Saying "no" vs. diversion (method, ideas, teens, toddler)

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat

Unfortunately this kind of thing isn't at all new. This is straight out of To Train Up a Child by the Pearls, who also advocate setting up traps for children and then hitting them with a rod.

I'm glad you knew that. Thanks for letting the rest of us know.

I find them and their child-rearing theories to be disturbing to the point of nausea.

[rezfreak]

Wow. Are you that bored with your life that you need to set up traps to teach your child no? My 21 month old knows what "no" means. Of course he's at the age where he likes to "test" my patience with those things, but seriously? Traps? *shakes her head*

[nana053]

Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat

Unfortunately this kind of thing isn't at all new. This is straight out of To Train Up a Child by the Pearls, who also advocate setting up traps for children and then hitting them with a rod.

Yes and also out of that book by Lisa Welchel called Creative Correction.

She recommends handcuffing quarreling children to each other, adding, "It’s really fun to watch them try to eat dinner like this, or read a book, or take the garbage out, tasks I’ll often assign them." (p.203)

Whelchel advises readers to give their children ridiculous commands in public which they must instantly obey without asking any questions, while refusing them permission when they make requests which Whelchel herself admits are reasonable. She writes: "As we walk along together shopping, I will suddenly give them silly commands that they must obey without arguing, such as 'Walk backward,' or 'Stop and touch your toes,' or 'Give me a kiss.' Occasionally I'll throw in a real command, like 'Don't touch that,' or `No, you may not have an Icee.' My favorite curve, however, is to say no to some reasonable request, like 'May I go to the bathroom?'" (p. 138)

[chris123678]

Originally Posted by nana053

Yes and also out of that book by Lisa Welchel called Creative Correction.

I'm glad you quoted that book, because this is the point where I believe children are allowed to disobey. If my own mother told me I could not go the bathroom, I'd pee my pants right in front of her. Walking backwards in a supermarket is not only a hazard to him, but little old Mrs. Mable who just turned 90 is shopping and gets knocked over by a child forced to walk backwards.

[ParallelJJCat]

Originally Posted by nana053

Yes and also out of that book by Lisa Welchel called Creative Correction.

WOW. I actually think Welchel might be more disturbing than the Pearls (though the Pearls also suggest the random command game.) My stomach actually turned reading that because the thought process behind it is so very disturbing. I don't even want my cat to be a mindless obedient machine...

[WesternPilgrim]

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.

[rezfreak]

You can do that without setting "traps" for your child. My child is 21 months, the prime age for "disobedience" as you'd put it, yet he knows if i say "dont touch that" he wont touch that, even at other people's houses. People remark how well behaved he is for his age, and amazingly i did it without TRAPS and TEASING WITH CANDY.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Mattie

Doesn't sound like a recipe for a peaceful home life to me, for either the parent or the child.

It makes for a much more peaceful home than the alternatives.

It makes for children who respect their parents and each other, who share even when they don't feel like it, who accept that their desires aren't the only thing that matters.

It makes for parents who rarely scream or yell or nag or become exasperated at their children.

It makes for a home where older children need very little discipline at all.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by maciesmom

Setting up your child so you can "catch" him being disobedient and punish him isn't a great way to teach that child to trust you. Personally, I value the trust my kids had in me. They always knew they could ask me a question and I would answer it honestly. That was (and still is) more valuable to me than catching them in the act doing something "bad" (for lack of a better work at the moment). There were plenty of opportunities to teach what was necessary without risking loss of trust.

There is nothing dishonest about what I described. You are not deceiving your child. You want your child to obey and he knows you want him to obey. You're not telling him to do anything he isn't capable of doing, and doing without harm. There is no reason in the world why your child shouldn't trust you because of this little exercise. It's all above board.

Anyway, I'm glad to meet another parent who doesn't lie about Santa Claus.

[Magritte25]

I completely disagree with setting a child up as in the OP. There are plenty of real life situations that present themselves without having to resort to such lowly tactics.