kids and their furniture?

dkhedmo ) writes:
I am going to give the situation another chance, as the alternative
would result in restraining the toddler every time ds1 wanted to work on
something, which is often. Our space is very limited and to supervise
both kids means ds1 at the kitchen table and a very exuberant toddler
stuck in a high chair or gated off from 50% of the downstairs area. Ds1
knows that if I say I will take away things or privileges that I will do
it and that he will have to put in some hard work to earn back lost
items and priviledges over time.

I don't think that's the only alternative. Other alternatives
could be: restraining the toddler at times, but not necessarily
every time the older one wants to do crafts; allowing crafts
only when the toddler is sleeping; perhaps teaching the
toddler to stay away from crafts; removing all other chairs
from the kitchen table so the toddler can't reach the
top of the table. There may be other alternatives.
A combination of the last two might be workable,
especially if you pay more attention than usual to the
toddler at those times.

I think the way you're talking about taking away privileges
and earning them back is very much a punishment paradigm.
That can be OK, but I believe it's better to use other
methods than punishment if possible. I believe a parent
may get away with using a certain amount of punishment but
each bit of punishment tips the balance of the relationship
in an unfortunate direction -- for example towards a child
who will use punishment or defiance against the parent.

Instead of framing it as a punishment, you could have taken
away things like permanent markers with a non-punitive
explanation along the lines that you feel you're forced
to supervise their use to ensure that the furniture is
safe, that you regret any inconvenience to the child,
and that you expect that soon the child will have developed
and demonstrated the level of responsibility that would
allow use of markers unsupervised. You could then go on
to point out recent examples of the child's rapid
improvement in responsibility in other areas. by way of
praising the child.

With punishment, the parent's purpose is to cause the child
inconvenience or suffering in order to teach the child
something. With logical consequences, there is some
other purpose, such as directly protecting the
furniture. The child may interpret it as a punishment
even if you don't think of it that way; but I think
it's better to frame things as logical consequences
if possible. If you model purposely doing things primarily
to cause inconvenience, the child may do that back to
you later.

"Welches" ) writes:
"I wanted to take you to the park, but I'm going to have
to clean this up instead. What a pity!"

I think that's good because you're not making it
sound like a punishment. So you don't get into
reverberations of revenge going back and forth
between parent and child (power struggle). If you
feel genuine regret about missing the park (I would)
and express it, then the child may feel you're
on his/her side.

Sometimes a child's actions such as writing
on furniture may be expressions of revenge
against the parent, or vague expressions of
freedom, dignity and defiance that the child
wouldn't feel were necessary if the child wasn't
experiencing punishments from time to time.
It's better to be in a mutually cooperative
relationship.

Chookie ) writes:

Does the exuberant toddler not like doing artwork? You could supervise them
both together, at opposite ends of the table, with their own equipment.

Excellent idea!! the toddler could have edible
finger paint, for example.

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 08:19:21 -0500, "Sue"
wrote:

"dragonlady" wrote in message
When I had a 5 yo who liked doing art, and two toddlers who got into her
stuff, the playpen got a real workout:

Yes, I second the playpen. When I had multiple children of different ages is
when I used the playpen the most. The older kids loved the playpen because
they could play with their little pieces and/or the little ones could play
and the older ones could do their thing. Saved my sanity a lot.

I third that suggestion. My son used to play with all his toys that
had little parts in the playpen and his sister could watch but not
destroy his creations.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"Banty" wrote in message
...
When my son was younger (in fact, until recently and he's 13) he was
really into
die-cast little cars (like Matchbox). We'd always put them carefully
away into
boxes with slots for them or my son would park them in rows to put them
away.

One evening, I had friends over, and he was playing cars with their
daughter,
and they had pretty much taken them *all* out. When it was time to go
home, he
and the girl started cleaning up (he had to initiate). My friend, her
father,
seeing this, thought he'd speed the process up and 'make it fun' by having
the
kids pitch the cars across the room into a toy box! She and her Dad were
throwing them, with them smashing agaisnt each other, chipping paint, with
my
son crying and objecting, the puzzled Dad saying to my son "What's
WRONG??". I
intervened and said "oh, we'll take care of that" and later had to explain
to my
son that *this* time it didn't work out to have his friend help him clean
up as
usual but he should still have his friends help him clean up before they
go
home.


If my child had something he really wanted to care for, I'd tell him he
might want not want to take it out for the playdate. Matchbox cars are
normally played with in a somewhat rough manner (I would assume, DS doesn't
care for them). If the cars were to be played with gently, he should either
keep them locked up or make plenty sure his friend (and everyone else) knew
how carefully they should be handled before taking them out. I would assume
the dad didn't know they weren't to be played with like a normal toy. And
since you had a toybox, he thought naturally that's where they went. I
would have explained to the dad why your son was so upset so that your son
would be able to verbalize it next time.

In article , toypup says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
When my son was younger (in fact, until recently and he's 13) he was
really into
die-cast little cars (like Matchbox). We'd always put them carefully
away into
boxes with slots for them or my son would park them in rows to put them
away.

One evening, I had friends over, and he was playing cars with their
daughter,
and they had pretty much taken them *all* out. When it was time to go
home, he
and the girl started cleaning up (he had to initiate). My friend, her
father,
seeing this, thought he'd speed the process up and 'make it fun' by having
the
kids pitch the cars across the room into a toy box! She and her Dad were
throwing them, with them smashing agaisnt each other, chipping paint, with
my
son crying and objecting, the puzzled Dad saying to my son "What's
WRONG??". I
intervened and said "oh, we'll take care of that" and later had to explain
to my
son that *this* time it didn't work out to have his friend help him clean
up as
usual but he should still have his friends help him clean up before they
go
home.


If my child had something he really wanted to care for, I'd tell him he
might want not want to take it out for the playdate. Matchbox cars are
normally played with in a somewhat rough manner (I would assume, DS doesn't
care for them). If the cars were to be played with gently, he should either
keep them locked up or make plenty sure his friend (and everyone else) knew
how carefully they should be handled before taking them out. I would assume
the dad didn't know they weren't to be played with like a normal toy. And
since you had a toybox, he thought naturally that's where they went. I
would have explained to the dad why your son was so upset so that your son
would be able to verbalize it next time.



The problem is - how could we have anticipated that they'd be thrown across the
room?? (That's not playing like a normal toy IMO.) Perhaps some kids like to
throw their cars around, that's not how my son's way of playing, and that's not
how he and the girl were playing. And the toy box was full of the larger, bulky
toys (a large toy box isn't much good for zillions of little cars), I don't
think it's so obvious that some toy box across the room would be where these go,
let alone that they be thrown across the room to it (that was the Dad's idea of
how to make cleanup fun...)

The thing is - why would it be assumed that kids would play roughly with
something like that? Which things could we know that *other* kids would play
roughly with? *Can* a kid have treasured things like those Easter eggs on
display? Or is everything of interest and value to be hidden away. That's
nuts. Why is the onus on the *nondestructive* use to have to be proactively
protective, rather than on the rough usage be assumed?

It's it better to teach that things be treated well, and the category of things
that can be treated very roughly is few, and never what is others', unless
that's what the others are doing? I think so. It makes for a kid who will
engage decently with the rest of the world as he grows up.

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , toypup says...
If my child had something he really wanted to care for, I'd tell him he
might want not want to take it out for the playdate

The problem is - how could we have anticipated that they'd be thrown
across the
room?? (That's not playing like a normal toy IMO.)

They might not normally be thrown across the room, but it's quite
normal to crash them into each other. I don't think you could
have anticipated what happened, but I think that after it happened
once, you likely put some kind of protection into place to make
sure it never happened again.

FWIW, I do think the dad should have asked where the
cars went before putting them away. And I personally
would *never* have thrown a hard toy across the room
(stuffed animals or soft balls maybe). And he *certainly*
should have stopped immediately when your son got
upset. So, yeah, he was really being clueless.

Bizby

"Banty" wrote in message
...
The problem is - how could we have anticipated that they'd be thrown
across the
room?? (That's not playing like a normal toy IMO.) Perhaps some kids
like to
throw their cars around, that's not how my son's way of playing, and
that's not
how he and the girl were playing. And the toy box was full of the larger,
bulky
toys (a large toy box isn't much good for zillions of little cars), I
don't
think it's so obvious that some toy box across the room would be where
these go,
let alone that they be thrown across the room to it (that was the Dad's
idea of
how to make cleanup fun...)

I think it must have been obvious to the dad that the toys belonged in the
toybox. It didn't sound like he was being malicious and wanted to destroy
your son's toys.


The thing is - why would it be assumed that kids would play roughly with
something like that?

Maybe you didn't assume they did because yours doesn't play like that. My
DS doesn't play with cars, but when I think of Matchbox cars, I think of
burying them in the sand, crashing them together, etc. That is my
expectation of normal use for those cars. I'm sure a thousand people will
now chime in that their kids don't play like that, but that is my
expectation.

Which things could we know that *other* kids would play
roughly with? *Can* a kid have treasured things like those Easter eggs on
display? Or is everything of interest and value to be hidden away.
That's
nuts. Why is the onus on the *nondestructive* use to have to be
proactively
protective, rather than on the rough usage be assumed?

Because, as you have found, not every child is as well-trained or gentle as
yours. If there is something that is of value, then it should be protected
when others are over or else suffer the consequences. Now, I don't think
it's right that other kids might be more destructive, but such is life.
Knowing that other children may be more destructive, the toys should be
hidden away when child guests arrive, unless you know the children and know
they are gentle.


It's it better to teach that things be treated well, and the category of
things
that can be treated very roughly is few, and never what is others', unless
that's what the others are doing? I think so. It makes for a kid who
will
engage decently with the rest of the world as he grows up.

True, but you can't teach this to other children, only your own. Therefore,
if other children will be around who are more destructive, the your child
needs to protect his things or risk having them destroyed or don't invite
the destructive children.

toto wrote:
When my ds was 3, he had a collection of blown easter eggs that we had
decorated. He was extremely careful with them as they were very
delicate. He kept them for around 2 years. Then one day, he had a
friend come over (they were around 5 by then) and he showed his
friend the collection. This friend threw them and stomped on them
and destroyed them all. My son was very upset. The friend's parents
didn't think much of it as after all they were just *easter eggs.* Ds
never invited this boy home after that though they still played at
school and were friends there.

If they were that important to you or your son, they shoud never have
been brought out in the first place. It's a no-brainer.

OTOH, my own dd had some destructive behavior at 3 when she
went to play with her friend (the boy's sister, btw). The problem at
this age though was a lack of supervision. The girl's dad had a
broken leg and let the two 3 year olds play upstairs in the bedroom.
He didn't hear them pillow fighting. One of the pillows broke and
started shedding feathers all over and the girls thought it was such
fun that they took the feathers out of a second pillow and were
throwing them all over. I really didn't consider that dd's fault or
her friend's fault though as they were 3, not 5 and both girls were
involved in the playing.

And next time they'll find some extension cords, sharp objects or guns
to play with. Great friends you have, there, and great judgement, too.

-L.

On 4 Feb 2006 23:51:46 -0800, "-L." wrote:


toto wrote:
When my ds was 3, he had a collection of blown easter eggs that we had
decorated. He was extremely careful with them as they were very
delicate. He kept them for around 2 years. Then one day, he had a
friend come over (they were around 5 by then) and he showed his
friend the collection. This friend threw them and stomped on them
and destroyed them all. My son was very upset. The friend's parents
didn't think much of it as after all they were just *easter eggs.* Ds
never invited this boy home after that though they still played at
school and were friends there.

If they were that important to you or your son, they shoud never have
been brought out in the first place. It's a no-brainer.

He was 5, he wanted to show his friend his collection. Why would he
expect a friend to destroy anything that was his.


OTOH, my own dd had some destructive behavior at 3 when she
went to play with her friend (the boy's sister, btw). The problem at
this age though was a lack of supervision. The girl's dad had a
broken leg and let the two 3 year olds play upstairs in the bedroom.
He didn't hear them pillow fighting. One of the pillows broke and
started shedding feathers all over and the girls thought it was such
fun that they took the feathers out of a second pillow and were
throwing them all over. I really didn't consider that dd's fault or
her friend's fault though as they were 3, not 5 and both girls were
involved in the playing.

And next time they'll find some extension cords, sharp objects or guns
to play with. Great friends you have, there, and great judgement, too.

The house was reasonably child-proofed. The dad did use poor
judgement and his wife was pretty upset with him, but then you would
never make such a mistake as you are the perfect mom... NOT

-L.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits