselves alive)
Both want to be treated with respect to their freedom and personal autonomy. But I certainly would not treat them the same.
So yes, I think that respect is treating someone as they want to be treated. HOwever I think that there are limits to how that can be acommodated for children.

ambdkf

02-02-2006, 02:38 PM

Yet I see a difference. A child might want to be allowed to run across the parking lot and an adult might want the same thing.
I seriously doubt a child has a burning desire to "run across a parking lot" they might, however, have a strong desire to run and you might happen to be in a parking lot. So, we would talk about what is happening in the parking lot and find a safe way to have the need met. Dh has never wanted to run across a parking lot either - but I would also explain to him that it might not be the best spot :)

It boils down to a belief that kids are rational beings. I understand that hasn't been your experience with your children. I'm just saying it has been and continues to be the experience I have had with my two very different dds - both are rational and neither has a death wish. Even my dd that regularly climbs 30 feet up the tree out front :lol

irinam

02-02-2006, 02:40 PM

I guess it depends on if you are the parent or the child to wheather one's opinion agrees with this statement or not. The child's perception makes it so, not just intent of the parent.

Good point. May be that is why I always identified myself as "latter" (part-of-the-clan type of parent)?

However I did see very good points made by "the other side" (for the lack of better definition) and learned from mamas insights.

I do see that some choose to live as the one who makes the rules and others choose to honor the autonomy of the individual to make decisions about their own body.
Another good point and interesting restatement of what I said. Would like to think more about it / read thoughts of others on this

Magella

02-02-2006, 02:43 PM

I have been thinking about this thread so much, and I happened to read some words of Thich Nhat Hanh's that pretty much sums up how I think about being a parent and being part of a family: "...because if you are a teacher and you have much more experience and insight, your vote has more value than the vote of a novice who has not got much insight and experience...we have done that with a lot of success in our community, because the younger and less experienced people always have faith and respect toward the elder ones." This resonates with me so deeply. I have great respect for those with more experience, more information, more knowledge regarding something than I have. Those who go before us often do have more insight, and with their insight and experience do make better or more fully informed decisions than those of us with less experience. Not always, to be sure, but often. And I think this applies to the parent-child relationship. Children, without question, do have less experience and insight to bring to life and decision making-as they grow they gain more.

I am not at all interested in turning my family into a mini dictatorship, where dh and I make all the decisions without consideration of our children. I do put a lot of time and effort into taking into consideration the needs, feelings, preferences and desires of my children. I do put a lot of time and effort into including them in many of the day to day decisions we must make, I do put a lot of time and effort into trying to make our days and decisions comfortable for all of us and to making decisions and plans that will meet everyone's needs-the children's needs and the adult's needs.

I also believe that part of respecting my children is respecting the fact that solely because of their age, not because of their inherent worth as people, my children have more limited information, more limited knowledge and insight, more limited experience, more limited understanding, and more limited decision-making skills than I or my husband. My children are every bit as valuable as people as any adult. My children are every bit as deserving of respect and compassion as any adult. However, my children are not equipped to make many of the decisions about life that must be made-not on their own. They need guidance. In other words, because of my greater experience and insight my vote "counts" more. Not because I am omniscient, not because I'm worth more, not because I am infallible, but simply because I know and understand more and am better able to make certain decisions and judgments.

As an example, I do not believe it is at all respectful to my child to allow them to wear a dirty diaper until they get a rash because they don't want to take the diaper off. My child who is still in diapers cannot understand fully the consequence of the decision to wear the dirty diaper, that consequence being a rash (which for my children are painful). I do believe that simply allowing my child to wear a dirty diaper until she has a rash is not respecting her bodily integrity. I do believe it is possible most of the time to remove the diaper from a reluctant child without force. I want nothing more than to avoid using force with my children, and the vast majority of the time I am able to do so. I am able to engage in daily living without the use of coercion or punishment or manipulation or rewards-but that doesn't mean that I don't have rules or expectations or that sometimes my kids do things that they really don't want so much to do. We are able to cooperate well enough, the vast majority of the time, to live happily and peacefully together while meeting everyone's needs. Have I ever used force or coercion? Yes, but not until I had made exhaustive effort to avoid it and I have never taken it lightly. I'm human, so it has happened. I don't think any mom her takes the use of force or coercion lightly, I think we all do our best to avoid it. Being human, we don't always. (I also don't think the terms "force" and "coercion" really fit what a lot of moms here actually do.)

As a parent I must make what seems like a thousand decisions a day, including the decision of what kind of and how much input into each decision is appropriate for my children to have. I put a great deal of care and thought into including my children in the decisions that affect them. I do a great deal of talking with my children. I do a lot of learning right along with my children. I strive always for cooperation, I always expect to be able to find a way for us all to cooperate, and most of the time I am successful in finding cooperation. But there are times when I am better equipped to make a final decision than my child is, there are times when it is my responsibility to protect my child's health and well-being, and there are things I wish my child to learn. I am not infallible, I do know this. But I am my children's guide and I am doing the best that I can. My children are happy. I don't think that's too terrible.

maya44

02-02-2006, 02:48 PM

I think the difference in our opinions on the particulars of GD (as I saw in many threads about coercive/non-coercive, and this negotiable/non-negotiable thread) come from the difference in one of our core believes.

It seems that some of us firmly believe that no matter what, the parent is, how shall I say it, the head figure in family life. Yes, the parent will be gentle, considerate and respectful. Yes, the parent will attentively hear child’s point of view. Yes, the parent will go great length to educate him/herself on many subjects as pertains to parenting. But at the end of the day, it is the parent that will make a final decision and if need be, impose this decision on the kids because he/she felt it was best. Kinda “benevolent ruler” if you will

Yes. This is eactly how I parent. I don't make rules or "coerce" (in the sense of being the rule maker) because I am frustrated or tired.

This is the way I run my family. I believe with all my heart that it is what is best for my child. That they need to grow over time in their judgment/decision making and impulse control abilites and that it is my job to provide these things for them until they do.

There are many things I believe can and should be negotiated and that list grows and grows as my children get older. But there are some that I do not believe should be and those deicsions reamin for us non-negotiable.

I am gentle in that while I make the rules I certainly consider my child's thoughts and feelings. And I don't use consequences to enforce those rules unless it seems necessary (to me) to protect their person or the person or property of another.

But my rules/expectations do not go away.

I am sad that Subamama feels that this way of parenting, which is the way I was parented and which brought joy to my life and appears to be bringing great joy to my children's lives somehow effects her joy. :(

IdentityCrisisMama

02-02-2006, 02:50 PM

But, seeing these parenting philosophies advocated, espoused and embraced is sucking the joy out of the life that I *choose* to live without the use of coercion and force.

Maybe now would be a good time to let you know that I come here to work out things on a more philosophical level and for "intellectual entertainment" as Piglet put it. Often times, when I'm working out the issue of coercion, it's on this level and it may appear that I have more tendencies towards this than what is actually going on between my child and myself.

I am also often very confused regarding the issue of force. I'm not sure if we're talking about physical force or "cognitive manipulation" as you put it recently. The issue of cognitive manipulation is VERY complex for me. For instance, I don't understand what is significant about the difference between not exposing your child (censoring, imo) to some unwanted thing and just not letting them have it.

We're also dealing with all of our perceptions of ourselves. I, personally, see myself as very coercive and manipulative and I come here to work out those issues. I don't think this is an accurate way to describe myself ~ it's just what I choose to work on. If my goal was to be more authoritative or controlling, you might see me talking more about how "permissive" or how burdened I feel by having to find common preferences with my child.

Why do I say that? Because you seem to feel really badly about what you read here and it's important to me that you know that, at least for me, you're only seeing a limited part of how I process parenting.

But then I struggle with this because I am not able to live the live I would like to live. I'm a little jealous that you are able to find a way to live a non-coercive life with your family. The culture where I live is messed up and that is really sad to me and it gets in the way of many, many of my ideals. And, it makes me a little mad to read that that you're feeling sucked of joy to read about my challanges.