To have said no?

[Tiggywinklespinny]

We have just had dinner, chicken veggies and baby new potatoes.

Dsd (10) can barely use a knife and was asked to cut her chicken not eat it off the fork in a great lump. Instead she said she didn't want it and left it. Too full she said.

She's now on meltdown because I've said no to ice-cream. AIBU??

fgs some of this thread is very odd. The OP is an exasperated mum, her DD is just trying it on. A mum can actuallly say 'no' to a child on occasions without being deemed an ogre by others who act as if they/life/DCs are perfect 24/7. At 10 years old she can use a knife, just doesn't want to. Denying her pudding isn't coming down hard on her, just showing her there are consequences to wanting your own way as opposed to trying. Its a good life lesson. Im quite sure they're ok by now, these little 'tug of war' moments do happen from time to time between parent and child. Thats life. Nothing the OP has said intimates that she's in a spiteful rage with her DD...leave the woman alone. We all have our non-perfect mummy moments!

Why on earth should Everlong and hully 'bow out gracefully?' Good Lord, who made you posting police?

The OP didn't get people agreeing with get in aibu, goodness, who would've thunk it?

If my ds pissed around like this, and he does sometimes, it's never actually about the chicken.

Could you point out where I and/or everlong have been rude Sybil?

I have gone out of my way to remain polite and to try and help.

Your sweeping assertion and silly little assertion make you sound like a prize twat.

Yes, that's both assertions, big and small. The first assertion should have been assumption. If it helps.

No Hully, your posts have been goading and sanctimonious. What's more, it's clear the OP hasn't found them helpful, so you appear to have failed in your supposed aim.

"Goady" No?

"Sanctimonious?" a subjective opinion. Certainly wasn't intended. Why would I bother??

Hully - I've just re-read all of your posts, just your posts and no one elses.

Your posts could easily be addressed to me right now, with my DS1's battle at the moment.

And I would have found your comments extremely annoying if they were addressed to me - but not goady or sanctimonious, you're right there.

My DS is pushing the boundaries, and yes, you're right, there is a reason. The reason isn't abundantly clear, I'm making attempts at working them out and I think I have some of them sorted, but some of it is his personality and the way he deals with issues.

Right now he is trying to control everything, and I mean EVERYTHING. Doing my absolute head in, and very upsetting for his younger brother. And the tantrums, oh my word those bloody tantrums over every sodding thing.

I have tried to address it by giving him more control over a number of things, but I still hold firm to the boundaries. Regardless of how he feels, I will NOT accept being spoken to rudely, I will not allow him to control his younger brother, he does NOT get to decide each and every meal this family eats, he does NOT get to decide each and every activity, etc, etc.

If he throws a tantrum because things don't go his way when we're out, then either the activity gets cancelled, or some other treat will get cancelled (I mean tantrum, not just a small strop btw)

Why is he trying to get control? I suspect school is partly to do with it, he is being pushed more now (Yr 2) and has less free time to do what he wants with. He's very capable but fears getting things wrong and just doesn't like trying new things, so has to be almost forced to do things at times (oh what great fun with the SATS preparation right now....). He's very sensitive to issues with friends, and that's another whole difficulty there due to certain other children at the school.....

So yes, lots of reasons. But at the end of the day the reasons, whilst important, don't actually matter to the day in, day out activities, boundary setting, rules that need to be followed etc.

I can understand why he's upset till the cows come home but I will not be screamed at by my DS because he doesn't fancy roast chicken that evening.

If he screams at me and throws a tantrum, then there is a punishment for the tantrum, regardless of the REASONS why he is tantruming (usually time along in his room, maybe missing out on a small treat). He is being taught that actually, there are other, much BETTER ways, of dealing with things that he feels are an issue.

So yes, there may well be reasons, but the reasons are actually almost irrelevant to the OPs, post, ie that in THIS circumstance, she was NBU to deny her step child ice cream, regardless of WHY her step-child is behaving this way. A consistent approach to negative behaviour will actually be MORE helpful in dealing with any possible problems she will have.

Whoops, that was a bit bloody long

Well, thank you, I think...!

DIYtrainee bloody long, but really insightful

Well said, DIY!

Good post DIY it's interesting to have another perspective.

miscellaneous I wasn't putting you in your place. My response was no more rude than your post was it? The point was that everlong was being criticised (a bit unfairly, in my view) for not "getting" aibu, and not responding in a helpful way. Then you made your comment. Referring to the thread as strange offers nothing to the conversation. It doesn't even reflect your POV. All it did was make it clear you thought some ppl were talking nonsense. So it was a bit rude too.
I'm not troubled by that. It was just an observation. A fair one.

And(and this isn't just diced at you miscellaneous) it's so irritating when ppl come late to a thread just to make a"wtf a you lot all going on about" type comment. Or to suggest that the conversation is pointless or going off topic. Conversations evolve.
Have your say. Disagree with whatever you like. Be helpful or not, be articulate and eloquent or blunt.
But it's a bit of a bore to just come on to put the brakes on the conversation. especially when much of the conversation appears to have been will fully misunderstood

Yawn, DIY have you finished yet

Joke! I actually enjoyed reading that and thought it added a great deal of fairness and insight, well done.

I have been thinking about your post DIY, and I think where I differ from you is that I don't do punishments (no, I don't think I'm great, I just don't think they work. Perhaps they do for others).

When my dd used to throw fits about things I just used to talk to her afterwards about why they weren't a good idea and were counter-productive, and we'd work on ways that she could learn to manage her extreme feelings which I felt was more helpful than having a double whammy of suffering those extreme feelings and trying to control them at the same time through fear of punishment.

I think life is really really hard for children (little bit of remembering my own childhood...) and some times feelings are really hard to manage. And, I don't think they are something bad, that needs punishing. I think they are things that need to be learned to manage.

That said, obvs if she was going berserk I would take her off until she calmed down and could talk. I'm not saying let them kick five kinds of shit out of everyone...

Hully, I don't think "punishment" is what people are referring to. But to what I think DIY was trying to say, is that sometimes children need to be taught that there are CONSEQUENCES to their action. It isn't punishment.

Ah, consequences.

I'm not keen on those, particularly as I had a friend who used to constantly say to her dd "There'll be CONSEQUENCES Hilda-Mae" everytime she moved.

I think the consequences arise from the action, but not eat dinner = or no pudding. I think the consequences are a horrible feeling of upset and discord and that is what one has to learn that one doesn't want to undergo. If you have a punishment fits crime system, it's like the punishment cancels out the action, but doesn't make the person want to look at and change their behaviour.

And a punishment system isn't about love and working together and wanting to co-operate so that everyone feels good. IMO.

I do also acknowledge that lots of people don't agree and that's fine, I am only giving my opinion, of course.

Ah yes, consequences. DS1 is learning all about them. It's been pointed out to him that there are intended and unintended consequences. He INTENDS certain things to happen based on his actions, but there are always other things that will happen as well, things that he either has no control over (such as other people's feelings) or that he just hadn't realised would happen (the treat at the end of the event that he didn't get because he had to leave the event early because he was constantly stropping and ruining it for the others there).

Hully - My view is that my DSs need to learn that there are consequences to actions, because there always will be, right throughout life.

If they hurt someone physically, they can feel as bad as they like about it, but the person who was hurt feels worse, and actually, a 'sorry', whilst required, doesn't just make the pain go away and that child has every right not to want to play with them anymore.

When they get older, the consequences to hurting someone become bigger. Thump someone over the head with a bat as a child and you get a telling off, lose some privileges, etc. Thump someone over the head with a bat as an adult and you get hauled through the criminal courts. They learn that certain behaviour will not be tolerated by others, even if they themselves want to do it.

Feeling upset CAN be punishment enough for some behaviours, but certainly isn't for others.

And honestly, many children DON'T feel upset and discord because of their bad behaviour. DS1 doesn't feel upset and discord if DS2 is sad that he didn't get his turn on the WII. (Not enough to get him to get off the damn thing anyway!) He certainly feels upset and discord if he then misses HIS next turn because that is the consequence/punishment that I put in place for that type of behaviour.

Consequences work very well with my DD. She can understand them at their very basic - "If you don't eat your dinner then you will not have a pudding" and the more complex "You did something you know you are not allowed to do using the iPad. Therefore you will not use the iPad again for a week, because I don't think I can trust you not to do it again" "Your actions resulted in the breaking of Y that cost 50, therefore you will go without X that also costs 50 so that I can use X money to replace Y"

A telling off or a talking about it never worked with her - because her actions hadn't impacted on her, but the people around her. She wouldn't care if all she ate was ice-cream, because kids of that age don't see the ramifications to their health or wellbeing, it didn't matter that she spent 100s on iPad apps or broke Y because she doesn't earn the money or pay the bills.

She needed a consequence to her actions that were tangible to her, impacted on her life, to understand that what she did/does was wrong.

I don't smack, or do time out and I do apologise if I shout or blow up. I will also back down on a 'knee-jerk' reaction/punishement, explaining why I said/did what I did, why it was wrong and what I will do instead.

Consequences and consistency seem to work with my DD, and tantrums are few and far between these days (thankfully). She is even learning to apologise and recognise when she has gone too far herself (as she did after the bed tantrum this weekend).