Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No two children are the same so I don't think "one technique" works for every kid. With that said, I do think kids need to learn boundaries. I try to use "no" sparingly so when I do use it, the word means something. Saying no to crossing the street by yourself vs saying no to selfishly playing with a toy, I think, holds different weight in terms of importance from an adult's perspective. A child, at least mine, doesn't see the difference.
I've been telling my 19 mo old "no" a lot today b'c I was cooking and couldn't divert her attention when she wasn't supposed to do something. She started screaming no back at me. She did stop the action but she wasn't very happy. Just a light hearted comment ... this comment wasn't supposed to support one way or another about saying the word "no".
I assure you many parents "set up their kids" in times past precisely because their time was limited. Taking a few minutes now and then, to focus exclusively on your child, saves lots of time in long run. You can just say "no" when your child is about to put a fork in the electrical outlet, and he obeys; "bring the fork to mommy", and he obeys; "please give this back to your sister", and he obeys. Imagine the time that saves.
Again, I can (and DO) focus exclusively on my child. Much more than "now and then". I already do all of this, my children do listen - all without the use of traps. Imagine that!
Chris123678 wrote: "It's just like a single man being locked up with a smoking hot flirty woman, yet she hits him when he makes a move, it's rather stupid." You're on to something, buddy. But it's not stupid. Boys who learn how to handle "no" at an early age will find it easier to say "no" to the tramp at the office - "no" to themselves, really - when they're all grown up and married.
So the OP's theory is to train his child to say no. By the methods explained in the first post. It's not about raising a child to understand that in a committed, loving marriage he'll desire to say "no". (Because grown-up men who are in love with their wife and family say "no" because they know about love and commitment and things like marriage vows.) It's not about raising your child with values.
It's about training a child to say "no". He says no because when he was a kid his parent put out a dish of candy and smacked his hand for trying to grab a Jolly Rancher. The office tramp won't be able to entice him because he remembers getting spanked when he was six.
Got it.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 09-24-2012 at 05:14 PM..
The approach described is baiting and teasing as a disciple strategy while cultivating conflict. What a productive way to "focus exclusively on your child."
And a timesaver to boot, apparently.
Must be the magic bullet of best practice parenting.
This has nothing to do with power and everything to do with love. If you love your children, you will teach them what they need to know in life, and you will train them early. The child isn't being "set up to fail", he's being set up to succeed. The whole point is for the child to succeed in being obedient to his parents, and to be content with a world that doesn't revolve around his every whim and desire. Making a child surrender a toy is just getting him used to real life. When the world makes him surrender his toys as an adult, maybe he'll calmly accept reality instead of turning to crime, committing suicide, or embezzling from his employer.
Chris123678 wrote: "It's just like a single man being locked up with a smoking hot flirty woman, yet she hits him when he makes a move, it's rather stupid." You're on to something, buddy. But it's not stupid. Boys who learn how to handle "no" at an early age will find it easier to say "no" to the tramp at the office - "no" to themselves, really - when they're all grown up and married.
None of this advice should be employed as though it's a "one size fits all" solution: know your children, know what they need, know what they can handle, know when to wait, and know when to relax.
I'm not on anything. I'm just calling it as I see it. It seems that this is more of an issue of control and not about teaching. You don't put a piece of candy or an object that appeals infront of a child and then smack his hand when he tries to grab it. You just don't. It is setting your child up for failure and it's quite obvious.
Why are you hitting these children? You are just teaching them that it is ok for them to hit. So I thought the thread was no vs diversion, not no, smack vs diversion. Depending on the age of the child and the personality of the child you find out what does and does not work. Some children just need a stern look, some need a time-out in the corner, some need to get sent to their rooms, some you can just say no to etc. Every child responds different when they have done something wrong and are reprimanded. Also, what works today for the child may not in a month, because kids are always changing and growing.
I will agree that parents need to say no more often then using diversion, but I don't agree with the way the OP puts it.
What I don't agree with is parents who think their children are there "property" and have them do all types of crazy stuff just so they can punish them.
My philosophy in raising 7 kids (3 steps who came to me as preteens) has always been to go out of my way to catch them being good.
My kids light up when out of nowhere I might say "You table manners at supper show me you have really been trying. Thank you" or "I like the way you got the clothes out of the dryer the minute the timer went off and didn't wait to be asked. Thanks alot". Catching a child being good, from toddlerhood to teens, reinforces the lesson you are trying to teach. We all know positive reinforcement works wonders in every phase of life from raising children, being a boss, being a coach to being a good spouse.
What on earth makes you think I would disagree with any of this? It's great advice and we do it all the time.
But if that's all you're doing, you're only half a parent.
You don't put a piece of candy or an object that appeals infront of a child and then smack his hand when he tries to grab it. You just don't. It is setting your child up for failure and it's quite obvious.
You skipped a step. The child first needs to be told not to touch the candy, and he needs to be old enough to understand that. So he knows he's opposing you before he gets a little smack. Sometimes he's looking at you while he reaches, gauging your seriousness ... while you're repeating the command "please don't touch that, Johnny".
It's only a failure when he disobeys. The rest of the time it's a big success. And you can "catch him being good".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I already do all of this, my children do listen - all without the use of traps. Imagine that! 
