- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Attachment Parenting
About the "no" thing...(edit: paragraphs added)
First, let me say I don't really call myself AP and have not studied the principles. But I do appreciate a lot of the concepts at work, for example, do like using a carrier to 'wear' G and feel like my attitude is not anti AP at all.
And I totally get the idea of using positive reinforcement/redirection in lieu of "no" to a point. But is there a point when you feel like "no" should be used, other than in a dangerous situation.
Shouldn't a child learn to hear "no" because at some point in life they won't get what they want and there won't be something there to redirect/reinforce or what have you? I'm really just curious how ppl see this working over time.
This is not a flame nor is it meant to insinuate that AP kids are spoiled or anything. FWIW I don't want to overuse "no" regardless of the discipline method we choose b/c I don't want it to become meaningless.
This discussion has been closed.
Re: About the "no" thing...(edit: paragraphs added)
I think that an explination of why its not OK and redirection are always better than no. To a curious toddler, no is an invitation to futher explore and test your boundaries. They dont' understand why its taboo, only that they get a reaction from you when they do it.
What do you mean "at some point there won't be something to redirect"? Simply paying attention to them is a redirect -- peek-a-boo, a set of keys, holding their hands and allowing them to walk, playfully chasing them in another direction, a snack, singing a song, playing pattycake...the list goes on. For a curious, exploring mind there is always something else of interest.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. So even when they're old enough to understand better (older toddler, school age, etc)? That's what I'm referring to.
And I don't mean a hysterical or repetitive no - I agree that's just giving them a reaction. Like I said, I think if overused it becomes meaningless.
In our household, it's the word that isn't used, not the concept.
EX: H gets over excited and smacks the dog- instead of saying "NO! Don't hit the puppy!" I say "Hadley, gentle touches. Puppies are for petting."
If she is reaching for something she shouldn't have I say "Stop. Butcher knives/wine bottles/ming dynasty vases aren't safe for you to play with. Let's find something you'll have more fun with."
The word no doesn't teach anything; it doesn't tell them what they should be doing or what acceptable behaviour is. I can't think of an age where they won't understand an explanation. They may not always like it, but something else altogether.
Hmm. I guess I just disagree that "no" can't be used in an instructional manner, much the same way as "stop."
I think it's how you use it that makes the difference, rather than the actual word. If you only say "stop" it's not going to have same effect as "stop + explanation." KWIM?
I have to disagree here as well. I think we've all seen examples of children who, while they may know what the word means, don't respond to it because they haven't had to. I'm not saying that's the case for all children, but it happens.
I was going to reply, but she pretty much summed up my opinion. Good answer!
Stop is an instruction. It tells a child what to do.
No is not an instruction and it covers a broad range of possibilities, too many for a toddler to comprehend IMO.
I really appreciate these answers - and I get it, especially for a toddler.
I'm still curious as to how this plays out when the child is older and no longer a toddler. A teenager even?
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just interested in this perspective
Sometimes you look at your child, and "no" is just the first thing out of your mouth, the first one you can think of. It takes a moment to formulate a complicated sentence like "Let's play tea party with this plastic, Cinderella teacup instead of great-grandmother's wedding china!" or "Please play Jedi with pool noodles instead of curtain rods!" or "What a clever baby you are to spill cumin all over the living room rug!"
I'm a big fan of redirection, of finding things that my son *is* safely permitted to do, but we often make a stop via no on the way there. "No jumping on the stairs, but when we get to the floor, we can hop like bunnies." "We can't go outside right now, we will go out after dinner." "Please don't eat your crayons, they're to draw with - do you need a snack?" "No drawing on the walls, kiddo, you have paper to draw on." I have no problems using no, but unless you give a kid something to *do*, you can safely expect to be ignored when you forbid things.
Can you give an example of when you would need to use it?
This is what I was getting at above as well.
It works the same way, but by that time, they have more understanding of reasoning and they can even contribute to problems solving themselves. "I'm sorry, tonight isn't a good night for Billy to come over, but how about tomorrow or Sunday?". Same thing, different context.
IMO, by the time they reach 7, 8 10 or teen they are to the age when they can rationalize right or wrong. If they are asking a question that warrants a "no" then they should already know the answer in which case you can discuss with them what the best decision would be and the *should* be able to come to the correct answer without a "no".
ETA: To clarify, what I'm getting at is that instead of a harsh "no + reason" you stage the conversation so that you make the decision together rather than authoritively make the call on your own.
Will it always be as easy said as done? Absolutely not, but that's part of teaching them to make indepentent, rational decisions.
Sure. You take your teenage daughter out and she wants a $75 dollar outfit. "No." I feel like at that age, especially if she knows whatever rules are in place (i.e., you save up yourself) for extravagent purchases, then she really should be able to figure out for herself the context. I can and may say "No, but if you want to pay for it yourself you can do x,y,z..." but I guess I just feel like at a certain age is it really necessary? As the parent, you have the right for no to mean just "no" sometimes.
I realize it's a difference of opinion, I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their views. And not having an older child I'm not saying I'm committed to these views myself in the future.
It's easier than you think once you get used to it. For me, I always fall back to "It's not ok to..." For example when you tell a toddler "It's not ok to hit the dog" it communicates what exactly you are telling them not to do. To a toddler, a blanket "No" could apply to the dog, the couch she is standing on, or the toy in her hand that she's not sure she's supposed to have, so she'll disregard the statement until you are more specific. Does that make sense?
Makes sense - thanks so much - I will try that. Currently, the most "success" we have had with no is when she goes to the dog's food/water bowls and looks at them, then looks at me and shakes her head no. HAHA but then she touches them anyway . . . sigh.
Not at all. I do think sometimes a "no" can be the end of it for an older child, but like you said in a previous post - the use of no is not inherently bad. And I didn't say I would definitely only say no in that case.
This exactly. I think reasoning and explanations are really invaluable. If DD wakes up at 6am and says, "I wan popsicle" I feel it's better for us to tell her, "Popsicles aren't for breakfast. How about some fruit?" than a blanket, "No."
I have to agree. To me "no" is used after you've explained it. "We have dance class in the morning and you have that picnic in the afternoon so this isn't a good weekend for her to sleepover?"
"Please?"
"No, sorry, but she's welcome next weekend. Let's put it on the calendar and I'll call her mom."
"Please?"
"No."
Thank you Lanie, I really like this example.
I agree with all of this as far as kids need to be given alternatives to their behavior if you want them to stop, so just saying "no" is probably not going to be the most effective.
However, there are times where all of the language you are throwing at a child is just too much and can actually reinforce the behavior. Ive seen this happen in my job lots of times where a parent or another child is just explaining and explaining and the kid really doesn't want to hear or isn't capable of processing what his being said. The added attention is then a reinforcer for the behavior to keep occurring.
Also, I raised my teenage sister and their were definitely times where she knew the answer and was trying to draw me into a power struggle by getting me to explain why she couldn't do something just so she could tear apart my reasoning. Sometimes it was best for me just to say "no, we've talked about that," and walk away.
I think with all discpline techniques there will always be an exception and that's why it's important to start from positive place to allow you to build a strong enough relationship than when you need to do something on the more negative end it doesn't damage your relationship.
I guess that's where we differ in our parenting principles. I never feel "as a parent you have the right for no to just mean no". I feel as a family, we have a right to make decisions together, and as a person, my childs opinion matters too.
ETA: I don't mean this to sound snarky, but I truely believe flat out saying no undermines the childs ability to make decisions on their own. If you use rational while their young and encourage independent thinking, to take that away and just say no when they get older contradicts everything you've built up. I NEVER think "because I said so" is an acceptable answer for any question at any age.
No becomes more .. important when you use it less. You don't make your boundaries any less important by using other words. You don't have to have a discussion about everything. You just want to get to a stage where you can have a conversation with your kid and you can watch them figure it out.
I like questions. My kid will hate me but " Can I have chocolate bar?"
"Hm did you just brush your teeth?"
"yup"
"Did you have ice cream after dinner?"
"Yup"
"Are we going on that picnic tomorrow and didn't you want to bring that as a treat?"
"Oh... yeah."
She'll hate me but that's the type of thing I'm looking for. I have no problem with using no or with my authority. I just want her figuring it out before she asks, you know?
Of course but the first time your child wants to go to an unsupervised frat party at 15, you get to say "No." And your authority matters. You were given it to keep her safe. You can raise a thoughtful, thinking, intelligent and capable kid who still will make craptastic decisions given the opportunity. My "No" matters because at the end of the day, she needs my authority and my boundaries.
ITA.
I agree - I didn't mean it to sound like my child will get everything she wants. And maybe we won't ever come to an agreement by talking it out - but I will never tell my kid "no because I said so"
Hmm, what if their opinion is that they should be allowed to go to an underage drinking party, take a car out at night when you aren't comfortable with them being on the road, or come home at 2 am.
My sister always wanted to drive at 2 am (she was about 18) I told her 1:30 b/c the bars close at 2 am and I wanted her off the road by then. We had this convo about 10 times, it got to the point that it was just flat out "No, be home by 1:30.
Sometimes their opinion is not worthy of consideration, as awful as that might sound. You don't have to make them feel like crap about it but you also don't have to consider it.
THIS!
When I was growing up that kind of answer was sure to incite rebellion in both my brother and I. But if our parents explained we almost always complied (me more than my brother, but I got better parenting than he did from the beginning) even if we completely disagreed with their reasoning.
Ahhh! yes. I totally agree. It didn't read like that but that is exactly how I feel.
Yes, but by not arbitrarily using the word No her entire life (as you've demonstrated in your previous examples- there's more to it than just saying no) you've given more weight to saying no in the above scenario.
And I think most 15yo can understand where you're coming from if you discuss why the answer to this question is no. They may not like it, but I think they would understand and respect it if you have a respectful relationship built on mutual trust.
Agreed. I have a 12 year old and sometimes all the explaining in the world does nothing. It does have to get to a point when you put your foot down and they accept that you are the authority. They dont have to agree with it, but if you converse the death out of it and they still persist or refuse you have to cut it off somewhere and just say. "I already explained it, Im the parent and the decision is not going to change"
This.
This. Except with my it was my kid brother.
Also, having worked (a LOT) in situations where there are a lot of children, sometimes you need something quick to get attention and stop behavior - like a toddler from eating crayons or hitting or about to run out the door.
In those situations, an abrupt NO! Brings everything to a halt and then you can say "crayons are for drawing not, for eating. " or "we don't hit our friends" etc etc
This is also true in the pool (I was a lifeguard.)
But I agree with most of what you've said in an everyday Parenting way. When you're laying foundations there is always time for a short, direct intervention rather than laying the No down and leaving it at that.
I'm not saying AP parents should never make decisions on their own or that they should never be authorative with thier kids. In a situation like you described, do you really think that your sisters request was what she thought was the "right" decision? At that age a child (or in her case an adult) is able to distinguish right from wrong - even if they don't want what is right. By talking through it your goal is to get them to conclude on their own that what they want may not be the best decision for their safety and well being. Will it work every time? They probably won't admit it, and they may put up a fight, but they will know.
Ultimately you are better positioning them to make well thought out decisions in the future even if the alternative is more appealing or sounds more fun.
I think you worded this much better than I did! Well said.
am I the only one that isn't going to reason with an 18 month old about why he can't run in to the street.. let alone "positively redirect him" rather than discipline him
Kids have the attention span of about a 6 word command before they are 2 years old. I'm not going to say " Phoenix, playing in the road is dangerous and you can get killed, how about you play in the yard instead"
Im going to pick him up out of the road, say " NO PLAYING IN THE ROAD" and carry him to the backyard where I hope he will be distracted enough to forget about the road.