To expect a mother to teach her child to stop being a little shit

[Loopyhasanotherbean]

We go to a toddler group and there is one child who attends who persistently gives an evil stare to other children before running at them and pushing them over. This has resulted in tears from the other children almost every week for months on end. He is 2 and is doing this on purpose and the others are too nice and kind to retaliate, not that we would want them to really. He also snatches whatever toy he wants from any other child or baby, using whatever force necessary to get his own way. None of the other children do anything to provoke this, they are all gentle well behaved toddlers and getting very upset and not knowing what they have done wrong to mean they get hurt.

She never apologises on his behalf and he won't say sorry (he isn't at all sorry). Are we all being unreasonable to expect her to start disciplining him, taking responsibility for his behaviour and teaching him how to behave towards the other children?? We don't know what to do, but I am not sure I can bite my tongue much longer. She is as far as I know a nice woman, but she does not tell him off and he doesn't go to nursery do there is no one else to discipline him....

Like my 8yo then

I have had an experience with the "evil stare" type behaviour.

One of my son's friends was like this from age 2 or so. It was very disconcerting knowing he was about to attack. He also had a sort of glazed look on his face which would come over him when he was being told off and any reprimands would just wash over him, or would seem to.

There was a time where I could barely look at him because he was so unpleasant, and this is a child I'd known since birth, it was sad and scary a feeling.

His mother would discipline him and for quite a while absolutely nothing worked. Several times she turned up, gave him a "final warning" that they would go and he'd just do the glazed look, and 5 minutes later the "stare and attack" and that'd be it, they'd go, 10 minutes after they arrived. Even then he wouldn't cry, he'd just run away and struggle and make it incredibly difficult for her to get him in the car. She would sometimes be in tears over it and admitted on several occasions that whilst she loved her son very much, at that time, she found it difficult to "like" him (which is very different to love of course)

Anyway he's gradually come out of it...still has some antagonistic traits but much easier to communicate with and responds better to discipline, might do a stubborn pout but the glazed look is gone. He had a lot of pent up aggression, no idea where it came from but I think the timing of his sister being born wasn't great for him as a person.

I'm sure he will grow up to be a fine young man and he has lovely parents who we are very good friends with and its been really tough for them...in terms of personality, it is a bit luck of the draw what you get.

YANBU to ask advice, you ARE however VERY unreasonable to refer to a child as "a little shit". Disgusting terminology and about a TWO YEAR OLD!

You sound such a horrible person.

Carpevinum - how does TCS recommend dealing with more conventional parents who are bewildered by it?
TCS absolutely would not work for us, and I feel utterly wrong footed by my friend's parenting. I've tried to discuss this with her but she won't talk about it to any great extent as she says its disrespectful to her DD to talk about her.
(Sorry to derail)

Many - Will she not see that its disrespectful for you dcs to be treated in that way and until they have communication skills to say it for themselves you are their spokes person and that her DD will no longer have your company until they do?

I don't think she sees anything beyond her DD and her assertion that she's not telling anyone else how to raise their children.

Oh dear - All you can do is whats best for you and yours in that case. I must admit I've not met anyone who does this 'method' of parenting Sounds dreadful.

OP I can just see the catbum face of you and the mums with the naice angelic super intelligent children from the naice area, with their judgey pants pulled up so high they are almost garotting them!!

If a child hurts your dc, or you see it hurting another child then you simply say to the child 'that's not nice' or similar and keep saying it, instead of moaning and judging, its not rocket science, and to be honest I don't understand why you haven't done this.

After 7 kids I have been to far to many mother and toddler groups and seen this type of thing from toddlers a lot, but even though I would not consider myself at all confrontational I will act if a child is being hurt and tell them off and I have no problem with someone telling my child off if they are doing something naughty

Does he have a monobrow? Sounds like Baby Gerald, Maggie Simpson's nemesis.

Goodness what a lovely judgmental lot you sound at the playgroup with your perfect children (ish) and your perfect parenting. The poor Mum is probably to damn scared to breathe in there never-mind anything else!!!

If you want to tackle this get to know her better - it maybe that this is her first child and she doesn't feel confident, she may not get much support from her family, or it maybe that the child has some unbeknownst as yet learning difficulty or other difficulty - whatever it is she is probably in need of a friend and support not a judge and jury.

Sounds as if the Mum needs friends and support but that you are all being a bit mean and nasty instead.

how does TCS recommend dealing with more conventional parents who are bewildered by it?

Officially ? Don't know. Probably talks about how we are a bit thick and too brainwashed by the state to think outside of the box so we should be pitied and ignored. (my tongue is in my cheek, but only a little)

Unofficially what I have seen in practice is..

Closing down any discussion or debate. Which is basically what happened to you.

Social withdrawal. Some people limit their social activities as far as possible to groups with similar practices which avoids the issue coming up, more or less.

Getting evangelical. Talking around or through other peoples points or objections, hammering home the bestness of their choice. Any potential negatives are denied to have ever existed in any child brought up in this style ever, and any examples of failure point to the parents not having done it "properly". If you say the failure example is their own child, well that's just your issue with a child being raised as a free thinker without coercion etc. and your inability to "just trust children".

Carpevinum that's very interesting and useful. I absolutely respect everyone's right to parent as they see fit but the friend I'm talking about seems willing to cause detriment to the other children around her in the name of coercion avoidance.
For example she came over with her DD for a sort of celebration/tea party - just some sandwiches and a bit of cake, and all the other children sat around the table. Her DD decided she would rather sit with the adults. Ok but I noticed some of the other mums steering their own children back to the table. Then her DD decided she wanted to sit on the floor under the party table. It caused havoc with the kids who were all sitting nicely - some started complaining, some tried to join her. Her mum was cheerily silent whilst we dealt with the fallout, until one mum said "jonny you don't have to be silly and lie on floor just cos someone else is." I winced and friend made a comment about not attaching labels and then wandered outside. She has no worries at all about leaving other mothers thinking WTF is going on. Another from our circle has 4 young children under 4 and we had all arranged to meet. For her it's a mission to get out and after she was on the way there, the TCS friend texted saying "DD won't get dressed so I guess we won't be coming, v sorry." No acknowledgement of the effort it takes to get four kids out. So other friend texted back saying "we're on our way! It's all a dictatorship here, have piled mine in the car!" And the reply was along the lines of "we'll what suits one doesn't suit another." Friend with 4 kids hasn't spoken to her since, despite repeated attempts.
It's a shame. We go waaay back and on her own she's sparkling company and very good fun. With her child she's a pain in the arse.

Carpe you have amazing insight on this.

but the friend I'm talking about seems willing to cause detriment to the other children around her in the name of coercion avoidance

The core of the philosophy is respect and autonomy with what can sometimes be an almost phobic avoidance of any kind of thought, word or deed that could even vaguely be reframed perceived as coercion. So the mother possibly feels she cannot prioritise other people's feelings if the cost of that would be the coercion of her child. Because the coercion of her child to get dressed would be a greater evil than cancelling at the last minute. So the disappointed kids in the car and the messed about mum are unfortunate, but necessary, collateral damage.

In other words, from the other perspective any noted detriment to others would have been an unfortunate byproduct of seeking to avoid a more significant detriment to ones own child.

For that to make sense, it's worth bearing in mind that some parents are seriously and genuinly afraid of the damage they believe coersion would do to their kids.

I personally don't think the philosophy is all that compatible with aiding a family's ability to demonstrate an extensive amount of consideration for others.

Some people manage it, but they either have really easy going kids who are naturally empathetic and considerate, or they do a magnificent job of modelling empathetic, considerate behaviour and the kids are the type to pick it up and copy it without any prodding needed.

Others do better at showing consideration as a family cos they are not so extreme about reducing all and any reaction to their child's choices to the ststus of coercive. As in they won't insist their kid gets dressed, but they might point out that it's not polite, fair or kind to the people who were invited to cancel on them at the last minute and ask the kid how they would feel if they were in the guests? shoes. Or it might be pointed out that the friends might not want to come again as a result, which would be a direct, natural and avoidable consequence of choosing nude on a day that guests are coming. Something like that, or similar.

amazing insight

Nah. It's just the consequence of having been totally outnumbered for a considerable period of time.

Gosh that's fascinating. And chilling. I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would follow such an utterly selfish self centred philosophy. I've read a bit more about it and there was something about how if there isn't an obvious consensus then the path should be parental sacrifice. How very noble.
I'm actually really annoyed the more I read as its a flagrant disregard for anyone else. I spoke briefly to my sister last night, who has also known her for years, and she said that in her opinion, the subtext to her relationship with her child is "DD must not be upset" and this informs all her other choices. But it seems like actually it's "DD must not be coerced" which isn't hugely different.
I just wish she had been more open about all this instead of shutting down, because that way I wouldn't have bent myself out of shape wondering how a good friend had turned so weird and selfish, and I could have made a calm decision not to see her with our kids, rather than us all being upset and unsettled! Selfish on so many levels!

I think most parents operate on the principle that one shouldn't coerce a child unnecessarily. Clearly there's a broad spectrum of "necessary" from "only to save their life" to "only if they don't want the same as I want". And both extremes are selfish.

Have had a quick read up about TCS parenting. Wow. Is there any evidence about how children grow up when treated like this?

Well, having just left our toddler group in tears and prematurely (again) due to DS4's unprovoked aggression towards other children, I not only coerced to leave but also coerced him into his car seat.

I really don't see how not 'coercing' him in this context, thereby allowing him to 'coerce' other children, would have done him or the other kids any good . What a weird concept - I just cannot imagine that it would ever work for any half-way 'normal' child ie one that goes through the normal stages of utter egocentrism until they mature a bit. I am saying that with the full knowledge that my brutes are not average in their behaviour compared to other children .

I think most parents operate on the principle that one shouldn't coerce a child unnecessarily

Yes. But in this discussion you have to factor in two significant differences.

1. unnecessarily.

Most parents, even some who practice TCS/RU style parenting, would leave in that qualifier.

At the hardcore end however, unnecessarily means "not ever" because if coercion is like the worst thing ever and to be avoided at ALL COST then there is never a context where it necessary. Right up to and including making children take life saving medicine. I'm kind of guessing if any of the people I know actually faced that choice suddenly coercion wouldn't look all that terrible compared to the outcome of untreated grave illness, whatever they say when its just theory.

2. the meaning of coerce.

There seems to be a disconnect between the meaning of the world to the rest of the world, and what it means to parents practising a hardline version of an already quite "radical" parenting philosophy. IMO it has had its boundaries stretched within their echo chamber community to the point where it has become almost meaningless. Any single thought, word or deed can be reframed as coercive with a little linguistic muddying of the waters.

so

jolly along=coercion
ask=coercion
request=coercion
set limits= coercion
persuade= coercion
raise a single eyebrow= coercion
say "oi! cut it out"= coercion
say "gentle hands!"= coercion
have educational/behavioural expectations=coercion
breath in your child's direction= coercion (oh alright, that one I made up, all the rest I got right from the horses' mouths, usually when directed at me and my latest transgression)

In some cases, because of a not all together consistent application of what coercion is or isn't, I am less convinced it is a case of wanting to avoid perceived coercion and more a case of wanting a seemingly nobel reason for avoiding actually doing any parenting at all. In some cases I think there is both peer pressure and/or a deep seated fear (phobia?) of coercion to the point where things go a bit...impractical and out of kilter. And in other cases parents seem to be able to make a more meaningful evaluation of what is benign and what is not, even within the "coercive-free" confines of the methodology.

DD must not be upset" and this informs all her other choices. But it seems like actually it's "DD must not be coerced" which isn't hugely different

Not wanting to upset your kid can be a gateway into the theories and philosophies I think. If you are getting it in the neck from all side, a nice off the peg methodology with a nice shiney lable that says you are right and everybody else is a nasty coercive child damaging sheeple has got to look attractive.

Libertarianism is at the foundation of TCS, and it's never really struck me as being a political position that is all that invested in "the greater good for all around me", smacks a bit of "every man for himself" in the words of some believers, so that might be why the parenting off shoot comes across as somewhat self centred.

Carpe you describe it very funnily. I'm wondering what sort of weird sub set of the population you dwell in though! I have never ever met one of these people, and I'm not a hermit!

Is there any evidence about how children grow up when treated like this?

Niether TCS nor RU have been practised long enough, in enough numbers, to be studied unobjectively enough in order arrive at any demostrable conclusions that the presumed/promised outcomes are realistic, attainable or true.

Much anacdata via practionsiors is available that "proves" it is fail safe, wonderful and franklynthe bestest thing ever.

Anacdata from people who gave it up as a bad job, or observed less wonderful results in third parties who utlise the approach are

a) Lies and propaganda from jealous inadequate sheeple

b) evidence of parents who didn't "do it properly", anything they did can be used as evidence of their profound failure to do it right, even if two days later the exact same thing is being promoted as a good example of the mehtoldology in action.

In comparison there is extensive research that has findings to support the theory that warm authoratative (not authoratarian) parenting is associated with acceptable-good outcomes accross a range of areas.

at the repeated use of 'sheeple'

I'm wondering what sort of weird sub set of the population you dwell in though

It was circumstances rather than choice.

I'm not sure if I was in the right place at the wrong time.

Or the wrong place at the right time.

My general population is normal(ish) , but I was in a sub set in terms of educational choice and due to certain personalities taking charge the rapid growth of the ed.choice became dominated by a definite leaning in terms of parenting philosophy. To the point where I made my excuses and ran for my sanity left. Because I was a tiny minority within a tiny minority due to the educational choice becoming a sub set of the the parental choice rather than the original other way around.

It's all good. I created my own parenting lable in self defence. I am a WAPEer (warm authorstative principled eclectic)

Anybody want to join my cult group ?