What do you do when a 3 1/2 year-old looks at you and says "yeah, yeah, yeah?"

[grammaticism/grammatichasm]

No, he's not a Beetle. He's being irreverent. I tell him to put away
his things or I will take away a priviledge and he looks at me like I
won't. I do, of course, and then he turns on the water works. His dad
will threaten him three, four or five times before he follows through,
or else he thinks of something else at the spur of the moment, so I
think I know who's responsible for our son not taking us seriously.

He's also learned to play us against each other, and I find that also
infuriating. If I'm dressing him in his pajamas, he'll suddenly cry out
in pain and act like I've hurt him. It's made me really feel like
following through, but I've been able to restrain myself so far. But I
also feel like I have to explain myself to my husband! he says he
understands, but I'm not entirely sure. This isn't fair. I'm trying to
be a good mom, and my son's really playing a mean game. I wish I knew
what to do! Any suggestions?

[Jeff]

"grammaticism/grammatichasm" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> No, he's not a Beetle. He's being irreverent. I tell him to put away
> his things or I will take away a priviledge and he looks at me like I
> won't. I do, of course, and then he turns on the water works. His dad
> will threaten him three, four or five times before he follows through,
> or else he thinks of something else at the spur of the moment, so I
> think I know who's responsible for our son not taking us seriously.

Actually, he is acting like 3 1/2 year old who understands the rules you
set, apparently better than you do.

I don't think that either of you is at fault or blameless. You need to
understand that the child understands the rules and will play the rules like
a fiddle. You and your husband need to use your backbone. When either of you
says, "Please clean up the toys," and he doesn't, you need to make the
consequences clear to him, "Clean up the toys now, or you get a 4-minute
time out." And if he doesn't clean up the toys, he gets a 4-minute time out.
No ifs, ands, or butts.

> He's also learned to play us against each other, and I find that also
> infuriating. If I'm dressing him in his pajamas, he'll suddenly cry out
> in pain and act like I've hurt him. It's made me really feel like
> following through, but I've been able to restrain myself so far. But I
> also feel like I have to explain myself to my husband! he says he
> understands, but I'm not entirely sure. This isn't fair. I'm trying to
> be a good mom, and my son's really playing a mean game. I wish I knew
> what to do! Any suggestions?

Again, he is acting like a 3 1/2 year old. You really need to talk to his
dad and explain what the kid is doing. The otherwise, the kid will continue
to run the house.

The reality of the matter is that the kid will play you whenever he gets the
chance. He will push your buttons. And, especially when he gets older, he
will play the both of you. If he wants a candy, he will ask you. If you say
no, he will ask dad.

The only way this sort of thing will stop is if the two of you stick
together and make a united front. If this is the case, he will learn that
when one of you says "No!", then both of you say "No.' Otherwise, when one
of you says, "No," it means, "Go ask [mommy | daddy]!" And when he does ask
one of you, and you say "no," and then asks the other, you need to have
consequences so that when one of you says, "no," he knows not to even ask.

Jeff

[grammaticism/grammatichasm]

Sometimes I'm so flustered that I can't think of a consequence right
there and then, but I don't want to tell him "because I told you so".
I've been giving him time-outs for various transgressions, but with
changing for the night, I just stop all communication and mechanically
dress him, because I have nothing that I can say in a normal tone of
voice, and I want him to know that his protests aren't going to change
anything.

My husband understands that our son is just playing us, but the first
time I felt like I was being called a witch in Salem. Sounds odd, but
it was his sudden scream of pain, when I didn't even do anything other
than dress him, and I couldn't see where he hurt himself. I asked him,
and he said "leave me alone", or something to that effect. Maybe I
should have just paused and talked to him about night time.

I think that imposing a consequence for asking parent no.2 the same
question that got a "no" from parent no. 1 is a good idea. Thanks!


Jeff schrieb:

> "grammaticism/grammatichasm" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > No, he's not a Beetle. He's being irreverent. I tell him to put away
> > his things or I will take away a priviledge and he looks at me like I
> > won't. I do, of course, and then he turns on the water works. His dad
> > will threaten him three, four or five times before he follows through,
> > or else he thinks of something else at the spur of the moment, so I
> > think I know who's responsible for our son not taking us seriously.
>
> Actually, he is acting like 3 1/2 year old who understands the rules you
> set, apparently better than you do.
>
> I don't think that either of you is at fault or blameless. You need to
> understand that the child understands the rules and will play the rules like
> a fiddle. You and your husband need to use your backbone. When either of you
> says, "Please clean up the toys," and he doesn't, you need to make the
> consequences clear to him, "Clean up the toys now, or you get a 4-minute
> time out." And if he doesn't clean up the toys, he gets a 4-minute time out.
> No ifs, ands, or butts.
>
> > He's also learned to play us against each other, and I find that also
> > infuriating. If I'm dressing him in his pajamas, he'll suddenly cry out
> > in pain and act like I've hurt him. It's made me really feel like
> > following through, but I've been able to restrain myself so far. But I
> > also feel like I have to explain myself to my husband! he says he
> > understands, but I'm not entirely sure. This isn't fair. I'm trying to
> > be a good mom, and my son's really playing a mean game. I wish I knew
> > what to do! Any suggestions?
>
> Again, he is acting like a 3 1/2 year old. You really need to talk to his
> dad and explain what the kid is doing. The otherwise, the kid will continue
> to run the house.
>
> The reality of the matter is that the kid will play you whenever he gets the
> chance. He will push your buttons. And, especially when he gets older, he
> will play the both of you. If he wants a candy, he will ask you. If you say
> no, he will ask dad.
>
> The only way this sort of thing will stop is if the two of you stick
> together and make a united front. If this is the case, he will learn that
> when one of you says "No!", then both of you say "No.' Otherwise, when one
> of you says, "No," it means, "Go ask [mommy | daddy]!" And when he does ask
> one of you, and you say "no," and then asks the other, you need to have
> consequences so that when one of you says, "no," he knows not to even ask.
>
> Jeff

[toypup]

"grammaticism/grammatichasm" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> No, he's not a Beetle. He's being irreverent.

When DS gets an attitude, I tell him to go to his room and come out when he
can be more pleasant. He comes out within a few minutes and appologizes and
then he's very nice. Of course, this doesn't work with everyone. DD hasn't
given me attitude yet, but I think she's a different beast and it wouldn't
work on her, although I'd probably try.

I tell him to put away
> his things or I will take away a priviledge and he looks at me like I
> won't.

When it comes to putting away toys, I usually, ask the kids for help and
they are more than happy to do it. I do it with them, but that's fine. DD
is younger, so I'll ask her to put specific items away. I did that with DS
when he was younger. He's good at picking up a disaster zone now.

I'm not really into complete neatness, though. The house can look cluttered
until the maid comes every other week or we have guests, so we only pick up
about once a week. That sounds bad, I know, but we're happy living like
this.

I do, of course, and then he turns on the water works. His dad
> will threaten him three, four or five times before he follows through,
> or else he thinks of something else at the spur of the moment, so I
> think I know who's responsible for our son not taking us seriously.

DH did that for a while. It really made it hard to keep DS in line. I let
DH do things his way, because I thought he should learn how to deal with DS
on his own, but apparently, he wasn't getting it. I finally told him to
stop, and he did, and things got better.

>
> He's also learned to play us against each other, and I find that also
> infuriating. If I'm dressing him in his pajamas, he'll suddenly cry out
> in pain and act like I've hurt him.

Can you let him dress himself? If he drags his feet, I found a timer helps,
or just let him sleep in his day clothes. You could do something fun every
night, like read a book, but you can't read a book if it takes too long to
get dressed. The book is a good incentive for our kids.

[Tori M]

"grammaticism/grammatichasm" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Sometimes I'm so flustered that I can't think of a consequence right
> there and then, but I don't want to tell him "because I told you so".

Because I told you so is a perfectly good reason. Not everything needs to
be explained into great detail so that they do it just out of sheer wanting
to.

Tori

[Banty]

In article om>,
grammaticism/grammatichasm says...
>
>Sometimes I'm so flustered that I can't think of a consequence right
>there and then, but I don't want to tell him "because I told you so".
>I've been giving him time-outs for various transgressions, but with
>changing for the night, I just stop all communication and mechanically
>dress him, because I have nothing that I can say in a normal tone of
>voice, and I want him to know that his protests aren't going to change
>anything.
>
>My husband understands that our son is just playing us, but the first
>time I felt like I was being called a witch in Salem. Sounds odd, but
>it was his sudden scream of pain, when I didn't even do anything other
>than dress him, and I couldn't see where he hurt himself. I asked him,
>and he said "leave me alone", or something to that effect. Maybe I
>should have just paused and talked to him about night time.

So what if you're being called a witch in Salem? Call YOURSELF a witch in Salem
- disarm him. When he says "yeah yeah yeah", sing "yeah yeah yeah" back! Put
on the Beatles sometime.

When my adolescent son started calling me a "bitch", I started calling myself a
"bitch", and also drew the logic for him as to what that would make *him* :)
There's pretty much no epithet that can be deflated by the target of the epithet
adopting it.

If he says "leave me alone" - go >>poof<< to some other area of the house if you
can, leaving him completey alone and stopping whatever pleasant thing you may
have been doing for him. Call his bluff whenever you can. Bluffs don't get
made if they're called on a lot :)

>
>I think that imposing a consequence for asking parent no.2 the same
>question that got a "no" from parent no. 1 is a good idea. Thanks!
>
>

Or do something like this (perfected as a graduate teaching assistant). If you
find between the two of you that he went from one parent to the other to get his
way, have parent #2 therefore decide on a slightly *more* strict version of
parent #1's request. Or take some little thing away from his room that's
connected to what he asked for, and got a "no" answer from parent #1. That ends
it in a hurry without having some consequence specific to the act of asking
another parent (the graduate teaching assistant version had to do with quibbling
for more partial credit points - invariably I'd find a reason to take another
point off!). Of course, you both have to be together on this.

All of these tactics have to do with removing the payback he gets for this kind
of behavior.

Banty (OK - I'm a bitch)

[Caledonia]

grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:
> No, he's not a Beetle. He's being irreverent. I tell him to put away
> his things or I will take away a priviledge and he looks at me like I
> won't. I do, of course, and then he turns on the water works. His dad
> will threaten him three, four or five times before he follows through,
> or else he thinks of something else at the spur of the moment, so I
> think I know who's responsible for our son not taking us seriously.

I think, frustrating as it is, that this isn't a problem resulting from
DH's behavior, but is in large part due to your son being 3.5yo.

My kids are not great at 'putting away their things,' but they are
amazing helpers, if I'm working with them. (In other words, I need to
put away the newspapers, and they can help by putting away the toys in
the playroom -- I think framing is everything.)

What type of priviledges do you take away? (I think we lead a
less-than-priviledged life here.)

> He's also learned to play us against each other, and I find that also
> infuriating. If I'm dressing him in his pajamas, he'll suddenly cry out
> in pain and act like I've hurt him. It's made me really feel like
> following through, but I've been able to restrain myself so far. But I
> also feel like I have to explain myself to my husband! he says he
> understands, but I'm not entirely sure. This isn't fair. I'm trying to
> be a good mom, and my son's really playing a mean game. I wish I knew
> what to do! Any suggestions?

I don't think it's a mean game -- it's frustrating (do you say, "when
you do X, I feel really frustrated because..."?), but I don't believe
that he's scheming just to make you feel bad.

I'm the truly Mean Mom, and give time outs (to me, also -- I also get
angry) only when it seems truly worthwhile for the person to remove
themselves from a situation and get a handle on it. Not picking up toys
doesn't warrant a time out (my 3.5you couldn't completely clean up
everything), but it does mean that, geez, we're out of time and can't
do X because I have to get more actively involved. My X's aren't also
priviledges, they're our SOP (e.g., board games, or time spent dancing
to music) and yes, sometimes they're cut because we're out of time (due
to dawdling toddler/recalcitrant big sister). Sometimes they're cut
because we were stuck in traffic. Stuff happens.

I've found (but this is just me, and my kids) that my kids are expected
to do certain things, and no, they don't always do them, but if we (the
parents) have to do them, it's a lot less fun for the kids. In other
words, instead of you dressing him for bed, why doesn't he pick out
what to wear, dress himself, and if this happens quickly, they'll be
more time for...whatever. Does that make sense? [I think my
perspective, though, is one where it'd be a *lot* trickier for my 3.5
yo to put everything away than for her to dress and toilet herself, so
I'd be more inclined to pass the 'dress and toilet' responsibility to
the kid.]

Caledonia

[Caledonia]

Banty wrote:
> In article om>,
> grammaticism/grammatichasm says...

>
> >
> >I think that imposing a consequence for asking parent no.2 the same
> >question that got a "no" from parent no. 1 is a good idea. Thanks!
> >
> >
>
> Or do something like this (perfected as a graduate teaching assistant). If you
> find between the two of you that he went from one parent to the other to get his
> way, have parent #2 therefore decide on a slightly *more* strict version of
> parent #1's request.

Nah -- this sounds like it would involve a Very Large Amount of
coordination. Why not just be a manager: if Parent1 is 'in charge at
the moment,' Parent2 says, "I'm sorry, I think that's something you'll
have to work out with Parent1." It does require Parent2 to step back,
and defer -- but I think it's better than publicly not being on the
same page. (DH and I have different expectations for the girls'
behaviors, but we will publicly back up each other's decisions 100%.
When the girls complain about one of us to the other -- "e.g., S/he is
making us put all of these clothes away!" -- the not-in-charge parent
typically says something to the girls like, "Well, keep up the good
work -- sounds good to me," or something equally bland. If instead the
'not-in-charge' parent said, "and after that, you can put away your
toys," well, it's just darn strange to me.)

Caledonia

[Banty]

In article . com>, Caledonia
says...
>
>
>Banty wrote:
>> In article om>,
>> grammaticism/grammatichasm says...
>
>>
>> >
>> >I think that imposing a consequence for asking parent no.2 the same
>> >question that got a "no" from parent no. 1 is a good idea. Thanks!
>> >
>> >
>>
>>Or do something like this (perfected as a graduate teaching assistant). If you
>>find between the two of you that he went from one parent to the other to get his
>> way, have parent #2 therefore decide on a slightly *more* strict version of
>> parent #1's request.
>
>Nah -- this sounds like it would involve a Very Large Amount of
>coordination. Why not just be a manager: if Parent1 is 'in charge at
>the moment,' Parent2 says, "I'm sorry, I think that's something you'll
>have to work out with Parent1." It does require Parent2 to step back,
>and defer -- but I think it's better than publicly not being on the
>same page. (DH and I have different expectations for the girls'
>behaviors, but we will publicly back up each other's decisions 100%.
>When the girls complain about one of us to the other -- "e.g., S/he is
>making us put all of these clothes away!" -- the not-in-charge parent
>typically says something to the girls like, "Well, keep up the good
>work -- sounds good to me," or something equally bland. If instead the
>'not-in-charge' parent said, "and after that, you can put away your
>toys," well, it's just darn strange to me.)
>

OK, I'd (maybe) allow that my idea would take too much coordination. I'd
certainly allow that, if it takes too much coordination, it can't be reasonably
and consistently implemented.

But there has to be a large amount of coordination for parent #2 to know he or
she was being the second one asked, no? Sure, if the kid actually goes and
complains about unreasonable parent #1 and asks again it's obvious. But a lot
of playing two ends against the middle isn't like that - it's simply going to
the next person in charge and asking the same thing.

Banty

[bizby40]

"Banty" > wrote in message
...
> But there has to be a large amount of coordination for parent #2 to
> know he or
> she was being the second one asked, no? Sure, if the kid actually
> goes and
> complains about unreasonable parent #1 and asks again it's obvious.
> But a lot
> of playing two ends against the middle isn't like that - it's simply
> going to
> the next person in charge and asking the same thing.

But you can put a stop to that if you catch them at it once or twice
and make sure there are consequences. And you're almost sure to catch
them at it. "Whoa! What are you doing with that popcorn?" "Dad said
I could!"

Bizby

[Jeff]

"Banty" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> Caledonia
> says...
<...>

>
> OK, I'd (maybe) allow that my idea would take too much coordination. I'd
> certainly allow that, if it takes too much coordination, it can't be
> reasonably
> and consistently implemented.
>
> But there has to be a large amount of coordination for parent #2 to know
> he or
> she was being the second one asked, no? Sure, if the kid actually goes
> and
> complains about unreasonable parent #1 and asks again it's obvious. But a
> lot
> of playing two ends against the middle isn't like that - it's simply going
> to
> the next person in charge and asking the same thing.

Just talk about what happened during the day with the other parent, with an
eye towards catching such transgressions. Once you figure when your child is
doing this, you can put a stop to it.

Plus, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

Finally, when a child asks a question that might have been asked before (can
I have a bag of M&Ms? or can I play with Charlie?), just ask, "Did you ask
[mommy | daddy]"? If the child says "no," make a mentral (or written) note
of it, and compare notes later on. Or, say, "Let's go check with [mommy |
daddy]." And do check with dear spouse, ask [him | her] if it is ok that
d[s|d] have a peice of candy or go play with the neighbor kid? You can even
do it subtly, so that the child doesn't know you are ckecking up on him. For
example, you might say, "I don't know. Let's see what mommy is doing," or "I
don't know, let's when dinner is going to be."

Jeff

>
> Banty
>

[Chookie]

In article om>,
"grammaticism/grammatichasm" > wrote:

> No, he's not a Beetle. He's being irreverent.

You mean disrespectful.

> I tell him to put away
> his things or I will take away a priviledge and he looks at me like I
> won't. I do, of course, and then he turns on the water works.

Depending on what you're taking away, he might not even get the connection.
I've found it easiest to say "Let's tidy up the toys" or whatever. If it's
together with you, and you haven't left it for a week :-), he will find it
fun. Also, link less-pleasant chores to pleasant things: "Let's tidy up the
toys and then we can go to the park." Corollary is that if he drags his feet
or refuses to help, you don't have time to go to the park.

> His dad
> will threaten him three, four or five times before he follows through,
> or else he thinks of something else at the spur of the moment, so I
> think I know who's responsible for our son not taking us seriously.
>
> He's also learned to play us against each other, and I find that also
> infuriating. If I'm dressing him in his pajamas, he'll suddenly cry out
> in pain and act like I've hurt him. It's made me really feel like
> following through, but I've been able to restrain myself so far. But I
> also feel like I have to explain myself to my husband! he says he
> understands, but I'm not entirely sure.

Sounds to me like you don't trust your husband to either look after your child
or to believe that you are a good mother. Your son has picked up on this and
is working it for all its worth. It is bad for your marriage and it is bad
for your child. If there are problems, get them sorted out. In particular,
you need a few basic rules eg ALWAYS uphold each other's discipline in front
of the children. If you are going to disagree, do it later on and in private.

> This isn't fair. I'm trying to
> be a good mom, and my son's really playing a mean game. I wish I knew
> what to do! Any suggestions?

Your son is 3.5. You are bigger, smarter, and older. What is he getting out
of his behaviour? Work out why he's doing what he's doing and you are well on
the way to solving the problem.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[Chookie]

In article om>,
"grammaticism/grammatichasm" > wrote:

> Sometimes I'm so flustered that I can't think of a consequence right
> there and then, but I don't want to tell him "because I told you so".
> I've been giving him time-outs for various transgressions, but with
> changing for the night, I just stop all communication and mechanically
> dress him, because I have nothing that I can say in a normal tone of
> voice, and I want him to know that his protests aren't going to change
> anything.

Well, the underlying meaning of "because I told you so" is "because I'm the
parent, you are the child, and there are things we have to do which you might
not be able to understand". If you are threatening him with a punishment, you
are saying the same thing. If you get him dressed without talking to him, you
are saying the same thing.

I'm worried that you seem to have such an adversarial relationship with him.
Are you constantly fighting him, or is it only over specific things?

WRT threats of punishment (you don't have to *think* of a consequence), have
you tried counting to 3? The counting gives you a chance to think of
something.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[Jeff]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> "grammaticism/grammatichasm" > wrote:
<..>

> Your son is 3.5. You are bigger, smarter, and older. What is he getting
> out
> of his behaviour? Work out why he's doing what he's doing and you are
> well on
> the way to solving the problem.

I am not sure that adults are necessarily smarter than kids. Adults are more
experienced and bigger. But not necessarily smarter.

Jeff

>
> --
> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>
> "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You
> may
> start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
> Kerry Cue

[Jeff]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> "grammaticism/grammatichasm" > wrote:
>
>> Sometimes I'm so flustered that I can't think of a consequence right
>> there and then, but I don't want to tell him "because I told you so".
>> I've been giving him time-outs for various transgressions, but with
>> changing for the night, I just stop all communication and mechanically
>> dress him, because I have nothing that I can say in a normal tone of
>> voice, and I want him to know that his protests aren't going to change
>> anything.
>
> Well, the underlying meaning of "because I told you so" is "because I'm
> the
> parent, you are the child, and there are things we have to do which you
> might
> not be able to understand". If you are threatening him with a punishment,
> you
> are saying the same thing. If you get him dressed without talking to him,
> you
> are saying the same thing.
>
> I'm worried that you seem to have such an adversarial relationship with
> him.
> Are you constantly fighting him, or is it only over specific things?

There are times when I really wanted to beat the stuffing out of kids. I've
learned not to let those moments bother me. In fact, the same is true with
my bosses (my so-called superiors). But I have not ever hit or hurt a child
in anger (except my brother, but I was (and still is) he older than I).

I don't think the OP has an adversarial relationship with her son. Sometimes
he pushes the right (or wrong buttons) and she gets really angry. I guess
she is like the rest of us: human.

Jeff

> WRT threats of punishment (you don't have to *think* of a consequence),
> have
> you tried counting to 3? The counting gives you a chance to think of
> something.
>
> --
> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>
> "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You
> may
> start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
> Kerry Cue

[Caledonia]

Jeff wrote:
> "Chookie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article om>,
> > "grammaticism/grammatichasm" > wrote:
> >
> >> Sometimes I'm so flustered that I can't think of a consequence right
> >> there and then, but I don't want to tell him "because I told you so".
> >> I've been giving him time-outs for various transgressions, but with
> >> changing for the night, I just stop all communication and mechanically
> >> dress him, because I have nothing that I can say in a normal tone of
> >> voice, and I want him to know that his protests aren't going to change
> >> anything.
> >
> > Well, the underlying meaning of "because I told you so" is "because I'm
> > the
> > parent, you are the child, and there are things we have to do which you
> > might
> > not be able to understand". If you are threatening him with a punishment,
> > you
> > are saying the same thing. If you get him dressed without talking to him,
> > you
> > are saying the same thing.
> >
> > I'm worried that you seem to have such an adversarial relationship with
> > him.
> > Are you constantly fighting him, or is it only over specific things?
>
> There are times when I really wanted to beat the stuffing out of kids. I've
> learned not to let those moments bother me. In fact, the same is true with
> my bosses (my so-called superiors). But I have not ever hit or hurt a child
> in anger (except my brother, but I was (and still is) he older than I).

True -- then it's time for the adult to have a time-out.

I think what Chookie is picking up on is that kids will push our
buttons, and such is life. It's not that they're secretly scheming
about how to make us aggravated, or deciding that they really want to
play a mean game Just To Be Upsetting. For me, the quickest way to
emotionally heighten (in a negative way) something someone small is
doing which aggravates me is to assign intentionality to it (e.g.,
'the baby doesn't want me to sleep,' 'the child doesn't want me to be
happy,' etc.).

Caledonia

[Chookie]

In article et>,
"Jeff" > wrote:

> "Chookie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article om>,
> > "grammaticism/grammatichasm" > wrote:
> <..>
>
> > Your son is 3.5. You are bigger, smarter, and older. What is he getting
> > out of his behaviour? Work out why he's doing what he's doing and you are
> > well on the way to solving the problem.
>
> I am not sure that adults are necessarily smarter than kids. Adults are more
> experienced and bigger. But not necessarily smarter.

Depends what you mean by 'smarter'. I didn't mean 'has a higher IQ'. I meant
something closer to streetwise, and knowledgeable about people. That is: the
parent might understand the child's feelings more than the child himself does.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[grammaticism/grammatichasm]

That's a good idea to let him dress himself in such and such a time,
then we can read. Yesterday I gave him 5 more minutes and then it was
potty time. That worked. Then we had 10 minutes potty time, and I think
I got him to put away his toys (with me helping) by saying he could
have one small piece of chocolate (that was bribery - I want to stay
away from that - but it worked). Then he even wanted ME to brush his
teeth (he screams and cries most of the time if I do it - I was
dumbfounded). Then he got his book in bed.

Unfortunately he got up later and got his hands on a baby manicuring
set I thought was safe from him and used the nail scissors to cut up
the gum brusher - which made me sad, because I wanted to use it on the
new baby, if and when we ever have one. But I let my hustband work all
that out with the kid, because I just wanted some rest. He gladly did
it, too.


Caledonia schrieb:

> grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:[i]
> > No, he's not a Beetle. He's being irreverent. I tell him to put away
> > his things or I will take away a priviledge and he looks at me like I
> > won't. I do, of course, and then he turns on the water works. His dad
> > will threaten him three, four or five times before he follows through,
> > or else he thinks of something else at the spur of the moment, so I
> > think I know who's responsible for our son not taking us seriously.
>
> I think, frustrating as it is, that this isn't a problem resulting from
> DH's behavior, but is in large part due to your son being 3.5yo.
>
> My kids are not great at 'putting away their things,' but they are
> amazing helpers, if I'm working with them. (In other words, I need to
> put away the newspapers, and they can help by putting away the toys in
> the playroom -- I think framing is everything.)
>
> What type of priviledges do you take away? (I think we lead a
> less-than-priviledged life here.)
>
> > He's also learned to play us against each other, and I find that also
> > infuriating. If I'm dressing him in his pajamas, he'll suddenly cry out
> > in pain and act like I've hurt him. It's made me really feel like
> > following through, but I've been able to restrain myself so far. But I
> > also feel like I have to explain myself to my husband! he says he
> > understands, but I'm not entirely sure. This isn't fair. I'm trying to
> > be a good mom, and my son's really playing a mean game. I wish I knew
> > what to do! Any suggestions?
>
> I don't think it's a mean game -- it's frustrating (do you say, "when
> you do X, I feel really frustrated because..."?), but I don't believe
> that he's scheming just to make you feel bad.
>
> I'm the truly Mean Mom, and give time outs (to me, also -- I also get
> angry) only when it seems truly worthwhile for the person to remove
> themselves from a situation and get a handle on it. Not picking up toys
> doesn't warrant a time out (my 3.5you couldn't completely clean up
> everything), but it does mean that, geez, we're out of time and can't
> do X because I have to get more actively involved. My X's aren't also
> priviledges, they're our SOP (e.g., board games, or time spent dancing
> to music) and yes, sometimes they're cut because we're out of time (due
> to dawdling toddler/recalcitrant big sister). Sometimes they're cut
> because we were stuck in traffic. Stuff happens.
>
> I've found (but this is just me, and my kids) that my kids are expected
> to do certain things, and no, they don't always do them, but if we (the
> parents) have to do them, it's a lot less fun for the kids. In other
> words, instead of you dressing him for bed, why doesn't he pick out
> what to wear, dress himself, and if this happens quickly, they'll be
> more time for...whatever. Does that make sense?
>
> Caledonia

[grammaticism/grammatichasm]

You certainly picked up on something. Sometimes if I give my son a
consequence (he does't want to eat and it playing with his food
everywhere), my husband will rescind it in front of him. I can't get
him to impose consequences in a timely manner, so that our son won't
drag his behavior out. Or he'll say to me (again, in front of the
child) "oh, that's too harsh!"
We've had discussions about this, and sometimes I thinks he's better
("No, if that's what your mama says, then she's right."), but sometimes
I think he forgets.

Usually he's more understanding after he's had a day out with just
himself and our son. I also thinks he's getting the hang of giving
consequences. But he still puts up with a lot before he lays down the
law. (if you can call it that.)

Chookie schrieb:

> In article om>,
> "grammaticism/grammatichasm" > wrote:
>
> > No, he's not a Beetle. He's being irreverent.
>
> You mean disrespectful.
>
> > I tell him to put away
> > his things or I will take away a priviledge and he looks at me like I
> > won't. I do, of course, and then he turns on the water works.
>
> Depending on what you're taking away, he might not even get the connection.
> I've found it easiest to say "Let's tidy up the toys" or whatever. If it's
> together with you, and you haven't left it for a week :-), he will find it
> fun. Also, link less-pleasant chores to pleasant things: "Let's tidy up the
> toys and then we can go to the park." Corollary is that if he drags his feet
> or refuses to help, you don't have time to go to the park.
>
> > His dad
> > will threaten him three, four or five times before he follows through,
> > or else he thinks of something else at the spur of the moment, so I
> > think I know who's responsible for our son not taking us seriously.
> >
> > He's also learned to play us against each other, and I find that also
> > infuriating. If I'm dressing him in his pajamas, he'll suddenly cry out
> > in pain and act like I've hurt him. It's made me really feel like
> > following through, but I've been able to restrain myself so far. But I
> > also feel like I have to explain myself to my husband! he says he
> > understands, but I'm not entirely sure.
>
> Sounds to me like you don't trust your husband to either look after your child
> or to believe that you are a good mother. Your son has picked up on this and
> is working it for all its worth. It is bad for your marriage and it is bad
> for your child. If there are problems, get them sorted out. In particular,
> you need a few basic rules eg ALWAYS uphold each other's discipline in front
> of the children. If you are going to disagree, do it later on and in private.
>
> > This isn't fair. I'm trying to
> > be a good mom, and my son's really playing a mean game. I wish I knew
> > what to do! Any suggestions?
>
> Your son is 3.5. You are bigger, smarter, and older. What is he getting out
> of his behaviour? Work out why he's doing what he's doing and you are well on
> the way to solving the problem.
>
> --
> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>
> "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
> start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
> Kerry Cue

[grammaticism/grammatichasm]

I don't really want to punish my son. But I think if I could show him
that it hurts me, maybe he would stop. I think he's trying more to get
his Dad to take him away (from his beasty mom), but He wouldn't do it,
saying that I was right. Stupid me, I took his behaviour seriously. I
can't help it - sometimes I'm very sensitive, especially when I'm very
careful not to hurt him (I don't squeeze him too hard, I try not to
scratch him with my nails, which I keep cut). But I try to remember
that he's just doing what kids naturally do at his age.

I also try not too explain things in detail, because he doesn't
understand some of it, or it's too long. Sometimes I'll ask him to
repeat what I just said, and sometimes he can, but sometimes he can't.
But I can't help but always repeat that I don't want to trip over his
toys and hurt myself (especially in the dark).

If I am sometimes adversarial, then I think that's when I should take
time-outs - I do, too. His behaviour is not directed at being mean,
it's directed at getting what he wants. I just put it that way when I'm
feeling vulnerable. Thing is, sometimes I'm thinking too much about how
it hurts when he says "I don't like you". My mother said that I should
say "good, then it means I'm doing a good job." Because kids only say
that because they can't do what they want to.

> In article om>,
> "grammaticism/grammatichasm" > wrote:
>
> > Sometimes I'm so flustered that I can't think of a consequence right
> > there and then, but I don't want to tell him "because I told you so".
> > I've been giving him time-outs for various transgressions, but with
> > changing for the night, I just stop all communication and mechanically
> > dress him, because I have nothing that I can say in a normal tone of
> > voice, and I want him to know that his protests aren't going to change
> > anything.
>
> Well, the underlying meaning of "because I told you so" is "because I'm the
> parent, you are the child, and there are things we have to do which you might
> not be able to understand". If you are threatening him with a punishment, you
> are saying the same thing. If you get him dressed without talking to him, you
> are saying the same thing.
>
> I'm worried that you seem to have such an adversarial relationship with him.
> Are you constantly fighting him, or is it only over specific things?
>
> WRT threats of punishment (you don't have to *think* of a consequence), have
> you tried counting to 3? The counting gives you a chance to think of
> something.
>
> --
> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>
> "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
> start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
> Kerry Cue

[[email protected]]

grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:

> I got him to put away his toys (with me helping) by saying he could
> have one small piece of chocolate (that was bribery - I want to stay
> away from that - but it worked).

Nothing wrong with bribery! So long as you follow the Basic Bribery
Rule: good behaviour first, bribe afterwards -- which is what you you
did. (The psychologists call this a "reward" and usually consider it to
be a Good Thing :-)) Where bribery breaks down is when you say "I'll
give you a chocolate now if you tidy your toys quickly afterwards", or
where the child *doesn't* do exactly what you've asked, and they still
get the bribe.

There are some pitfalls with bribes. A bribe can easily turn into a
salary :-). After all, if you do a job and get paid for it, you usually
expect to get paid for it next time too, and if the boss refuses to pay
you wouldn't want to do it. So it can be best to save bribery for
things where you don't mind repeating the bribe - or for situations
that don't occur very often!

All parenting strategies have strengths and weaknesses and work better
in some situations than others. I don't think there are many things to
avoid totally, it's more a matter of knowing when to use them and when
not. It might be useful to get some parenting books that cover all the
bases - my favourite is Carolyn Webster-Stratton's "The Incredible
Years" as it's very no-nonsense and covers a wide range of parenting
techniques with pros, cons and pitfalls for each one; it also talks
about parenting as a couple. I expect other people might have other
book suggestions! Maybe you and your DH could read through a book
together, and use it to decide on a joint approach?

All the best,

Cailleach

> That's a good idea to let him dress himself in such and such a time,
> then we can read. Yesterday I gave him 5 more minutes and then it was
> potty time. That worked. Then we had 10 minutes potty time, and I think
> I got him to put away his toys (with me helping) by saying he could
> have one small piece of chocolate (that was bribery - I want to stay
> away from that - but it worked). Then he even wanted ME to brush his
> teeth (he screams and cries most of the time if I do it - I was
> dumbfounded). Then he got his book in bed.
>
> Unfortunately he got up later and got his hands on a baby manicuring
> set I thought was safe from him and used the nail scissors to cut up
> the gum brusher - which made me sad, because I wanted to use it on the
> new baby, if and when we ever have one. But I let my hustband work all
> that out with the kid, because I just wanted some rest. He gladly did
> it, too.
>
>
> Caledonia schrieb:
>
> > grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:[i]
> > > No, he's not a Beetle. He's being irreverent. I tell him to put away
> > > his things or I will take away a priviledge and he looks at me like I
> > > won't. I do, of course, and then he turns on the water works. His dad
> > > will threaten him three, four or five times before he follows through,
> > > or else he thinks of something else at the spur of the moment, so I
> > > think I know who's responsible for our son not taking us seriously.
> >
> > I think, frustrating as it is, that this isn't a problem resulting from
> > DH's behavior, but is in large part due to your son being 3.5yo.
> >
> > My kids are not great at 'putting away their things,' but they are
> > amazing helpers, if I'm working with them. (In other words, I need to
> > put away the newspapers, and they can help by putting away the toys in
> > the playroom -- I think framing is everything.)
> >
> > What type of priviledges do you take away? (I think we lead a
> > less-than-priviledged life here.)
> >
> > > He's also learned to play us against each other, and I find that also
> > > infuriating. If I'm dressing him in his pajamas, he'll suddenly cry out
> > > in pain and act like I've hurt him. It's made me really feel like
> > > following through, but I've been able to restrain myself so far. But I
> > > also feel like I have to explain myself to my husband! he says he
> > > understands, but I'm not entirely sure. This isn't fair. I'm trying to
> > > be a good mom, and my son's really playing a mean game. I wish I knew
> > > what to do! Any suggestions?
> >
> > I don't think it's a mean game -- it's frustrating (do you say, "when
> > you do X, I feel really frustrated because..."?), but I don't believe
> > that he's scheming just to make you feel bad.
> >
> > I'm the truly Mean Mom, and give time outs (to me, also -- I also get
> > angry) only when it seems truly worthwhile for the person to remove
> > themselves from a situation and get a handle on it. Not picking up toys
> > doesn't warrant a time out (my 3.5you couldn't completely clean up
> > everything), but it does mean that, geez, we're out of time and can't
> > do X because I have to get more actively involved. My X's aren't also
> > priviledges, they're our SOP (e.g., board games, or time spent dancing
> > to music) and yes, sometimes they're cut because we're out of time (due
> > to dawdling toddler/recalcitrant big sister). Sometimes they're cut
> > because we were stuck in traffic. Stuff happens.
> >
> > I've found (but this is just me, and my kids) that my kids are expected
> > to do certain things, and no, they don't always do them, but if we (the
> > parents) have to do them, it's a lot less fun for the kids. In other
> > words, instead of you dressing him for bed, why doesn't he pick out
> > what to wear, dress himself, and if this happens quickly, they'll be
> > more time for...whatever. Does that make sense?
> >
> > Caledonia

[Ericka Kammerer]

grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:
> You certainly picked up on something. Sometimes if I give my son a
> consequence (he does't want to eat and it playing with his food
> everywhere), my husband will rescind it in front of him. I can't get
> him to impose consequences in a timely manner, so that our son won't
> drag his behavior out. Or he'll say to me (again, in front of the
> child) "oh, that's too harsh!"

Big no no.

> We've had discussions about this, and sometimes I thinks he's better
> ("No, if that's what your mama says, then she's right."),

Even that's sort of passive aggressive.

> but sometimes I think he forgets.
>
> Usually he's more understanding after he's had a day out with just
> himself and our son. I also thinks he's getting the hang of giving
> consequences. But he still puts up with a lot before he lays down the
> law. (if you can call it that.)

It's really worth it to get on the same page with
discipline. It's not just a one-way street, though. For
you to present a united front, only part of it is him
backing you up (and not just with passive aggressive
statements, either). The other part is that you exercise
care in what you say so that he *will* back you up.
The only way you can do that is by coming to an agreement
about how the both of you want to parent.
Keep in mind that this is not all or nothing.
Different behaviors often require different tactics.
You can agree in principle that you need to be consistent
and that you need to back each other up, but there are
a lot of details to be worked out. Some behaviors you
might decide are "one strike" behaviors--there's an
immediate, previously agreed-upon response to them.
Some behaviors get a warning. Some behaviors are
ignored, even if they're not that desirable.
For example, what sort of consequence did you
try to impose after playing with food? In my opinion,
about the only consequence one imposes with food at
this age is that if the child isn't hungry and interested
in eating, the meal is over (or at least the food goes
away--maybe he stays at the table for talking). I
don't think it's advisable to punish a child for not
wanting to eat, other than the natural consequence that
comes from not eating (being hungry). That's pretty
much a self-regulating system, and you don't need to
get in the middle of it except to remove the food that's
about to become part of your decor. You certainly don't
want to teach him to eat on command, even when he's not
hungry. If mealtime is an ongoing problem, you and your
husband need to sit down and discuss what behaviors
you're going to work on, what behaviors you're going
to overlook (and deal with later), and what your strategy
is. If you have that discussion, you shouldn't have
to worry about conflicting responses. If the discussion
is just at a general level of "you need to back me up
more," that's not likely to produce a consistently good
result.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[grammaticism/grammatichasm]

Well, about the eating - Initially,I figured if he wasn't hungry and
playing with the food, then he should leave the table. But of course he
wouldn't leave voluntarily, so I carried him outside the kitchen gate
and closed it. Whereupon he would cry and scream. - If there was no
intervening from daddy, he would stop, and I would ask him back in if
he wanted to eat. That wasn't a good experience for any of us, but it
was much better than it was before, where my husband would ask our son
to stop about a hundred times.
Fast forward to now - we don't make him come to the table anymore. We
don't even make him eat whats on the plate. I'm still uncertain if that
was the proper thing to do, since ideally it would be nice for the
family to sit together and talk together, but it certainly is more
harmonious. And His has one stipulation - no tv at mealtime (that
means, since our tv isn't anywhere near the kitchen, that if he doesn't
want to eat, that doesn't mean he can watch tv).

Sometimes he will eat with us, but the playing with his food has really
cut down (he was putting food in his glass, which he had just asked for
because he was "thirsty". He also liked to eat from our plates more
than his own, no matter what). He would complain "I don't like that"
which he still does, but if he has the same thing later, it's suddenly
really good. Back then, he would drive us crazy until he got something
he wanted. But after a few times, I got wise and stopped. It took his
dad longer (although I did try to tell him a few times, and that's when
it started with the whole dinner time behavior.

I agree with you that my husband and I need to decide together a more
on these things. It's just really difficult when neither of us has a
good idea, or one has an idea that the other thinks is not so hot.

Ericka Kammerer schrieb:

> grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:
> > You certainly picked up on something. Sometimes if I give my son a
> > consequence (he does't want to eat and it playing with his food
> > everywhere), my husband will rescind it in front of him. I can't get
> > him to impose consequences in a timely manner, so that our son won't
> > drag his behavior out. Or he'll say to me (again, in front of the
> > child) "oh, that's too harsh!"
>
> Big no no.
>
> > We've had discussions about this, and sometimes I thinks he's better
> > ("No, if that's what your mama says, then she's right."),
>
> Even that's sort of passive aggressive.
>
> > but sometimes I think he forgets.
> >
> > Usually he's more understanding after he's had a day out with just
> > himself and our son. I also thinks he's getting the hang of giving
> > consequences. But he still puts up with a lot before he lays down the
> > law. (if you can call it that.)
>
> It's really worth it to get on the same page with
> discipline. It's not just a one-way street, though. For
> you to present a united front, only part of it is him
> backing you up (and not just with passive aggressive
> statements, either). The other part is that you exercise
> care in what you say so that he *will* back you up.
> The only way you can do that is by coming to an agreement
> about how the both of you want to parent.
> Keep in mind that this is not all or nothing.
> Different behaviors often require different tactics.
> You can agree in principle that you need to be consistent
> and that you need to back each other up, but there are
> a lot of details to be worked out. Some behaviors you
> might decide are "one strike" behaviors--there's an
> immediate, previously agreed-upon response to them.
> Some behaviors get a warning. Some behaviors are
> ignored, even if they're not that desirable.
> For example, what sort of consequence did you
> try to impose after playing with food? In my opinion,
> about the only consequence one imposes with food at
> this age is that if the child isn't hungry and interested
> in eating, the meal is over (or at least the food goes
> away--maybe he stays at the table for talking). I
> don't think it's advisable to punish a child for not
> wanting to eat, other than the natural consequence that
> comes from not eating (being hungry). That's pretty
> much a self-regulating system, and you don't need to
> get in the middle of it except to remove the food that's
> about to become part of your decor. You certainly don't
> want to teach him to eat on command, even when he's not
> hungry. If mealtime is an ongoing problem, you and your
> husband need to sit down and discuss what behaviors
> you're going to work on, what behaviors you're going
> to overlook (and deal with later), and what your strategy
> is. If you have that discussion, you shouldn't have
> to worry about conflicting responses. If the discussion
> is just at a general level of "you need to back me up
> more," that's not likely to produce a consistently good
> result.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ericka

[grammaticism/grammatichasm]

schrieb:

> There are some pitfalls with bribes. A bribe can easily turn into a
> salary :-). After all, if you do a job and get paid for it, you usually
> expect to get paid for it next time too, and if the boss refuses to pay
> you wouldn't want to do it. So it can be best to save bribery for
> things where you don't mind repeating the bribe - or for situations
> that don't occur very often!

That's why I was a little unhappy with it. My nephews were practically
raised on bribery, and they did NOTHING unless they were paid for it.
Even now, if someone asks them to do something (and they are young men
now), they'll ask what they will get in return. To me, that was like an
unsubtle wink with a heavy stick. I am sure going to try my best not to
reward with material things.

The opposite of rewarding is threatening to take a previously
unannounced reward away. I've done that, too. Is that bad? Sometimes it
works and he gets a reward, but sometimes it doesn't work, and while he
doesn't get anything, we still have the problem of getting him to do
what we asked. Then it turns into a punishment - sitting in the
time-out chair. Which still doesn't get anything done, either. As a
last resort I would take his hands and put them on things to put away
(blocks), grab them and lead his (and my) full hands to the bucket.
Luckily this doesn't happen too often.

I'll look for the book. I'm open for ideas.
Noelle

>
> All parenting strategies have strengths and weaknesses and work better
> in some situations than others. I don't think there are many things to
> avoid totally, it's more a matter of knowing when to use them and when
> not. It might be useful to get some parenting books that cover all the
> bases - my favourite is Carolyn Webster-Stratton's "The Incredible
> Years" as it's very no-nonsense and covers a wide range of parenting
> techniques with pros, cons and pitfalls for each one; it also talks
> about parenting as a couple. I expect other people might have other
> book suggestions! Maybe you and your DH could read through a book
> together, and use it to decide on a joint approach?
>
> All the best,
>
> Cailleach
>
> > That's a good idea to let him dress himself in such and such a time,
> > then we can read. Yesterday I gave him 5 more minutes and then it was
> > potty time. That worked. Then we had 10 minutes potty time, and I think
> > I got him to put away his toys (with me helping) by saying he could
> > have one small piece of chocolate (that was bribery - I want to stay
> > away from that - but it worked). Then he even wanted ME to brush his
> > teeth (he screams and cries most of the time if I do it - I was
> > dumbfounded). Then he got his book in bed.
> >
> > Unfortunately he got up later and got his hands on a baby manicuring
> > set I thought was safe from him and used the nail scissors to cut up
> > the gum brusher - which made me sad, because I wanted to use it on the
> > new baby, if and when we ever have one. But I let my hustband work all
> > that out with the kid, because I just wanted some rest. He gladly did
> > it, too.
> >
> >
> > Caledonia schrieb:
> >
> > > grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:
> > > > No, he's not a Beetle. He's being irreverent. I tell him to put away
> > > > his things or I will take away a priviledge and he looks at me like I
> > > > won't. I do, of course, and then he turns on the water works. His dad
> > > > will threaten him three, four or five times before he follows through,
> > > > or else he thinks of something else at the spur of the moment, so I
> > > > think I know who's responsible for our son not taking us seriously.
> > >
> > > I think, frustrating as it is, that this isn't a problem resulting from
> > > DH's behavior, but is in large part due to your son being 3.5yo.
> > >
> > > My kids are not great at 'putting away their things,' but they are
> > > amazing helpers, if I'm working with them. (In other words, I need to
> > > put away the newspapers, and they can help by putting away the toys in
> > > the playroom -- I think framing is everything.)
> > >
> > > What type of priviledges do you take away? (I think we lead a
> > > less-than-priviledged life here.)
> > >
> > > > He's also learned to play us against each other, and I find that also
> > > > infuriating. If I'm dressing him in his pajamas, he'll suddenly cry out
> > > > in pain and act like I've hurt him. It's made me really feel like
> > > > following through, but I've been able to restrain myself so far. But I
> > > > also feel like I have to explain myself to my husband! he says he
> > > > understands, but I'm not entirely sure. This isn't fair. I'm trying to
> > > > be a good mom, and my son's really playing a mean game. I wish I knew
> > > > what to do! Any suggestions?
> > >
> > > I don't think it's a mean game -- it's frustrating (do you say, "when
> > > you do X, I feel really frustrated because..."?), but I don't believe
> > > that he's scheming just to make you feel bad.
> > >
> > > I'm the truly Mean Mom, and give time outs (to me, also -- I also get
> > > angry) only when it seems truly worthwhile for the person to remove
> > > themselves from a situation and get a handle on it. Not picking up toys
> > > doesn't warrant a time out (my 3.5you couldn't completely clean up
> > > everything), but it does mean that, geez, we're out of time and can't
> > > do X because I have to get more actively involved. My X's aren't also
> > > priviledges, they're our SOP (e.g., board games, or time spent dancing
> > > to music) and yes, sometimes they're cut because we're out of time (due
> > > to dawdling toddler/recalcitrant big sister). Sometimes they're cut
> > > because we were stuck in traffic. Stuff happens.
> > >
> > > I've found (but this is just me, and my kids) that my kids are expected
> > > to do certain things, and no, they don't always do them, but if we (the
> > > parents) have to do them, it's a lot less fun for the kids. In other
> > > words, instead of you dressing him for bed, why doesn't he pick out
> > > what to wear, dress himself, and if this happens quickly, they'll be
> > > more time for...whatever. Does that make sense? [I think my
> > > perspective, though, is one where it'd be a *lot* trickier for my 3.5
> > > yo to put everything away than for her to dress and toilet herself, so
> > > I'd be more inclined to pass the 'dress and toilet' responsibility to
> > > the kid.]
> > >
> > > Caledonia

[Welches]

"grammaticism/grammatichasm" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> schrieb:
>
>> There are some pitfalls with bribes. A bribe can easily turn into a
>> salary :-). After all, if you do a job and get paid for it, you usually
>> expect to get paid for it next time too, and if the boss refuses to pay
>> you wouldn't want to do it. So it can be best to save bribery for
>> things where you don't mind repeating the bribe - or for situations
>> that don't occur very often!
>
Bribery can be "tidy it quickly and we'll read a book together" or "you can
choose what we have for lunch". Little things like that are as effective as
big presents for my children. The other one which always workd with both
mine is "who can do it first".
> That's why I was a little unhappy with it. My nephews were practically
> raised on bribery, and they did NOTHING unless they were paid for it.
> Even now, if someone asks them to do something (and they are young men
> now), they'll ask what they will get in return. To me, that was like an
> unsubtle wink with a heavy stick. I am sure going to try my best not to
> reward with material things.
>
> The opposite of rewarding is threatening to take a previously
> unannounced reward away. I've done that, too. Is that bad?
It depends on what you're talking about here. If it's "oh dear we would have
gone to the park, but I'll have to clear the pen off the wall first and then
we won't have time afterwards" then I would think of that more as a
consequence. That one worked with #1. She never drew on the wall again.
If you're talking about "I would have bought you an ice cream this afternoon
but now I won't", particularly if it's a made up reward on the spur of the
moment then I suspect the children see through it. Try reading "the lumber
room" by Sarki (sp?) In that if one child misbehaves then it is suddenly
anounced that they would have had *** as a treat, and all the other children
will, but that the misbehaving one misses out. It's very funny.

Sometimes it
> works and he gets a reward, but sometimes it doesn't work, and while he
> doesn't get anything, we still have the problem of getting him to do
> what we asked. Then it turns into a punishment - sitting in the
> time-out chair. Which still doesn't get anything done, either. As a
> last resort I would take his hands and put them on things to put away
> (blocks), grab them and lead his (and my) full hands to the bucket.
> Luckily this doesn't happen too often.
That wouldn't have worked for #1. She's stubborn and to her mind she would
have won the battle because she hadn't put the things away-you had done it.
But for her the consequence that the pieces might get lost/trodden on and
broken was usually enough. She's very careful with her toys and hates them
to be spoilt.
Debbie

>
> I'll look for the book. I'm open for ideas.
> Noelle
>
>>
>> All parenting strategies have strengths and weaknesses and work better
>> in some situations than others. I don't think there are many things to
>> avoid totally, it's more a matter of knowing when to use them and when
>> not. It might be useful to get some parenting books that cover all the
>> bases - my favourite is Carolyn Webster-Stratton's "The Incredible
>> Years" as it's very no-nonsense and covers a wide range of parenting
>> techniques with pros, cons and pitfalls for each one; it also talks
>> about parenting as a couple. I expect other people might have other
>> book suggestions! Maybe you and your DH could read through a book
>> together, and use it to decide on a joint approach?
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Cailleach
>>
>> > That's a good idea to let him dress himself in such and such a time,
>> > then we can read. Yesterday I gave him 5 more minutes and then it was
>> > potty time. That worked. Then we had 10 minutes potty time, and I think
>> > I got him to put away his toys (with me helping) by saying he could
>> > have one small piece of chocolate (that was bribery - I want to stay
>> > away from that - but it worked). Then he even wanted ME to brush his
>> > teeth (he screams and cries most of the time if I do it - I was
>> > dumbfounded). Then he got his book in bed.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately he got up later and got his hands on a baby manicuring
>> > set I thought was safe from him and used the nail scissors to cut up
>> > the gum brusher - which made me sad, because I wanted to use it on the
>> > new baby, if and when we ever have one. But I let my hustband work all
>> > that out with the kid, because I just wanted some rest. He gladly did
>> > it, too.
>> >
>> >
>> > Caledonia schrieb:
>> >
>> > > grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:
>> > > > No, he's not a Beetle. He's being irreverent. I tell him to put
>> > > > away
>> > > > his things or I will take away a priviledge and he looks at me like
>> > > > I
>> > > > won't. I do, of course, and then he turns on the water works. His
>> > > > dad
>> > > > will threaten him three, four or five times before he follows
>> > > > through,
>> > > > or else he thinks of something else at the spur of the moment, so I
>> > > > think I know who's responsible for our son not taking us seriously.
>> > >
>> > > I think, frustrating as it is, that this isn't a problem resulting
>> > > from
>> > > DH's behavior, but is in large part due to your son being 3.5yo.
>> > >
>> > > My kids are not great at 'putting away their things,' but they are
>> > > amazing helpers, if I'm working with them. (In other words, I need to
>> > > put away the newspapers, and they can help by putting away the toys
>> > > in
>> > > the playroom -- I think framing is everything.)
>> > >
>> > > What type of priviledges do you take away? (I think we lead a
>> > > less-than-priviledged life here.)
>> > >
>> > > > He's also learned to play us against each other, and I find that
>> > > > also
>> > > > infuriating. If I'm dressing him in his pajamas, he'll suddenly cry
>> > > > out
>> > > > in pain and act like I've hurt him. It's made me really feel like
>> > > > following through, but I've been able to restrain myself so far.
>> > > > But I
>> > > > also feel like I have to explain myself to my husband! he says he
>> > > > understands, but I'm not entirely sure. This isn't fair. I'm trying
>> > > > to
>> > > > be a good mom, and my son's really playing a mean game. I wish I
>> > > > knew
>> > > > what to do! Any suggestions?
>> > >
>> > > I don't think it's a mean game -- it's frustrating (do you say, "when
>> > > you do X, I feel really frustrated because..."?), but I don't believe
>> > > that he's scheming just to make you feel bad.
>> > >
>> > > I'm the truly Mean Mom, and give time outs (to me, also -- I also get
>> > > angry) only when it seems truly worthwhile for the person to remove
>> > > themselves from a situation and get a handle on it. Not picking up
>> > > toys
>> > > doesn't warrant a time out (my 3.5you couldn't completely clean up
>> > > everything), but it does mean that, geez, we're out of time and can't
>> > > do X because I have to get more actively involved. My X's aren't also
>> > > priviledges, they're our SOP (e.g., board games, or time spent
>> > > dancing
>> > > to music) and yes, sometimes they're cut because we're out of time
>> > > (due
>> > > to dawdling toddler/recalcitrant big sister). Sometimes they're cut
>> > > because we were stuck in traffic. Stuff happens.
>> > >
>> > > I've found (but this is just me, and my kids) that my kids are
>> > > expected
>> > > to do certain things, and no, they don't always do them, but if we
>> > > (the
>> > > parents) have to do them, it's a lot less fun for the kids. In other
>> > > words, instead of you dressing him for bed, why doesn't he pick out
>> > > what to wear, dress himself, and if this happens quickly, they'll be
>> > > more time for...whatever. Does that make sense? [I think my
>> > > perspective, though, is one where it'd be a *lot* trickier for my 3.5
>> > > yo to put everything away than for her to dress and toilet herself,
>> > > so
>> > > I'd be more inclined to pass the 'dress and toilet' responsibility to
>> > > the kid.]
>> > >
>> > > Caledonia
>

[Ericka Kammerer]

grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:
> Well, about the eating - Initially,I figured if he wasn't hungry and
> playing with the food, then he should leave the table. But of course he
> wouldn't leave voluntarily, so I carried him outside the kitchen gate
> and closed it. Whereupon he would cry and scream. - If there was no
> intervening from daddy, he would stop, and I would ask him back in if
> he wanted to eat. That wasn't a good experience for any of us, but it
> was much better than it was before, where my husband would ask our son
> to stop about a hundred times.
> Fast forward to now - we don't make him come to the table anymore. We
> don't even make him eat whats on the plate. I'm still uncertain if that
> was the proper thing to do, since ideally it would be nice for the
> family to sit together and talk together, but it certainly is more
> harmonious. And His has one stipulation - no tv at mealtime (that
> means, since our tv isn't anywhere near the kitchen, that if he doesn't
> want to eat, that doesn't mean he can watch tv).

Just my opinion, but I think you have to separate
two things. One is a social behavior--sitting at the dinner
table, socializing with family, having appropriate manners.
The other thing is eating appropriate food. For us, eating
is sort of optional. I put reasonable food on the table, and
they choose to eat or not. A young child who started up
with an unacceptable amount of playing with food would have
the food taken away, but wouldn't be removed from the table.
He or she could still talk and interact with everyone else.
Personally, I'm not okay with not joining the family
at mealtime. I don't mind excusing children a bit earlier
if they're restless and dinner is lingering on, but joining
the family for dinner is mandatory for us. We go out to
eat at restaurants' or friends'/family's homes, so I simply
am not willing to have children who won't sit at a dinner
table properly, regardless of whether or not they eat.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[[email protected]]

grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:

> My nephews were practically
> raised on bribery, and they did NOTHING unless they were paid for it.
> Even now, if someone asks them to do something (and they are young men
> now), they'll ask what they will get in return. To me, that was like an
> unsubtle wink with a heavy stick. I am sure going to try my best not to
> reward with material things.

Well, according to the book :-) tangible rewards (bribes) should be
used less often than social rewards (praise), and after a while the
bribe should be phased out and replaced by praise. Not that I've ever
really made that work for my son - give my son a material reward and he
expects it forever! - but we're a special case.

All the best,

Cailleach


> schrieb:
>
> > There are some pitfalls with bribes. A bribe can easily turn into a
> > salary :-). After all, if you do a job and get paid for it, you usually
> > expect to get paid for it next time too, and if the boss refuses to pay
> > you wouldn't want to do it. So it can be best to save bribery for
> > things where you don't mind repeating the bribe - or for situations
> > that don't occur very often!
>
> That's why I was a little unhappy with it. My nephews were practically
> raised on bribery, and they did NOTHING unless they were paid for it.
> Even now, if someone asks them to do something (and they are young men
> now), they'll ask what they will get in return. To me, that was like an
> unsubtle wink with a heavy stick. I am sure going to try my best not to
> reward with material things.
>
> The opposite of rewarding is threatening to take a previously
> unannounced reward away. I've done that, too. Is that bad? Sometimes it
> works and he gets a reward, but sometimes it doesn't work, and while he
> doesn't get anything, we still have the problem of getting him to do
> what we asked. Then it turns into a punishment - sitting in the
> time-out chair. Which still doesn't get anything done, either. As a
> last resort I would take his hands and put them on things to put away
> (blocks), grab them and lead his (and my) full hands to the bucket.
> Luckily this doesn't happen too often.
>
> I'll look for the book. I'm open for ideas.
> Noelle
>
> >
> > All parenting strategies have strengths and weaknesses and work better
> > in some situations than others. I don't think there are many things to
> > avoid totally, it's more a matter of knowing when to use them and when
> > not. It might be useful to get some parenting books that cover all the
> > bases - my favourite is Carolyn Webster-Stratton's "The Incredible
> > Years" as it's very no-nonsense and covers a wide range of parenting
> > techniques with pros, cons and pitfalls for each one; it also talks
> > about parenting as a couple. I expect other people might have other
> > book suggestions! Maybe you and your DH could read through a book
> > together, and use it to decide on a joint approach?
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Cailleach
> >
> > > That's a good idea to let him dress himself in such and such a time,
> > > then we can read. Yesterday I gave him 5 more minutes and then it was
> > > potty time. That worked. Then we had 10 minutes potty time, and I think
> > > I got him to put away his toys (with me helping) by saying he could
> > > have one small piece of chocolate (that was bribery - I want to stay
> > > away from that - but it worked). Then he even wanted ME to brush his
> > > teeth (he screams and cries most of the time if I do it - I was
> > > dumbfounded). Then he got his book in bed.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately he got up later and got his hands on a baby manicuring
> > > set I thought was safe from him and used the nail scissors to cut up
> > > the gum brusher - which made me sad, because I wanted to use it on the
> > > new baby, if and when we ever have one. But I let my hustband work all
> > > that out with the kid, because I just wanted some rest. He gladly did
> > > it, too.
> > >
> > >
> > > Caledonia schrieb:
> > >
> > > > grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:
> > > > > No, he's not a Beetle. He's being irreverent. I tell him to put away
> > > > > his things or I will take away a priviledge and he looks at me like I
> > > > > won't. I do, of course, and then he turns on the water works. His dad
> > > > > will threaten him three, four or five times before he follows through,
> > > > > or else he thinks of something else at the spur of the moment, so I
> > > > > think I know who's responsible for our son not taking us seriously.
> > > >
> > > > I think, frustrating as it is, that this isn't a problem resulting from
> > > > DH's behavior, but is in large part due to your son being 3.5yo.
> > > >
> > > > My kids are not great at 'putting away their things,' but they are
> > > > amazing helpers, if I'm working with them. (In other words, I need to
> > > > put away the newspapers, and they can help by putting away the toys in
> > > > the playroom -- I think framing is everything.)
> > > >
> > > > What type of priviledges do you take away? (I think we lead a
> > > > less-than-priviledged life here.)
> > > >
> > > > > He's also learned to play us against each other, and I find that also
> > > > > infuriating. If I'm dressing him in his pajamas, he'll suddenly cry out
> > > > > in pain and act like I've hurt him. It's made me really feel like
> > > > > following through, but I've been able to restrain myself so far. But I
> > > > > also feel like I have to explain myself to my husband! he says he
> > > > > understands, but I'm not entirely sure. This isn't fair. I'm trying to
> > > > > be a good mom, and my son's really playing a mean game. I wish I knew
> > > > > what to do! Any suggestions?
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it's a mean game -- it's frustrating (do you say, "when
> > > > you do X, I feel really frustrated because..."?), but I don't believe
> > > > that he's scheming just to make you feel bad.
> > > >
> > > > I'm the truly Mean Mom, and give time outs (to me, also -- I also get
> > > > angry) only when it seems truly worthwhile for the person to remove
> > > > themselves from a situation and get a handle on it. Not picking up toys
> > > > doesn't warrant a time out (my 3.5you couldn't completely clean up
> > > > everything), but it does mean that, geez, we're out of time and can't
> > > > do X because I have to get more actively involved. My X's aren't also
> > > > priviledges, they're our SOP (e.g., board games, or time spent dancing
> > > > to music) and yes, sometimes they're cut because we're out of time (due
> > > > to dawdling toddler/recalcitrant big sister). Sometimes they're cut
> > > > because we were stuck in traffic. Stuff happens.
> > > >
> > > > I've found (but this is just me, and my kids) that my kids are expected
> > > > to do certain things, and no, they don't always do them, but if we (the
> > > > parents) have to do them, it's a lot less fun for the kids. In other
> > > > words, instead of you dressing him for bed, why doesn't he pick out
> > > > what to wear, dress himself, and if this happens quickly, they'll be
> > > > more time for...whatever. Does that make sense? [I think my
> > > > perspective, though, is one where it'd be a *lot* trickier for my 3.5
> > > > yo to put everything away than for her to dress and toilet herself, so
> > > > I'd be more inclined to pass the 'dress and toilet' responsibility to
> > > > the kid.]
> > > >
> > > > Caledonia

[grammaticism/grammatichasm]

Ericka Kammerer schrieb:

> Just my opinion, but I think you have to separate
> two things. One is a social behavior--sitting at the dinner
> table, socializing with family, having appropriate manners.
> The other thing is eating appropriate food. For us, eating
> is sort of optional. I put reasonable food on the table, and
> they choose to eat or not. A young child who started up
> with an unacceptable amount of playing with food would have
> the food taken away, but wouldn't be removed from the table.
> He or she could still talk and interact with everyone else.

The reason I would take him out of the room was that if we took his
mess away, he would get angry and start throwing OUR food all over. I'm
just not okay with that.

If he wants to stay and talk, that's perfectly fine, but I won't allow
him to make my food unpalatable, too.

> grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:
> > Well, about the eating - Initially,I figured if he wasn't hungry and
> > playing with the food, then he should leave the table. But of course he
> > wouldn't leave voluntarily, so I carried him outside the kitchen gate
> > and closed it. Whereupon he would cry and scream. - If there was no
> > intervening from daddy, he would stop, and I would ask him back in if
> > he wanted to eat. That wasn't a good experience for any of us, but it
> > was much better than it was before, where my husband would ask our son
> > to stop about a hundred times.
> > Fast forward to now - we don't make him come to the table anymore. We
> > don't even make him eat whats on the plate. I'm still uncertain if that
> > was the proper thing to do, since ideally it would be nice for the
> > family to sit together and talk together, but it certainly is more
> > harmonious. And His has one stipulation - no tv at mealtime (that
> > means, since our tv isn't anywhere near the kitchen, that if he doesn't
> > want to eat, that doesn't mean he can watch tv).
>
> Just my opinion, but I think you have to separate
> two things. One is a social behavior--sitting at the dinner
> table, socializing with family, having appropriate manners.
> The other thing is eating appropriate food. For us, eating
> is sort of optional. I put reasonable food on the table, and
> they choose to eat or not. A young child who started up
> with an unacceptable amount of playing with food would have
> the food taken away, but wouldn't be removed from the table.
> He or she could still talk and interact with everyone else.
> Personally, I'm not okay with not joining the family
> at mealtime. I don't mind excusing children a bit earlier
> if they're restless and dinner is lingering on, but joining
> the family for dinner is mandatory for us. We go out to
> eat at restaurants' or friends'/family's homes, so I simply
> am not willing to have children who won't sit at a dinner
> table properly, regardless of whether or not they eat.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ericka

[Ericka Kammerer]

grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:
> Ericka Kammerer schrieb:
>
>> Just my opinion, but I think you have to separate
>> two things. One is a social behavior--sitting at the dinner
>> table, socializing with family, having appropriate manners.
>> The other thing is eating appropriate food. For us, eating
>> is sort of optional. I put reasonable food on the table, and
>> they choose to eat or not. A young child who started up
>> with an unacceptable amount of playing with food would have
>> the food taken away, but wouldn't be removed from the table.
>> He or she could still talk and interact with everyone else.
>
> The reason I would take him out of the room was that if we took his
> mess away, he would get angry and start throwing OUR food all over. I'm
> just not okay with that.
>
> If he wants to stay and talk, that's perfectly fine, but I won't allow
> him to make my food unpalatable, too.

How does he have access to your food to throw
it? Can you have him at the table, but not within reach
of your food? When my 3yo isn't sitting appropriately at
the table (restaurant or home), then she gets seatbelted
into the high chair--and she knows it. She doesn't like
that, so a reminder that if she can't have appropriate
table manners, she's going to go in the high chair is
usually sufficient to improve her behavior.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[grammaticism/grammatichasm]

He's three-and-a-half years old. He eats at the table. We all sit at
one end of the table, since it's a little long. He would have to
stretch, though. Or he gets up and sits on papa's lap. Dad's gotten
wise to this, however, and he no longer allows him to do this.

N

Ericka Kammerer schrieb:

> grammaticism/grammatichasm wrote:
> > Ericka Kammerer schrieb:
> >
> >> Just my opinion, but I think you have to separate
> >> two things. One is a social behavior--sitting at the dinner
> >> table, socializing with family, having appropriate manners.
> >> The other thing is eating appropriate food. For us, eating
> >> is sort of optional. I put reasonable food on the table, and
> >> they choose to eat or not. A young child who started up
> >> with an unacceptable amount of playing with food would have
> >> the food taken away, but wouldn't be removed from the table.
> >> He or she could still talk and interact with everyone else.
> >
> > The reason I would take him out of the room was that if we took his
> > mess away, he would get angry and start throwing OUR food all over. I'm
> > just not okay with that.
> >
> > If he wants to stay and talk, that's perfectly fine, but I won't allow
> > him to make my food unpalatable, too.
>
> How does he have access to your food to throw
> it? Can you have him at the table, but not within reach
> of your food? When my 3yo isn't sitting appropriately at
> the table (restaurant or home), then she gets seatbelted
> into the high chair--and she knows it. She doesn't like
> that, so a reminder that if she can't have appropriate
> table manners, she's going to go in the high chair is
> usually sufficient to improve her behavior.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ericka