My DS3 has the most amazing temper tantrums, truly amazing! For a while I tried time-out, ignoring etc to no avail. Then one day for some reason it struck me as funny. He threw himself down, started stomping his feet and screaming. I laid down on the floor right next to him and started doing the same thing. Asked him if I was doing it right? Did I need to yell louder? He stopped mid scream, jumped up to his feet like I'd grown an extra head, then curled up next to me, patted my arm and told me it was ok. Since that day, his tantrums have been very small and very infrequent. Still don't know why it worked, but it did!
I'd use this one with caution -- my ds6, even as a 4-year-old, would have been mortally offended that I wasn't taking him seriously! He really *feels* his emotions -- I can't put it in a clearer way than that. Even if it's a melt-down over a seemingly minor thing, he still meant it at the time.
However, the holding thing ... snowgirl, if your little one is stripping down and going outside in the cold, then yes, I think physical limits are appropriate. Occasionally, when ds-the-3-or-4 was having an all-out fit, holding him tightly was the only way to get him to settle; he'd have thrashed around and really hurt himself, and the physical boundaries helped him calm down once he realized he wasn't going to win. Yes, he'd yell and scream and thrash, and he was strong, but it was at least keeping him safe. And physical safety is the first thing kids need to know -- even if it makes him unhappy, even if he hates me (briefly) for doing it, my very first job as a parent is to keep his body safe.
We also have a "No means no" policy. Even if I realize later that whatever I said "no" to probably wasn't worth the fight, I don't break lines -- the answer is what it is, and no bargaining, whining or wheedling is going to change that. If there *is* a choice, I try to make that clear from the beginning and not say no! It's taken some training of me to remember not to say "maybe" if the answer will be no, and to say no only when I really mean it, so I can effectively enforce it.
I don't get angry very often, since that usually inflames the disagreement rather than diffusing it. I think I can count the number of times I've really raised my voice at him on one hand (and he deserved it!). I try to save raised voices for saftey issues (running into the street, etc.), because if there's a lot of yelling kids don't know when the yelling really matters. He needs to know that if I yell, I'm frightened for his safety or some equally important reason.
Bottom line is, I'm the parent, and there are some decisions I make for him. If he doesn't like them -- well, that's really too bad. That's not to say I make all decisions for him, or even most. But if it's a health or safety or values issue, then he just has to deal with it -- "talking back" repeatedly will get a time-out at his age. It's not appropriate if it's been made clear that there will be no discussion on the topic.
When he was smaller, he'd get redirected. If he was going after a plug, we'd move and find something more fun to do together, and he'd forget. If he was gunning for a cookie, I'd offer a different, healthy snack. If he wanted it, great! If not, oh well. I'm not having a toddler dictate to me what he will and will not have, when.
But there are battles that aren't worth fighting -- he'd stay up in bed reading until 9:30 or 10 pm as a 3yo and my parents thought I was nuts for letting him "stay up" past 8:30. That one wasn't worth a fight to me, and if he was quiet in his room, I didn't have a problem with it.
Really, I think it comes down to the parent deciding which limits are worth enforcing, and which aren't. Ds6 is a very polite, well-behaved child (in public
) and I think it comes from being fairly consistent with him at home.
