i'm totally on board with Seawind's mood of "confused". if i weren't so tired, i'd change my mood smilie.
Anyways....i'm still lost. I read a post from Nof60, Shami, and Seawind and start shaking my head yes. Then, I read sticky's and do the same. From a "manipulator" standpoint, I feel the need to not just be the tallest person in my house. I am the parent and I respectfully set the flow of the day. Just as the PP hinted at, if my ds set the flow, who knows what would happen - we'd never eat at the dinner table, we'd be in underware all day even if our feet were ice cold, we'd eat nothing but popcorn and yogurt, and the house would be an absolute wreck. I just don't think a 3 yo naturally has it in them at that age to logically look at the day and decide what should be done and how it should be done. I don't believe there are 100 ways to bake a cake. I am all about individuality, but there comes a time where not every.single.thing can be in the gray. there is black and white out there even if there are people who refuse to acknowledge it. I guess i see myself not as the person who is controlling every thing my son does but rather setting example, giving choice when i can, letting the little things go, encouraging communication, etc...i don't say things like "if you're quiet in the restaurant, we'll go across the street to toys r us afterward for a new toy." i DO say, "you remember what 'good restaurant behavior is', right?" he usually nods yes and tells me the specifics. i then say, "if we don't have good restaurant behavior, we'll leave the restaurant and eat in the car."
Now, BOTH of those involve manipulation. I am bribing/threatening/coercing in both. In the first, it's a bribe or coercion with a new toy for good behavior. Makes no sense to me and sets the child up for expecting some type of reward for doing what, IMO, is just the right thing to do. In the second case, it's a bribe/threat/coercion with the thought of leaving the "fun place" if we are not acting appropriately. I feel OK with this one however because it seems logical. But either way you look at it, i'm manipulating. I feel quite certain that if i were to go to a restaurant with my adult girlfriends and proceeded to bubble my beverage, stand in the seat, crawl under the table, eat like a wild animal, touch food at the buffet - whatever...that they might not SAY something manipulative to me b/c they might feel out of line, embarassed, whatever - but i bet they wouldn't invite me back to lunch at a restaurant with them. so tell me (sticky?) how the way i handle "restaurant behavior" by manipulating is wrong and what i should do to be more respectful, open, encouraging of self-discipline, etc...
In all this babbling, i guess i'm saying is there are some basic "rules of life" we need to teach our children. And yes, i believe that when i say rules of life that they are rules of LIFE - everyone's. NO ONE wants to eat in a restaurant with the child i described above and it isn't fair to expect people to - especially if they don't know and love you. NO ONE wants to clean up after messy husbands and wives and coworkers the rest of their lives. So, in the reference to sticky's messy sister - apparently, it was not instilled that there are things you just DO - even if you don't want to - for the benefit of others (if she had a roommate, for example). So, if the parent's manipulated with the if not x then not y stuff and she still turned out this way, then we have to acknowledge personality as a block (as i brought up many pages ago) all along....there are going to be people who were "manipulated" who by their personality are STILL not going to follow thru. i agree with sticky in that we have to find ways to come together with love and respect and do things not out of fear but out of that love and respect. and that for different children, you'll tweak it differently. but i don't believe that we should just "accept" that "some people are just that way"...i don't think it serves our children well to just let it go with that writeoff. you can be an individual and still be considerate of others. it shouldn't matter your hairstyle, but being an inconsiderate partner, driver, coworker, etc...IS unacceptable and just plain not social. my one big problem with ALL of this is still the issue of "you don't have to do it unless you really want to/find joy in it" clause. so tell me how you get from "it's always ok to say no" to the child who is ever-considerate and mindful of others rather than a self-centered person who always puts themselves first. If they can say, "no, i don't want to right now" and that's ok when they're 3, why will they suddenly NOT be doing that when they're teens or 8 or whatever? at what age are we magically expecting them to be on board with us in this? i don't understand the whole concept of "but not unless you find it joyful" b/c to me, it's not guaranteeing any brighter of a future than the other method. either one could "backfire", right?
please, sticky, explain how it would not backfire. i'm not attacking you! i really want to hear how allowing the child "free reign" in all decision making sets them up to be considerate decision makers as older children and beyond.