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?

ATF at 'libellous'.
Don't take yourself too seriously, this is only a chat forum!

Falsely accusing someone of lying is directly against MN rules, and is certainly libellous. However, it says more about the individuals concerned than it does about me, so

Libel??? I'm quaking.

The fact that you choose not to do so before posting libellous allegations makes you the goady ones

Waaaah and I'm going to tell my mum, she'll tell a policeman and he'll lock you up.

See I can do absurd and empty threats too.

Do you think people hear the word libel and suddenly start quaking?

We all grew up learning these boundaries. It's where the "don't make me come up/down/back there!" thing came from. I always remember (if danger wasn't immediate) that I had the opportunity to do as I was being asked or told. After that, my mum came up and sorted the issue by removing me physically or, whatever.

YABU. I'm with your DH. Obviously, this is not acceptable as the small child ages. By then, we hope they've learned to recognise danger/bad behaviour for themselves.

And I know and you know that you can't aue me or anyone on this board for libel on the basis of what has been written so stop acting like a tool.

I haven't read it since it became such a bunfight- I had no idea that other people's parenting styles upset people so much.
It really doesn't matter what they do as long as the adopt a similar style and are consistent and back each other up.

Meeting in the middle would be the best compromise.

When did I say I would sue anyone for libel? When did I threaten anything or anyone? Whether something is or is not libel is not dependent on whether someone is going to sue for it.

One of the other reasons I became involved in this thread is that I disliked the way some people were bullying the OP. The fact that one or two people on here are so unable to cope with reasoned argument that they turn to personal attacks simply tells us much more about those people than I suspect they really want to reveal.

When did I say I would sue anyone for libel? When did I threaten anything or anyone? Whether something is or is not libel is not dependent on whether someone is going to sue for it.

rubbish!

YABU

You would have to issue a writ in your username surely?

Well, littledrummergirl, what a rational, evidence-based argument that was, fully backed by detailed citation of relevant statutory and case law authorities. I'm sure we all bow before your erudite display of legal knowledge. Or maybe not.

Frogisatwat, a few minutes' use of the search engine would demonstrate to you that your lost sock isn't here. Sorry you find fact checking so challenging.

Hahahahaha, brilliant wind up OP.

You got everyone going there

Although, for anyone else for whom this might be an issue - YABU. Your DH is right. Or at least just parents equally correctly, but just differently.

Thank you Icimoi for sticking to the facts of what I actually said rather than making up scenarios and exaggerations to pick on me over.

With the gate - it is a countryside gate that children cannot open. She climbs it most days with him there and not. This doesn't make her a yob that climbs on people's property, it is often locked to stop vehicles and so climbing is the only way over. When he removed her from it she was perched on top with more weight over the other side, hence her saying she was nearly off when he told her to get off. It isn't cheeky, it's fact. When he pulled her off he banged her leg on the gate ashe ppulled her over. Certainly not badly enough to prevent walking but still - unnecessary. The fact that hethen cconsoles/carries her just communicates to her/me that he feels guilty/regrets his action.

I agree with those who have said it's ridiculous to use physical manoeuvring as a frequent parenting tool past three or so yrs old. I can barely physically move our three older dc as they weigh half of me or more. It'd be like dp trying to physically manoeuvre me all the time. Ifmy voice aand words weren't enough to control them they'd be completely unruly. Which they're not.

With regard to them asking about dp pushing them, I didn't mean on the occasions described. As an example, if one of the dc runs towards him while he's sitting on the sofa to greet him (to jump onto his lap) he'll say stop if he doesn't want them to then he'll put an arm out to block them which pushes them over. They don't understand why this is okay for him to do.
Yes, they should listen to him but when they hear their name, stop or no 100 times + per day over anything andeeverything you can understand why they start to blank it out.

For example, if dc was bending down to pick somethingup and they could bump their head as they got up, I'd say 'mind your head as you get up' and they would. He'd shout 'stop stop stop!' and they'd likely get up and bump their head. Even in normal situations, he uses no and stop constantly. For example, if toddler is trying to tip the toy box out he'll shout no no stop! Whereas I'd be more likely to say 'why don't we get one thing out at a time?' By using no and stop for important things, the dc listen to me instantly if I say it.

And still no context as to why you are not on the same page re discipline/control/General communication with your children.

What is his response when you both have conversations about your polar opposite approaches?

Why does he hurt them all the time?

Why are they encouraged to challenge and undermine an adult's authority at every opportunity, instead of learning to listen as well as question when appropriate?

Do you communicate with each other? If so, why is this still an issue?

As an example, if one of the dc runs towards him while he's sitting on the sofa to greet him (to jump onto his lap) he'll say stop if he doesn't want them to then he'll put an arm out to block them which pushes them over. They don't understand why this is ok

He is NOT pushing him over! He us stopping him from bloody jumping on him when previously asked NOT too. And quite rightly so !

Encouraging a conversation with your dc about why it's ok for daddy to hurt is bloody terrible ! Your letting them think it's intentional and that's out of order. You think your style of parenting is great when actually it's manipulating.

Is he re enacting behavior from his childhood, and his parents. I can't see why he would keep doing this if it doesn't work, so is he repeating how he was treated or something.

I frequently stick my hand out to block my DS jumping on me. If he falls over i didn't push him over he accidently fell over for NOT LISTENING.

If I want my DS to wait he will wait i'll be dammed if i'm getting into a discussion about why I think he should.

R.E the gate it doesn't matter hat she was nearly over or her weight was nearly over she was asked to stop she refused he was wrong for carrying her home like a sap. You however after the first time your DD ignored him should of told her to listen to your DP!

That scenario doesn't make sense.
You've said the DCs are heavy and that they only obey when given a reason.
There isn't time to say anything more than stop when a child is running across the room about to squish DH but because they won't do as they are told he either has to fend them off or be used like a human trampoline.
This is where you're parenting method falls down. The DC should stop when told to and not think it is ok to Jo on someone who has told them not to.

If a child is running towards me to jump on me when I don't want him to, but won't stop when I tell him to, then if at all possible I'll grab him by the arms or shoulders. Isn't it normal parental instinct to take the safer course rather than do something that will knock the child over? Obviously there are times (e.g. when holding something) when that might not be possible, but not always.

It does seem to me that it is OP who is encouraging the child to listen, her husband is the one expecting blind obedience.

Where does it say OP is encouraging the children to challenge authority? How would you stop a reasonably alert child from asking the question why Daddy pushed them? Obviously you can then answer that he didn't or that it was their own fault, but so far as I can tell from OP's posts that is what she is doing. She pointed out, for instance, that she had told the child who fell in the nettles that it wouldn't have happened if he paid attention to his father. I must say, parents who work on the principle that their children must exercise unquestioning obedience at all times are simply storing up trouble for themselves: good luck trying that one with a teenager.

I do agree it would be helpful to know whether OP and her husband have discussed this and what he says about why he uses the methods he does.

The father DIDNT push them!!!

Ffs! She needs to correct that the father didn't push them over at all especially in any of the examples she's given

Interesting that in her last post the OP made no reference to the posters who have said she has started loads of similar threads.