To think gentle parenting is being taken too far?

[gpbs]

I've got DD 2yo and we meet up with mums with similar age kids from time to time, people I've known since pregnancy or since DD was very small. Examples are taken from some of those mums I know but also some mums I randomly encounter when out and about. Some of them take gentle parenting to the extreme I feel. A few examples:

1. Child A chasing Child B with a stick. Mum A says to Child A "sticks are for looking at, not for hitting" or "gentle hands please". Child A hits Child B with a stick "oh no we don't do that, do we? Hitting is mean!" (Wouldn't you grab the stick out of their hand before they hit?!)

1. Child A snatches the toy off Child B whilst B is holding it. Mum of A says "we don't snatch, do we? Can you give it back? Please give it back? Ok at least say sorry? No snatching please" as Child A walks off with the toy that she's just grabbed

1. One mum told me that she asks her son before brushing his teeth and if he says no, they don't brush it. Because body autonomy. He's 2.5.

1. Child throwing sand around, including at other children, whilst their mum calmly explains that it's best not to and how it would hurt other peoples eyes. Child not paying any attention, sand still being thrown, mum still talking at him. (Wouldn't you move them away from sand so it can't be thrown?)

All examples are things I've seen but all are about different children. Ages 1.5-3 in all.

And I know that's not what gentle parenting is MEANT to be about, but it's how the majority of parents who say they gentle parent actually parent.

How on earth "naughty step" = exclusion from the family? Did your child tell you that? 😂

And that's manipulative?

I don't use it often - not because it's manipulative or =exclusion of the family, but I understand mine doesn't like it, as he sees it as a "shame". I don't intend to make him ashamed, unless his behaviour was absolutely not acceptable.

Most of the time, it's because he hit his brother's head with something hard and he meant to hit. And that behaviour, in no way , in no way, in no way, he could misunderstand that he can get away from without unpleasant consequence. Unfortunately, he should feel ashamed, as it is mean and unkind.

He still does it sometimes, because of his age. But he knows clearly, hurting people is absolutely no okay, no matter what.

What I do intend to change, it's the name of it. I emphasize to him about reflection: take time to think about what happened and why he ended up there.

Your daughter needs to know that she can say "no". She needs to know that this can be done loudly, with urgency. She needs to be unafraid of hurting his feelings and unafraid of making a scene. If she is uncomfortable, frightened or hurt, she needs to know this boy is wrong and that she can defend herself against him. Damien's mum (and dad presumably, although he wasn't there) is not only failing him in not teaching him not to dominate others, but she is also failing all other people he encounters.
Please teach your daughter not to put up and shut up. She is entitled to boundaries and to enforce them, physically if necessary. I would definitely be having a discussion with the teacher, Damien's parents and enrolling my daughter on some self defence lessons (not just about physical defence, about boundaries and clear communication to avoid confrontation).

Unless your sat on the step with him, then yes, it's exclusion.

Cambridge dictionary definition of exclusion: "the act of not allowing someone or something to take part in an activity or to enter a place"

Sounds a lot like the 'naughty step' to me.

If your son is continually hitting your other son over the head, it sounds like they need more supervision to be honest... It would actually make a lot more sense if you DID sit on the naughty step with him after he attacks his brother, and you spoke calmly about his feelings and why he hits his brother (look into PACE training). Once you understand the behaviour, you can put strategies and boundaries in place to manage it and prevent it.

Or, you could continue to just exclude him, and hope that works. Sounds lazy to me, though.

Wow, that is some victim blaming. I didn't think anyone could read this story and say Rose needs to be the one to do anything differently.

Thanks for your advice (well intended, I understand).

But no, I disagree entirely, about the concept of "exclusion from the family" used here. If you say it's "exclusion from fun and activities", then yes. But no, it's not exclusion from the family.

You can impose a meaning, if it's what you feel. But it doesn't make it the true reflection of the situation or their feelings.

And what you suggested about dealing with hitting, I know why it happened - he's young, impulsive and unhappy with whatever the situation was with his brother. He knew it's not right if he was calm, but he lose his control at that moment and didn't care about what's right or wrong. And I'm aware he would not want to hurt his brother if he knows what he's doing and he's a good kid.

BUT, there are things I absolutely would not tolerate. Hurting people is one of them. Whatever he felt at that moment doesn't change the fact he did what he did. An apology afterwards would not unhurt the person who got hurt. Naughty step (the reflection step) is the least symbolic consequence to make it clear: IT IS NOT TOLERATED. Whatever bad feeling you have, hurting others is WRONG.

Just talking plus apologies alone would not give any sense of accountability.

If he does this outside the household (to my knowledge, only once in the nursery when he was 3), the consequences would be a lot worse without my protection - no one could predict what would it leads to as someone else might hit back and it escalates/ He gets told off by teachers in front of others - more shame and embarrassment).

He's my child. I'm responsible to make the message as clear as possible - there IS accountability and the consequence WILL ALWAYS be unpleasant to him.

I don't expect you agree with me, as you would always think your way is better (correct).

And I do hope your child can grow up being a responsible adult, even we don't agree. It's better for the world we live in.

a lot of people now seem to think all discipline, or making your child unhappy by setting a boundary, is abuse.

Completely agree with this @RhubarbGingerJam .

It's all over this thread. See the pp above (page 23) for example who said, about admonishing a child who is violent, "Shamingly negative feedback is never easy to hear. At 4 or 40."

Sure it isn't easy. But why is it imperative that a child, who just hit another a child, should be protected from any negative or difficult emotion at all?! Why should our main priority be protecting the feelings of the violent child over the feelings of the victim child?

When a child gets pushed over (or similar), it adds insult to injury when they see the perpetrating child doesn't even get properly told off. What's that teaching the victim child - your feelings matter less than the aggressor's.

My point is that the consequence can be still be unpleasant, and still logical, and still NOT be exclusion.

You have decided that your young child being left on their own in a different room is the ideal way to deal with the behaviour. I think it's uncreative, at best.

How old is your son? Are you really expecting him to 'reflect' on his own, with no guidance? Of course, this deep reflective works has to take part after he's worked through the feelings of shame from being excluded first (also on his own), because he won't be able to logically think/reflect until he's worked through those feelings. This is stuff that a lot of adults struggle with.

Perhaps it's because they were left to do this difficult emotional work all on their own on the stairs as children?

You misunderstood. I said "naughty step", not "a different room" (which I will never do).

Out naughty step is located at the first step of the staircase in the lounge ("the crime scene") leading to upstairs. He's not been sent away and be alone, and will never be.

Cambridge dictionary:
"a step on which a young child is told to sit when they have behaved badly, or the use of such as step as a punishment"

What you focused is time out in their own room, precisely. And that I will never do until they reach teen years when they do need the space away to reflect.

This 'naughty step' thing really spiralled. Different things work for different kids. No child ever suffered from a time out!

Citation needed.

Most of the evidence behind gentle parenting is poor quality and/or extracted from situations far removed from your average family life.

Cambridge dictionary definition of exclusion: "the act of not allowing someone or something to take part in an activity or to enter a place"

But why is that inherently bad? We’ve discussed on this thread warning children there will be a consequence for an action, and then having the guts to follow through - and often removing them from a fun activity is the clear and natural consequence. If you can’t be at the playpark without pushing other children, refusing to take turns etc, then you go home. Yes it’s exclusion - and very reasonable and good training for life. If you are a dick to other people they’ll exclude you from their friendships. If you hit someone in your workplace you’ll be instantly dismissed. Ultimately if you harm others seriously you’ll end up in prison which rightly or wrongly is exclusion for other people’s safety.

You can carry out that exclusion without being mean or vindictive - “ok I have warned you that we will go home if you hit anyone, so now we’re going home” combined with the usual routines and loving care at home, reassurance you’ll go again tomorrow, and praise when they do learn self-control.

@MrsWhattery That all makes perfect sense and I totally agree, but I guess the issue with the naughty step is that it’s exclusion from everyone: being excluded from a fun activity is quite different from isolation. There’s also the idea, I suppose, that while your inclusion in some groups or activities is dependent on your behaviour, your inclusion in your own family ought to be (at least when you’re 3 or 4!) unconditional.

(Also, I’d argue that you can absolutely be a dick to other people without being excluded from their friendships: some of the most popular girls in my 9-year-old’s class are also the most unpleasant….)

How is it not exclusion? That’s literally the point of it- leave the space where the rest of us are, and sit on your own until I say you can move?

You might tell them to think about this, or reflect on that while they are there, but they are still sent to sit alone.

Unless you do time out in the living room or kitchen or wherever your family happen to be?

Kids on a naughty step know that it's temporary. They don't think they're being "excluded from family" as in abandoned on the street or disowned, it's simply hyperbole.

And no, I don't think "inclusion in the family" should be unconditional. If Dad started domestically abusing Mum, by hitting her over the head, you betcha he'd be excluded from the family.

So on a smaller level, if Brother hits Sibling, it makes sense for him to be (mildly, temporarily) excluded from activities, as a way of learning that domestic abuse is never ok, and real exclusion, from the family and even from society, would be the consequence were he an adult.

It only makes sense if you don’t actually understand how children, development, psychology, the brain, socialisation or fear work.

Your acceptance of your child is as conditional as your acceptance of your bloke?

And you actually think that an abusive husband is in anyway comparable to a little child behaving like a little child? Ie, doing things wrong sometimes because they are, you know, little children?!

Just one more thing... many on here have claimed that small children hitting, biting and pushing is "developmentally normal" and therefore it's basically acceptable, unavoidable, and impossible to prevent, and all part of having a Child's Brain.

Their only evidence for that is that it's not uncommon.

Sadly, it's not particularly uncommon for men to abuse their wives/girlfriends. That doesn't mean it's unavoidable, acceptable, or impossible to prevent. Imagine a wife beater saying "it's all part of having a Man's Brain".

Something being common doesn't necessarily make it ok, normal, or impossible to prevent.

You're hyperbolically exaggerating what I've said. I think, in bad faith.

@Mumoftwo1312 But as I keep saying - kids aren’t adults. You can’t seriously claim that a toddler hitting a sibling is equivalent to domestic abuse between adults, or that it’s right to punish a toddler hitting a sibling in the same way they’d be punished as an adult…?

No I didn't say they were equivalent. Being on the naughty step isn't going to prison, is it?

Not at all. You made both those comparisons.

I see we're jumping on the absolutism train again.

Yeah, you don’t understand.

OK let me clarify in short words, hopefully then I won't be disingenuously sealioned.

A minority of small children hit other children including family members. Say, hitting them over the head.

Those hitting children need to learn, before growing into adults (usually men), not to hit other adults including family members. Say, hitting them over the head.

Once they are adults, if they were to do so, they may be literally excluded from society altogether eg custodial sentence.

So I'm proposing that a way of teaching the child what a natural consequence of that action would be, is being left out.

This can be done in a very mild and temporary way, such that the child themselves know that they'll be included again in a short time. This is called the Naughty Step

I do think the reason why this is getting heated is because we are mostly mums on here and our kids have either been pushed around a lot or are doing the pushing.

In case I'm not clear, I'm not suggesting all 3-4yos who push other kids around will grow up to be adult abusers.

But I do think it's something they must actively learn not to do, rather than hoping they'll somehow grow out of it naturally.

I don't see how a time out is any better or worse than removing them from say the park. You're simply taking them away from the situation that they aren't behaving in with both cases.