When I dealing with my son by telling him you must obey your parents. I tell him his parents know what is best for him and he should do as he is told. I'm sorry if this is confusing but that's why you have parents to help. It is respectful to do what I tell him to do. You will fell better if you do the right thing. I think he lacks in self control at times and get frustrated with my control. I want to get him to want to do the right thing more becuase it is right not because he will lose a privelage. Hope someone cand help.

You need to do X because of Y. This is not optional or negotiable.

I do try to give age-appropriate reasons for what I am asking my kids to do. I don't apologize or talk about respect. I do use natural consequences when they don't follow through.

Wow! Cathy, That's exactly what a psychologist in social skills group session we attended told us(desperate parents) to do! No long explanations, lectures or negotiations. He said we should use natural consequences and positive reinforcements. Be consistent and make sure to follow through what you say or do.

We also watched the video called 1-2-3 Magic in the class.
http://www.parentmagic.com/
It was interesting.

And, now for a different approach...

I'd suggest thinking about your long term goals. My goal is to raise a child who thinks critically, cares about himself and others and thinks through the consequences of his actions so he's guided to make wise decisions. I believe that end goal is best served by lots of plenty of respectful discussion and by practice learning to make decisions especially when the child is younger and the risks of a bad decision aren't as high. If all the child has learned is 123 time out they aren't really learning how to make appropriate decisions or consider the needs of others.

In my opinion simply demanding obedience for obedience's sake gets us away from achieving these goals. Children who are taught to be obedient can easily transfer that obedience to someone else who doesn't have their best interests at heart - an influential but bad influence peer, a bully, a creepy person who wants to take advantage of them, etc.

I won't always be there so I want a child who can ask questions, weigh moral decisions and think for himself. Telling a kid do as I say now and don't ask questions is not the road to getting there. I don't want the kid who jumps off the bridge because someone else tells him to, but instead would prefer the kid who isn't afraid to say jumping off the bridge is a bad idea and here's why I'm not doing it. Also, the reality is especially as kids get older our power to force them to comply is really quite limited as they can learn to sneak, break rules, etc. I want the child who does what is right even if I'm not there to make him.

That said, obviously there are certain matters of dire health and safety where compliance needs to be required and even in these situations the likelihood of getting compliance will increase if the child really understands the whys of the situation. It has also been my experience when your child understands you aren't a micromanager who doesn't trust them, on the big stuff they listen because they get the gravity of the situation if you are so serious about it.

Books I suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/Kids-Are-Worth-Giving-Discipline/dp/0380719541

http://www.amazon.com/Kids-Parents-Power-Struggles-Lifetime/dp/0060930438/ref=pd_sim_b_4

This gets more difficult (and scarier) as they hit their teens. I have always given her decisions to make per her age. She is a good decision maker now.

However, there are many "house rules" she needs to follow due to the fact that she has to live with others. This is a fact of life. Her messy room is a problem. When I have to buy new clothes just because she cannot find hers, that is time to step in and clean.

I have always had her complete her homework. I know people of gifties differ on this, but most kids quit doing their homework in middle school. It is built into her head that she has to complete this. Starting in Kinder, there were bonus questions and she had to work these. I wanted her to know that these are not optional in life. Due to this, she has very little trouble completing homework and this is not a fight.

Also, I strongly believe that I have lived through way more than she has and I have a bigger picture and more data. There are things that she will have to live through to make certain decisions in her life. Therefore, there are big decisions that I make for her.

thank you pass the potatoes, that's just what I need. I ordered both books from the library.

I would agree with Pass the Potatoes.

Mr W is only 18 mos old, but we have found the last three months that he does MUCH better when we discuss what we are going to do with him. If we try to do something with him that he does not understand, then he goes into hysterics.

Similar to Pass the Potatoes- in a shorter version:
http://wondertime.go.com/parent-to-parent/article/why-kids-should-talk-back.html

My 6 year old is very stubborn, very logical and very much a lawyer at heart. He will argue until the cows come home if he thinks your point has no merit. There has never been "because I said so" in my house because it would have only increased the argument.

We have "Team ___" (our last name)rules. If you want to be on the team, you have to follow the rules. If you don't, you go to the penalty box for a time to be determined by the referee (me). We have all taken our time in the penalty box in the last 6 years! If you would like to discuss a rule change, you must do it when the rule has NOT been violated.

I worry about ever giving him the impression that adults are always right, that he must do what I say or that you can't ask "why am I doing this?" He knows there is a tone in my voice, reserved for emergencies, that means JUMP NOW ASK LATER. But I want him to learn to question and understand WHY it's good, not just believe it's good because I said so.

We talk about things in terms of choices, "If you choose to do x, you are choosing y", "I'm sorry you are unhappy with the choice you made, you understood that you were choosing the consequence, hopefully tomorrow you will make a different choice that you will be happier with.", "You made a great choice there, thanks for your cooperation!".

I want my kids to take personal responsibility. Consequences aren't things I *do* to the kids, they are the "then" part of the "if, then" sequence and they *choose* the "then" when they choose the "if". Adult life is a series of choices, and beyond truly dangerous things, I want my kids to feel empowered to practice making choices now. My authority as their parent comes from defining the choices and following through with the consequence (good or bad) of the choices they make, not making the choices for them.

The kids know they can ask me about any rule, I will be happy to explain it to them as long as they are asking in the spirit of cooperation and understanding. I won't argue with them and will be quick and firm when they start arguing, "I am not arguing with you. You know what your options are, what is your choice?" (and refusing to choose between the options is a choice and also comes with consequences). But, like CAMom, if the kids have suggestions for rule changes I am always willing to listen and discuss, as long as the rule is not currently being broken.

At least that's how things work on the good days, lol. On the bad days, we just try to muddle through and make better choices

I think that there is a difference between demanding obedience for obedience's sake and expecting a child to comply with reasonable rules without negotiation and argument. I question the wisdom of teaching children that they are entitled to a lengthy negotiation and/or explanation for every decision.


This idea is, I think, extremely important. I too am willing to discuss rules/expectations at a separate time, but I won't allow them to use negotiation as an avoidance or delaying tactic. That smacks of manipulation to me, and I definitely do not want my children to learn that manipulation is the surest way to get what they want.

I don't buy the assertion that teaching our children to comply with appropriate rules and expectations for behavior is the same as teaching children to obey inappropriate or unsafe directions given by other adults. That is a separate teaching point. As a parent I believe it is my responsibility to teach my children to differentiate between reasonable rules and expectations (which I expect them to follow without wasting everyone's time or making everyone else miserable) and inappropriate, dangerous or otherwise unreasonable rules, directions or expectations. I think that the evidence favoring authoritative parenting over permissive, neglectful or authoritarian parenting, is compelling.

(brief summary here for those interested but not familiar:

http://www.athealth.com/Practitioner/ceduc/parentingstyles.html

I also recommend the book Blessing of the Skinned Knee There is a drawing on religious teachings within the book, but it is not preachy and absolutely can be appreciated by someone of a different faith--there are thoughtful reviews on the Amazon site that speak to this. Like all parenting books, no one will find it a 100% fit, but I think it has a lot of wisdom contained within it)

I have become increasingly concerned over the past ten years or so by the entitlement mindset of so many young adults--there seems to be a sense that if they can come up with a rationalization for why they did or did not do something (e.g. fail to fulfill a responsibility; fail to meet criteria set by an employer or instructor), then the rationalization negates any actual problem or liability for the consequence. Is this because these young people were not taught to respect rules and expectations set by others? Is it because they were taught that if they didn't agree with a rule/expectation it could be discussed away? Or at least delayed by their right to negotiate or challenge it? Hard to say for sure, but it has definitely begun to inform the way I think about raising my own kiddos.

You'll note the word obedience and obey both appear in the description of the authoritarian parent and not at all in the authoritative parent.

I think you'll find the downside of obedience argument is one that you will find in many authoritative parenting books including the one I suggested.

I understand it might be nice if we could expect our kids to obey because we said so and think that they will boom turn that off like a switch when obedience is to something else we approve of less, but that really isn't how the brain works. They need the lived experience of learning how to think critically and voice opinions. That isn't to say every minute of every day has to be a never ending series of discussions about taking out the trash. It does mean though we need to put efforts into planning and talking together.

This is one we'll have to agree to disagree on. I don't believe I can teach my son to make good decisions on his own, if I don't explain the logic behind my decisions. That does not mean he can demand an explanation at any time or place. But he learned quickly that I will always explain later if he asks.


I tend to be a bit oversensitive in this area because we had a HORRIBLE K teacher. She deemed her rules to be reasonable, I did not. She would send students to the corner for up to an hour at a time. She would not allow certain students to use the bathroom during the day but would allow others to do so and flaunt it. She often took my son's artwork, erased it and colored it for him because it was "not pretty enough." While I advocated on my end, I also encouraged him to advocate for himself in an appropriate and respectful way.


I have taught middle and high school off and on for ten years. I do believe that there has been a shift, but I don't think it has anything to do with rationalization or negotiation. From my observation, it has to do with severe materialism, parents who buy love instead of spending time with their kids and parents who do not teach their kids about the common good. I've had too many parents start conversations with me that begin with "Don't you know who I am." The entitlement pours off of them and on to their kids.

I also think there's a huge difference between teaching a child to obey and teaching a child to understand why they should obey.

Perhaps I am not around young adults enough, but I have never noticed this sort of thing. I don't think any reasonable person will let someone get away with rule-breaking or shirking work just because they are able to come up with a rationalization about it. A reason is one thing; a rationalization is another. I think it is the authoritarian parent, not the authoritative parent, who is so inflexible as to be unwilling to consider a reasonable argument, made at a reasonable time and in a reasonable way.

We own a store that caters to teens/young adults and I have worked daycare for awhile. I see the entitlement mindset all the time. I even saw it when I was in college 10+ years ago. I have also seen many parents let children get away with murder because the kid has a good reason or because they don't want to "damage their relationship" with the child. Part of it is a materialism - throwing money at the problem mindset, but a lot of it has to do with kids being taught that it is ok to constantly question the adults in their lives. Some things are negotiable, some aren't. That's why there are courts and jails... It is not beyond reason to accustom children to hard and fast rules.

I have been known to tell my boys, "Because I say so" or "Because that's the way it is" and then explain the reasoning shortly afterwards. I don't see anything wrong with those phrases as long as they are reasonable requests that can be simply explained.

It was my experience growing up with authoritarian parents who also happened to be wildly inconsistent that there was very little rhyme or reason behind rules, they were based simply on the whim at the moment. A reasonable rule implies that there is thought and *reasoning* behind the rule. Wouldn't the child would have an easier time complying if they understood that reason? Saying simply, "You need to be quiet because you are disturbing the other shoppers" takes the same amount of time as "You need to be quiet". One makes them mindful of how their behavior is affecting other people, the other makes them mindful of being disobedient. Personally, I'm trying to raise children who can control their behavior outside of explicit rules and I believe the way to accomplish that is to explain *why* rules exist.

I don't think you got my point distinguishing "reason" from "rationalization." To the extent that a child actually has a "good reason," why on earth should that child not get away with it??? Even the law recognizes that a person with justification is not a murderer. I can't imagine why it would be good to punish a child for doing the right thing, even if it is in violation of an established rule.

I think it is very important that children be taught to question adults. I say that as someone who has close relatives and friends who suffered silently through years of child sexual abuse. No, that does not mean that a child should feel entitled to constantly argue and complain. Obviously there is a difference between a reasonable discussion and just plain obnoxiousness. But to me, teaching a child not to question his or her elders is absolutely setting that child up for problems.

Hmm. Based on some of the responses here, I'm thinking that perhaps I didn't articulate myself very well. So, a couple of clarifying statements:

First, at no point did I intend to advocate blind obedience, nor to suggest that children shouldn't be told why they are being told to do something. I am always willing to discuss rules in advance or at a later time and often, when a consequence is needed, my kids are part of determining what that should be.

Second, the word obedience seems to connote mindless, fear based compliance. It is not my intent to suggest that that is a good trait to develop in children (or in adults). That appears to be the way in which my original post was interpreted. I'll have to think about a clearer way to communicate what I mean, although at the moment I can't figure out how to reword it.... I guess the achilles heel of online conversation is that we read each others' words in the absence of any schema about who we are as people.

Third, I did not intend to imply that children should not question. In reality, there is little I value more than honest questioning, and we have always encouraged honest questioning by our children. My comments were directed at what I believed the original post pertained to--the basic rules and expectations that have been set and explained, but are frequently questioned and challenged "in the moment" and subjected to endless attempts at negotiation or end runs.

I think part of the problem I'm having here, is that I am trying to share my thinking without sharing illustrative examples. Unfortunately, the examples I would share don't belong to me, so I'm left with words that are clearly...not clear .

This is probably a discussion I just need to bow out of gracefully. Really, I believe that we all just have to do what we feel is best for our kids in the both the short term and the long term. No doubt we will all make mistakes along the way, but if we parent with an eye not only to benefitting our children, but also to growing the quality of our community, then perhaps we will all at least do well enough.

Apologies to anyone I offended.

I agree with Taminy. This thread has been a little bit "hi-jacked". I would assume that most of us do reason with our children.

I am certain that most of us do reason with our children.

The thing is that I have interacted with many families where that is ALL there is. Every single thing becomes a debate. My main point is that there is a need to find a balance between never question and always question. Yes, saying that a child needs to be quiet because they are disturbing the shoppers teaches them the reasoning, but saying it each and every time the are loud in public and not having consequences for not listening derails the entire point of explaining. (And yes, I have seen examples of this... sigh...)

If you are pulled over for speeding, telling the cop that you were going the speed of traffic or have a family emergency at home doesn't change the fact you will get a ticket. I have seen parents teaching their children through their parenting choices that debate and stubborness on the part of the child results in the child ALWAYS getting their way. That's simply not how the real world works and I have seen kids get a very rude awakening because of this.

I would be interested in knowing how people achieve this balance. I know from raising my two that it isn't easy. We talk a lot about personal responsibility and why there are rules, as well as when obeying without debate is appropriate and when debate is acceptable.

I was just attempting to show an example. I probably wasn't clear enough. I should have put "good reason" in quotes. For example: Girl throws away dinner untouched. She then says, "Ok, my dinner is gone I get dessert now" (and yes this has happened and to my knowledge she did end up with dessert).

Saying I shouldn't get in trouble because I didn't do it and this is what happened is a totally different type of reason and if it is true, is an appropriate debate.

Oh, okay, I guess I shouldn't have read your post so literally. I thought that you were saying that it would be bad to give in to a child who literally had a good reason. I think we are pretty much in agreement, then. (Other than to the extent that you are supporting forcing kids to eat one type of food to get another type of food, which I really disagree with from a health perspective.)

I'm with Mamandmore on this topic. DS is 10 and currently very intrigued with the idea of becoming a lawyer...

We offer choices. For example choosing to not eat his veggies is also choosing to not get a snack before bed. Choosing not to complete his homework without arguement is choosing not to have any screen time that day. He is aware of the opportunity costs of his choices. Now it is mostly up to him to decide how he wants his day to proceed.

On the other hand, if safety is involved, he does not get to choose. Then it is obedience. He may not ride his bike without his helmit. He may not run in parking lots. Those sorts of things.

I'm not sure I have the spirit of the OP, but if it is trying to find different ways to tell a child that they need to do something, I do find that offering choices and a short explanation works as well as anything for us.

EG.
DS, you need to do your homework now. DS either ignores me or starts fussing. OK, now I tell DS. You have a choice to make. Your choice will determine what happens next. Your choice is to do your homework without fussing, after which you can have screen time. Or to choose to fuss about homework and not have screen time. You have 1 minute to decide. There is no more discussion until you make your choice. If you do not decide, you will spend the next 15 minutes in quiet time afterwhich you will need to decide.

This approach was recommended by DS's Psychiatrist. I can't say it is overly successful since DS is still struggling with impulse control, but it does lead to natural consequences that can be positive or negatice depending on his choices. He likes choose your own adventure style books. So, I do use that it time for a Real Life Choose your own adventure time sometimes, to get him in a better frame of mind for his choices.

Good luck

Excuse my ignorance- What is a "natural consequence" vs. the other types of consequences (unnatural ones? )?

Absolutely! That was my guess but I didn't want to jump to a conclusion (and perhaps suffer from a natural consequence of my own). Thanks!

LOL!!! Actually I'm really just for not teaching kids to be brats. The girl in the example I knew through daycare and this was how she ran her family (and that is not a typo...). For the food thing around here it is basically you get healthy food options for meals that you choose whether or not to eat. Snacks are up to you from the OK snack shelf. Sugar is allowed in sensible moderation. I strongly believe that food should never be used as a bribe or a reward in and of itself, although going out for ice cream as a family on a hot day when the kids have really done a good job of acting decently has been a fun consequence more than once! The focus tends to be more on the family outing part than on the ice cream.

The way I think about it is that a punishment is something contrived by a parent to make a child feel bad about something he or she has done wrong. A natural consequence, on the other hand, is something that happens as a direct result of the wrongdoing. In theory, natural consequences are better, because they teach a child that it is the wrongdoing itself that causes the unpleasantness (rather than just getting caught or having a mean mom). Of course some natural consequences are too awful to be allowed, and some are just impractical.

Mmmm. I think we agree in this as well.

Some experts would tell you the idea of explaining something to a child this young is useless and potentially harmful because it confuses them. This logic falls under the 'Neanderthal Man' approach. Toddlers are seen as neanderthals and it is useless to try to reason with them especially if they are in a complete meltdown and even when not in meltdowns the parents should keep it to simple acknowledgments in reference to the child's feelings. I still laugh at this approach and ponder (okay, I know) that my DD clearly bypassed this stage. We have always been able to reason with the child and as she gets older the reasoning becomes more and more complex. Such as tonight, I went to put her to bed, following her set routine. I have noticed that her required routine has been getting longer and longer in hopes to keep me in the room. Tonight was the breaking point. Nothing was working and even a threat of timeout was meet with glee b/c she knew it kept me in the room. (should have saw that one coming.) When I took her out of the timeout she argued that she was not done. I was getting very frustrated and finally walked out of the room and went downstairs; the whole time listening to her screams and cries but let her go on for 5 to 7 minutes. Then I went back up and talked to her. She told me she wanted to go downstairs and I informed her it was not an option. She is the child and we are the adults and she can not dictate when she gets to go to bed. We make that decision and she needs to follow through. (Okay ... a few big words in this conversation but mommy was frustrated.) Then she argued that she wanted mommy to stay in her room and refused to give me kisses and hugs thinking it would keep me there. I explained that no matter if she gives me the kisses or not I will still put her back in bed, walk out and go back downstairs and she could scream all she wanted I would not be returning to her room again tonight. She thought about it and leaned over to give me my kiss and hug; climbed into her spot in bed and then regurgitated my statement about not coming back. I confirmed that statement; told her good night and closed her door. We never heard a peep from her after that.

It amazes me how much they comprehend and this reinforces why I shouldn't treat her like a toddler or better yet: Neanderthal.

Yes, we have a similar situation, if we have the foresight to explain things we are likely to get a good response from our 3 year old. If we don't, she can be like a brick wall. Unwinding her after she's gotten upset is a lot harder, but still possible (usually) by pulling her aside and using a calm voice, and finding an 'angle' that makes sense/has impact for her.
I am bad about not putting her in time out when she really ought to go, and otherwise upholding the rules but I know I haven't anyone to blame but myself on that. When I do firmly keep a rule in place for a few days going, it makes a world of difference, and then is easier to keep in place going forward.
She knows what to expect and I think she likes it better.

Around here if it's on your plate, your going to eat it, if it's new, your atleast going to try it. You don't have to eat it now, but it will be right here when you get hungry.

I would prefer that people understand the reason not to speed is less about avoiding a ticket and more about the safety of themselves, other drivers and pedestrians.

If people are finding there is a lot of in the moment nit picky debate over minutia to me that is less a call for an obedience and more a call for the need to do some serious family planning together. Family meetings can be a great way for family members to learn to make decisions in an organized way together. If kids help make the decisions they are far more likely to understand them and be invested in the outcome than if it seems like a series of random nonsense is being imposed on them.

What do you feel is accomplished by this approach? How old are your kid(s)?

We do discuss the meal plan, as a family, before I go to the grocery store. They do get to help decide the menu and I don't serve them food that I know they don't like.
Not really trying to accomplish anything. That is how we were brought up. Our families are southern, blue collar, low-middle class.
The men work hard to buy the food, the women work hard to cook the food, don't wear your hat at the table, and don't let Grandaddy see you throwing food out.

My DH was raised that way, and I fully believe that it is one of the main reasons he has always had an unhealthy relationship with food. In our house, we rely on our bodies to tell us what to eat and when and how much. We provide numerous healthy options, and try not to waste food, but otherwise we just eat what we want

Gotcha. To me this kind of thing made a lot more sense when food was scarcer and we saw less prevalent problems with problems like obesity and diabetes. Now I think it makes more sense to work with kids to learn to listen to their bodies and not force food when they aren't hungry. Obviously, that isn't say "aw sweetie you want ice cream sundaes for every meal".

Just an idea or two here--not intended as criticism of anyone at all, but merely as food for thought(so to speak!):

From the time they were born, I was really determined never to have battles with my kids around food, because my own childhood had been very painful in this regard. I realise our solutions (works in progress, like all parenting!) won't work for everyone, because of where we live, and the luxury of time that I enjoy, but what we do is grow an awful lot of our own food (fruit, vegetables, eggs), we freeze, can and preserve it, we make everything (baked goods, sauces, etc.) from scratch, and we buy all of our meat from our neighbours--my children never waste meat, I am convinced because we eat whole animals (not all at once!)--they see a part of Mr. Walter's pig, not just a pork chop, if you see what I mean. (My boys have also spent a lot of time listening to First Nations stories, in which honouring the life that was sacrificed that you might be nourished plays a significant part.) They also help me do a lot of the cooking, during which I encourage lots of experimentation--they are better about eating when they "own" the meal, I find. We also make mealtimes an occasion, insofar as that is possible on a daily basis.

All of these things seem to help--even if most of this won't work for you, I think finding some ways in which children feel more involved in getting the food to the table helps them more fully realise the communal nature of a meal, and to want to share in it.

I realise I've wandered far from the original premise of the thread--forgive me!

peace
minnie

That's a wonderful thing you do with family meals.

I've had some reluctants in the cooking help in recent years so I started making smoothies on the weekends. This has been a hit. I let them decide on the ingredients. It's wimple & fun!! It's not a lot of envolvement but it's keeping the connection to cooking going in the kitchen.

There is one hard and fast food rule at our house, no exceptions. If it was made for a meal you have to take one bite even if you have tried it before. You don't have to eat any more, but you have to try it and you have to be polite about it. I have two under 5 who eat sushi because of this. You never know if you like it or not unless you try it and you never know when your tastes will change, hence the one taste each time.

Also food portions are small. You can always ask for more. It helps cut down on food waste...

We eventually went to that too. We started with just having a selection and letting the kids choose what they want. Possibly if we'd had total control over early diet, this would have worked. However, both kids were in day care (family daycare) during the school year, and they had the opportunity to develop a taste for processed foods (which I would have chosen to delay until later). When it became clear that they were going to choose carbs only unless we interfered, we went to the one bite per year of age rule. Disaster. Every dinner was a miserable argument with one or both children. Finally we went to the politeness bite--with a twist. Small servings of everything prepared, a politeness bite of each offering, and if they opted not to go past the politeness bite, they had to choose a substitute from the same food group before having seconds on anything else. It has worked really well for us. True, for quite a while the kids ate a lot of peanut butter on whole wheat and a lot of raw carrots , but over time they have broadened their palettes (sp?) and--more importantly--my DD was not nourishing herself on endless servings of pasta, rice and tortillas and my DS was not on the floor flipping out about finishing his broccoli

We had a "try something three times" rule. I read that the first time, it tastes weird, second it is a little familiar, and by the third, you have developed a taste for it.

My daughter is 12 and loves every vegetable and all types of food. She loves Indian, Ethiopian, you name it.

Usually on her second try, she would put it down and say "free times Mommy!", but she always ended up loving it.

Ellipses talked about doing homework and starting the habit in kindergarten. Last night, we were reading Junie B. Jones Cheater Pants.

Junie B. didn't have her homework done and her father wouldn't let her stay up Sunday night to do it. I stopped in the story and told DD that her parents should have helped Junie B by making sure her homework was done before she did all the fun stuff all weekend. And we talked about things she has to do like piano practice.

We give reasons, simple reasons why she has to obey. Like today, she was about 50 yards away on the beach playing with another girl. Suddenly she and the girl start running to the water. I just happened to be watching and told DH who was reading. He got up and went to her. The waves were small and she is a decent swimmer now but this is the ocean and she has to know that she cannot go into the water without telling us. We didn't go consequences but were strict giving her reasons -- her safety. That is how we handle it.

Now bad behavior like this morning, lying on the floor, whining wanting me to pick her up and then getting humpfy about watching TV. I turned Disney channel off and told her to get up and apologize to me for her behavior. No explanatins. She didn't need one. Bad behavior gets the 1,2,3.

Ren

I've had several conversations about natural consequences. It's something I've had issues with from time to time. Say, for example, DC doesn't want to brush his teeth. The natural consequence is that he develops cavities which require not so pleasant visit to the dentist which also costs the parents money. It's not a consequence the child will understand in the short term. My friend's 9yr old has had numerous cavities filled which is terrifying for him, yet after a few days, it wears off and he's back to not brushing his teeth. To me that's a natural consequence.

Now i've read it should all be about natural consequences. If you say, we aren't leaving for that playdate until your teeth are brushed, that is not a natural consequence. Now, it might be an agreed upon consequence w/ DC as in "Son, this is what happens when you don't get your chores done which includes brushing your teeth," but it's not a natural consequence, it's an imposed consequence. Is that the same as a punishment in the kid's eyes?

A friend related this to me from a a child psychologist she was talking to about consequences. You give Johnny a piece of gum. You tell Johnny not to blow bubbles b/c he will drop his gum in the dirt and he won't get another. Johnny doesn't listen, blows a bubble, drops his gum in the dirt. He asks for another piece. You say no, he understood the consequence of his action. What little Johnny really understands is that mommy doesn't want to share b/c he knows she has more gum in her purse. Of course, her 6yr old was being seen by the psych so this wouldn't hold for an older child.

I often revert to examples using DH's job. DH has 15 people under him. What would happnen if a few of them decided not to do their job when they are supposed to do it? (I let DS think up things that might happen.) I tell him it's the same w/ the family. If they don't empty the dishwasher in the AM, the dishes back up at lunch time. LUnch is delayed b/c we have to stop and unload the dishwasher so we can clear away the breakfast dishes blah blah blah. And some days, I wish I could just say "It's time to unload the dishwasher" and they just do it w/out discussion.

What do you think is gained from making a child apologize when they don't feel regret? Over the long run what do you see that teaching her about honesty?

DD isn't a sociopath. She feels regret when she understands that I am not pleased with her behavior. Generally kids feel that way when they disappoint their parents.

I remember a time, as a teenager, I said something ugly to my mother. Don't even remember what I said. But she slapped me. Only time it ever happened. I don't remember it hurting or anything. The only thing I remember is the look on my mother's face and how much I hurt her. That made me feel awful.

DD knows when she disapoints me with her behavior.

Honesty? I am not sure what you mean about that? Are you referring to the Junie B. story?

Honesty is an interesting lesson. She told me in the spring about her BFF lying. She was puzzled by it and DD is not beyond straying on occasion but I have good instincts when something doesn't sound right. She usually tries not to tell me something than risk lying.

Ren

The purpose of a apology is to express genuine feeling of regret and to take responsibility for the hurt you caused another person. To simply require a child to do that by rote ("say you're sorry) takes away from the bigger goal of helping them learn to identify and process their own feelings and learn to accept responsibility. Forcing "I'm sorry" is nothing more than teaching kids to impersonate genuine feelings of remorse and that faking can become a habit of lying that carries over into other situations. Tell then what they want to hear so they shut up.

Of course your daughter isn't a sociopath and of course she doesn't want to disappoint you. That's all the more reason to allow her processing time and to come to the decision to apologize rather than forcing it on her.

For all kids I would hope that their primary motivation for good behavior becomes about something other than disappointing mom. If not, that's a pretty weak foundation to enter the teenage years when kids may seek to differentiate by doing the opposite of what parents want.

We don't use exclusively natural consequences, but I do think it is possible and beneficial (for someone with more patience than I have) to use them exclusively. For me, the question is how you look at your family structure. If you imagine more of a workplace structure (with bosses & underlings), natural consequences are not for you.

Assuming that you want more of a communal relationship with your child, natural consequences are great, and they can include statements like, "I feel embarrassed to be seen in public with someone who has not brushed his or her teeth and hair and put clean clothes on--so I don't want to go to the park with you until you've done that." When necessary, I tell DD, "I don't want to be around someone who hits me or is disrespectful," and I do refuse to be around her when she acts like that. I consider that to be a very natural consequence, and it is one that she feels keenly.



So I've never told DD to apologize (though I have asked her if she wants to when she has hurt someone other than me), but somehow she's started apologizing when she clearly doesn't mean it. I have told her several times that I don't want her to say anything that she doesn't mean, but it hasn't helped. I am pretty tired of having "I'M SORRY" yelled in my face. I wonder if you've got suggestions for eliminating this issue when it is not caused by forced apologies?

But what if DC counters with - how does him not brushing his teeth affect anyone else but himself? Most people would not know whether or not he brushed his teeth. Usually for my DS (the kid I mentioned w/ cavities is luckily, not mine) visits to the dentist generally gets him back in line. He will huff and puff on his way to the bathroom but he does do it.

I've definitely told DS that I don't want to be around someone w/ his behavior nor would i take him out in the mood he's in, etc and give him time to refocus and consider his behavior.

generally if I tell DS what the natural consequences are for ex: not getting dressed, I don't want to go out w/ someone w/ holes in their pants etc he does what needs to get done. My issue w/ consequences is that sometimes (and this is not in my family) is that the consequence is one that everyone suffers. For ex: say DC1 refuses to get dressed on time so everyone misses the movie. I have a friend whose DC's conseqences negatively impacted his siblings outings (sports practices, etc). Then i find it hard to stick to natural consequences and imposed consequences come more into play. Luckily I don't have huge issues with my kids. Most of mine revolve around taking 40min to empty the dishwasher b/c of too much playing while it's getting done. IT's more an issue of time seeming endless.....yes mom we can play LEGOs for 4hrs, then play soccer for an hour, and go to the park, and do school for 3hrs, and read to me for 2hrs, and sleep for 9hrs, and watch 2 one-hour history channel shows, play in the bath for an hour, sit and have dinner for an hour, and watch Myth Busters before bed.


the tough thing about parenting is that someone will find something negative and positive in everything. It makes it hard to know exactly what to do. I read in a book that when the child hits and you say you don't want to be around that person etc, that is seen as removal of affection.

I don't see my family as strictly a corporate environment. However, when everyone does what they are supposed to do when they are supposed to do it, we have a lot more time for the fun stuff. So for example, if we need to get out early, I remind them of everything that needs to be done, in what time frame so that we can do whatever it is we need to do. It's easier when it's something fun but sometimes it's for a doctor's appt...I still expect those things to get done w/out much discussion. I won't accept the natural consequence of being late for the appt, having to wait another month for an appt, and then pay $25 no-show fee. If that's corporate, so be it. I joke w/ them "WOW our family is running like a well-oiled machine!" and then i might do a cheer lol. But it gets everyone moving and out the door.

To me the dishwasher example is both a corporate and a communal relationship...there were consequences for the entire family - lunch was delayed, b/c something was done. There can be consequences for an entire lab if someone doesn't do what they are supposed to. SOmeone leaves early and doesn't make the cell media for the next day - everyone's research is delayed.

The way we work it in our family is that we try to be mostly communal, except that I am the absolute boss of safety. So if something is a safety issue, there's no negotiation, no delaying, etc. I'm not sure how a truly natural consequences person would handle that. Perhaps such a person doesn't really exist, now that I think about it.

There are sometimes whole-family consequences to DD's choices. But then, there are also whole-family consequences to my choices, and DH's choices, etc., so I'm not overly concerned about that.

DD is an only (so far) so I've not had to deal with balancing two children's needs. I'm not sure how that would play out. I think the theory is that kids who have grown up having their needs and desires respected are simply more willing to respect the needs and desires of others.

How old is she?

My main suggestion would be to have a conversation about it outside of the moment. It sounds like the specific way you are explaining it - don't say something you don't mean - isn't quite clicking with her. Is the yelled I'm sorry intended to be sarcastic? If so maybe talking about the idea of sarcasm? I'm also wondering if having specific examples of what might be appropriate things to say might help too.

3 1/2. I realize that that is very young--but I am pretty sure that she does understand what I'm saying (and I've only discussed it with her when all is calm). And we've talked about different emotions & different ways of handling them (she is particularly fond of declaring that she's frustrated and needs to stomp her feet). I'm not sure why she does it. Sometimes she doesn't yell, but sort of sing-songs it, again obviously in an insincere way. I would almost say that she doesn't understand what "I'm sorry" means, except that she has demonstrated time & again that she gets it (e.g., when someone else has hurt her and she feels bad until they apologize).

Maybe there's just a disconnect--she is sorry; she wants to say she's sorry; but she's also still angry or amused, and I guess those feelings don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Apart from issues of safety (no running into traffic, etc.), we really have only one rule chez Marx: treat others the way we want to be treated ourselves. The golden rule seems to have covered anything that has ever come up around here (and it's simple for me, which is a bonus!); we have fostered both empathy and the sense of family as community in various ways from the very beginning, which has facilitated the implementation of our single rule (I think I've mentioned on other threads our continually added-to "fridge lists" of things we love about each other, kind things we did for someone else today, and so on, and also our hokey family team cheers, which I haven't needed to resort to lately...). We try, too, to extend their sense of empathy beyond the family by involvement in our community. Of course everybody (me included) still has the odd day where they are feeling a bit scratchy, but by and large, peace (although not quiet!!) is the order of the day here. Maybe keeping it simple might help?

peace
minnie

PS no5no5: I wonder if she is feeling ashamed of herself, and is creating some sort of ironic distance, so she doesn't need to feel so bad? I think children at that age are easily overwhelmed by emotion, a fact that seems obvious when we think about anger or fear, but maybe less so when we think about something like pain or shame. Two of my kids when they were about that age got a bit weird when they hurt themselves, and wouldn't accept any comfort, even when they clearly wanted some--when it was obvious to me that they were longing for a hug (but not other times), I'd pretend to stub my toe or something and ask them to come comfort me! That way, they got their hug and got to hang on to their masculine pride at the same time! I wonder if there's a way you could find to help her make a little space inside herself until she gets a little older? I think this kind of thing really does pass with age--give her about a year, I'd say, and she'll be fine--you're doing great!

I don't think anyone style of parenting works in every situation. It's often a case by case basis. These discussions are hard b/c someone will take something as an absolute when it really isn't.

I think much of it is in the delivery. Parent A can say something and it's taken the right way but Parent B can say it w/ a quite different tone and it can be very negative. I also think intent is important. Also, I think the personality on the receiving end must be taken into account.

FOr ex: FOR YEARs, I heard how I embarrassed my mother by the way I was dressed, how she didnt want to be seen w/ me in public dressed the way I was yada yada yada. It fell on deaf ears. Her discomfort was her problem not mine. My mom is a Southern Bell and is dressed to kill to go grocery shopping. I was just fine in jeans, sneakers, and a t-shirt w/ no makeup (GASP the HORROR) . Instead, I try to impart to my DC about what their appearance/behavior communicates to others and if that is the message they won't to convey - leaving my discomfort out of it. That usually works. 8-)

Yup and add in a little dose of being mad at herself because she knows she screwed up.

I'd try to keep some distance and not give it too much of a response in the moment.

I have a question passthepotatoes. Do you also tell your kids to only say 'please' and 'thank you' if they mean it?

Ren

I have not found forced expressions of please or thank you are necessary in order for children to learn manners. We've found as many parents have, when it is modeled and when children understand and care about the needs of others that please and thank you follow naturally. Given the number of compliments we get about manners I'm guessing it worked.