to dislike being physical with dc and to think words should be enough?

[NeeNawNora]

I am the stricter of the two of us yet am becoming increasingly frustrated with dp having to be physical in some way with our dc in order to get them to do as he's asked. I don't mean smacking or hurting them but restraining or physically removing things. I don't think this is acceptable as ultimately he's using his strength to overpower them and get his way but still has no control.

For example, dd was climbing on a gate today. He told her to get down, she said it's ok I'm nearly over. He said 'no, get down now' and she continued climbing over. He put an arm round her waist and used the other hand to peel her fingers off before dumping her down and her complaining she could of done it/he's hurt her leg/she's got a splinter etc. I didn't see the need for her to get off (he was impatient to open it to go through) because I like the dc being able to climb and explore when appropriate, but if I had wanted her to I'd have said 'dd, please get down because [insert reason]' and she would mostly likely have listened. If she hadn't I'd have reminded her that there are consequences for not listening and she definitely would've listened.

Similarly tonight, younger dd and ds were racing to get a ball and ds got it first the first time so dp told him to let dd get it first next time. Ds still got it first and dp wrestled it off him rather than just repeat his request. I would've reiterated what I'd asked and then if he still didn't listen I'd have given ds a warning that if he still didn't listen and play/share nicely then he wouldn't be able to play at all.

I just think all the physicality is heavy handed and shows a lack of patience and control. Dp thinks I'm too soft but ultimately the dc listen to me and not him and my way causes less upset. Aibu to think being physical is unnecessary or am I being too soft?

So a load of bollocks then, great.

Oh and ici dfod, there is no pattern to threads, there is no herd, there is no "aggression at night and sanity in the morning" and there is still plenty of detraction from your point of view.

Mumsnet is a hige site with a diverse number and opinion of users and threads reflect that, I hate when people think they can sum up and dismiss a thread and others opinions just because they don't agree with their own.

Perhaps there is room for both types of discipline. I think it's good if children get Told why they need to do or stop doing something but it's not always necessary or applicable. Do you think teachers are going to give explanations after every request? Of course not, they give an instruction and if child does
not comply then there are consequences. Your husband may not be very effective with discipline as he probably feels that you undermine him. Why not just work on the principle that you do discipline your way and he will do it his way.

In some instances an adult needs to step In and just stop a situation the examples given gate ball and nettles imo needed interventions

Yes (except, maybe, with the ball), but why did they need physical intereventions?

The father had let the child climb over the gate before and she wasn't in danger. If she needed to get off the gate, e.g. because she was holding everyone up, how hard would it have been to tell her that and that if she didn't obey she'd be punished? She didn't need to be manhandled off the gate, and she certainly didn't need the stupid business of being carried back home.

With the ball, I don't really think it's up to the parents to interfere in children's games anyway, but again if it was necessary the child could have been told to hand over the ball or else lose one of his toys: there was nothing urgent about the situation, it didn't have to be wrestled off him.

And with the nettles, he could have simply shouted out "Stop, there's stinging nettles": if they then continued and got stung, it would hardly have been the end of the world. It didn't need him rushing after them with a dramatic rugby tackle.

And in all three instances, if the children had trusted their father to be consistent and had learnt that when he tells them to do something he has a good reason for it, the problems wouldn't have arisen at all.

I would rather lift a child off a gate than have them fall off.

She wasn't going to fall off. She'd been allowed by her father to climb the gate before, quite safely, apparently.

Icimoi You still haven't caught up then?

Yes, fully caught up, thanks. What we're now seeing is posters who can't justify beating the poster up on what is in this thread introducing a whole lot of separate issues. A bit desperate, really.

Ici

That's like saying I've walked so I'll never fall over you don't know she wouldn't of fallen off this time

Softly, pack in the personal attacks. I'm far from the only person who has pointed out the frequently occurring pattern on MN threads of people changing opinions as different points of view are put. It's called debate, do you have a problem with that?

And do have a think about the irony of complaining about people dismissing the opinions of those they don't agree with.

Right, Muppet, so do you regularly stop your children doing something mildly risky, even if they've done it before perfectly safely, because "you don't know they wouldn't have fallen off this time"?

Cats, when you have to resort to personal abuse, you've lost the argument.

I wouldn't let him climb a gate end of if there's a chance he'll fall he won't do it

Fine, Muppet, but the point is that OP's DH had let the child climb the gate previously.

Icimoi There is no argument from me, I am just trying to make you (the last poster who is cheering the op on with pompoms and whistles) realise that there is much more to this story than has been posted on THIS thread.

You are either blind and stupid or You maybe ARE the op? I don't know and I don't really care tbh.

I'm off now anyway, I have 4 dc to go and manhandle to the dinner table

So this time he said no. So her dd should of done as she was told

To go back to original OP rather the raking over old/other threads... I think yabu not to back your dh in his parenting style. I think for a lot of dads (not all, obviously) they are away at work through the week and mum is spending more time with the DC. Therefore at weekends dad's way doing things seems a little alien and OP is getting ticked off with it. I do understand it's hard when you're doing most of the discipline and have a way of doing it that you feel works. However the thing is that you have got to let the other parent parent their way, and you've got to support them even if you secretly don't agree (presuming of course no harm to child). There is no other way for them to learn to be a parent or develop a bond and an understanding with the child.
I have some sympathy with op's philosophy in some areas (not where safety is concerned though). I'm always so keen for my toddler ds to learn to share but am much more into 'talking him round' so he decides himself to give the snatched toy back etc (and can then be lavished with praise etc). If I use physical force to take back the snatched toy and hand it to the original child, justice has been done but I've basically taught ds that snatching is fine if it's me doing the snatching, which is a bit crap really.
On most other issues I'm a bit the opposite way to OP - I'm pg at the moment and often get frustrated at dh reasoning with ds when he's having a meltsdown - I prefer a pop him over your shoulder and exit the scene so he can calm down elsewhere but can't really do this ATM due to pg - so end up hissing 'oh just pick him up for godssake'. Oh well, I did tell OP to support her DP's parenting and it doesn't sound like that's what I do, but there we are, nobody's perfect lol :-)

she also failed to mention that the boy child who he chased is autistic.

I take it you're not suggesting that that would justify the use of physical methods?

Christ Icimoi you're far more invested in this than even the OP was

So this time he said no. So her dd should of done as she was told

Certainly. But maybe if he had explained why, she would have. All he needed to say was something like "Don't climb over, you're holding everyone up". And do you think it was then better to go straight to physically pulling her off the gate, and end up stopping the walk and carrying her home, rather than telling her that if she didn't get down she would be punished? Would you seriously have done what OP's husband did?

It matters not. 'No' means 'no', that is it.

I will explain if I regard an explanation to be necessary, but I am the adult and the parent and as such they will do as I say.

We have got to this point by using many different strategies, each strategy utilised where most appropriate; ici, you seem to think that it is one way or another and that is it. Sometimes I have physically intervened, sometimes I explain, sometimes I shout, sometimes I negotiate - lots and lots of different ways to do it and I do a bit of everything, like most people do.

What is important re OP is that she is not presenting as a parenting 'team' with her partner, but is wringing her hands in the background and undermining him to his children at every opportunity.

Not invested, just posting whilst doing something else, off out soon. However, there do seem to be a few people who are very heavily invested if they feel they have to go digging around OP's other threads when they can't find a satisfactory stick to beat her with on this one.

I'm really quite at the number of people who seriously seem to say that they endorse as a parenting style "Do what I say because I say so" followed by the use of unnecessary physical force if that doesn't work. I find it difficult to believe that that's what they actually do in practice, because how on earth do your children ever learn if that's the case? And blatantly it's a style that's doomed to failure as children grow. Doesn't anyone else find it a bit off that a grown man is using his greater strength to force a 6 or 8 year old's hands off a gate and dragging her away before dumping her on the ground? Doesn't that look to you more of an expression of annoyance than a reasoned attempt at parental discipline? And it then becomes ludicrous if he spends time cuddling her before carrying her home.

In Crystal's case, for instance, (see her post of 14.25) I suspect that her children do what she tells them to because she's consistent, and because they know when she tells them to do so she has a sensible reason for it; they don't do it because she issues inconsistent orders which she expects them to obey for fear of being roughly and physically dragged away. But if I'm wrong, no doubt she'll say so.

For goodness sake, Scarlett, if you read the thread you will see that I have made it clear a number of times now that I am emphatically not saying that there is only one method of parenting. Essentially, what I advocate is exactly what you say you do. The point is, OP's husband apparently doesn't, but goes for the physical option regularly when it really isn't necessary.

I and others have also made it perfectly clear that of course there will be times that parents have to take emergency action which can include physical methods to pull a child away from danger. I have also said that there are times when a child has to realise that No means No. But the point is that that will work so much better if you have laid the foundations by using consistent parenting strategies and, where possible, explaining what you are doing; not where you are inconsistent, issue orders without ever explaining, and follow up with physical force when that isn't necessary.

And I'm still not clear where you get the idea that OP isn't backing her partner on this with the children: she's said she tries to back him up and point out to the kids that they should have done what they were told in the first place. She's allowed to vent here with a differing opinion.