Parents that won't say the word "No", is it ridiculous to expect others to follow your rules?

[Confuzzeled]

AIBU to think this "We don't say NO to ds, we try and encourage him to do something else." is ridiculous when you are in someone else's house and your child is breaking things?

My Mum has people staying who's ds has broken a whole load of things in the last 24 hours. They also aloud him to smear food into the carpet and he tried to pull the fire guard off (it's Scotland and it's been quite cold). While they calmly wave toys at him and encourage him to do something else, he's destroying the place. He's only 19 months and I don't think at that age you know the difference between right and wrong, he needs someone to say "NO, we don't pull the fire guard because you'll get hurt".

I think you should be able to bring your child up in the way that you think is best, but I don't think other people should suffer because of it. Not to mention it's dangerous.

AIBU?

each to their own...it just wouldn't bother me to control my DCs..it's not their home

It's not about controlling them. It's about being able to relax and enjoy yourself with them. Saying no... no... no... to them for a week just sounds like a really miserable way for us to spend our time together. I would hate it and can't really imagine a situation where I would be in that position. I have a few uptight relatives with houses where you're not allowed to touch stuff, but we're never there for longer than a day. I wouldn't subject myself to spending my time in that way for longer.

lol..I have to say I would be very peeved to be in continuous control mode...but if the situation demanded it I would..does'nt mean I would ever stay with those people ever again....I hear you HerBe

Oh this really annoys me. The word "No" is part of our language and children are going to hear it and be told it - if they don't hear it from their parents and learn what it means it seems to me to be effectively just introducing a developmental delay, refusing to teach your child about a basic part of everyday life that they will have to get to grips with eventually.

And just because I do say no to my DS, it doesn't mean I don't explain reasons to him, it doesn't mean I don't try distraction, and it doesn't mean I say "no, no, no" all day long and never have any fun with him. It just means I say no when it's necessary. It's not a big deal and it doesn't destroy his self-esteem or even make him unhappy, usually. In fact I would think the opposite to be true. Children who have never heard "No" and are just used to adults scrambling to reassure them and offer other delights to dissuade them from shredding someone's sofa or whatever, will be far less well-equipped to deal disappointment and having to wait or having to restrain themselves as they grow up. They will be delicate flowers who when a teacher or whoever does say "No" will find it much harder to cope.

I agree with that point about it being how you talk to a child, rather than what you actually say, which is important.

I have a couple of friends who are always saying "no" to their DD. But they say it in that pathetic, unauthoritative way. "No A, you mustn't do that", "No, don't do that" "No, we'll go home if you carry on" etc. etc. They say all the right things, but because there's no conviction in it, it means nothing.

No isn't a miracle word. Saying it or not saying it says nothing about your parenting. How your DC actually responds to what you say is what counts IMO.

TBH I have never, ever met a parent in RL who doesn't say No to their child sometimes, whether that be an unaccompanied no or accompanied with an explanation.

In RL, I meet far more parents who say No unthinkingly, without considering whether they actually need to say no to that (myself included) than these parents we all hear about on MN who never use the word. I've honestly never met one of those in RL and I've come across a few lentil weavers in my time.

I feel for your poor Mum, OP and of course it is the step family and their behaviour that is the problem, the poor baby is just a sorry consequence

That said, of course they should not let it break things - this is a measure of their thoughtlessness towards others which, in this instance, also = crap parenting.

I agree with Qally, I have just read Unconditional Parenting, and very interesting it is too. I don't think any one scheme is ok, but it makes you think about simple "behaviour" parenting - the child doing what you want regardless of why they do that and how they feel. For example, my DS weed on the floor. He is 3. He is pretty well potty trained but has accidents. I was tired and cross and my first reaction was to be cross and say no. But on reflection I talked to him first, and it turned out the new belt on his new shorts was too tricky to undo....now, that's simply being thoughtful and a good mum but I found the UP book reminded me to think, not just act iyswim

Another good point it makes is bringing your children up to be able to make their own responsible choices - so when they become teens and adults and listen to peers not you, they will have some means by which to evaluate choices not simply "do as they are told" regardless....a lot of thoughtful stuff, but no excuse for present OP and horrid visitors....

Think it can b a good idea to move preciouse breakables if youve got a toddler comming to stay. Not saying this means its ok for them to let him run riot though. Personaly I do say NO to mine in a sturn voice but also use other methods such as distraction. My naighboures say no constantly to there DC and it has no effect so think it can b overused. But to never say NO seems a bit mad.

I agree, shouting NO NO NO all the time is pointless and the child will block it out. It's the refusal to do anything about a child breaking things because of repeated behaviour thats the problem. I think the parents need to say No and distract properly rather than just half heartedly waving a teddy while he rampages.

My mother has my dd and sisters ds there all the time. Yes, they have broken things and accidents happen but if my dd kept hanging off an old cabinet I would tell her NO and explain why. I would physically remove her from the situation and give her something else to do instead.

Saying that grandparents have to completely child proof their house is quite ridiculous, especially if the child only visits 3 or 4 times a year. Not to mention there is a fair amount of child proofing already in place from 2 other gc. They've had children, and now they get the pleasure of being grandparents, it costs money to totally child proof. The fire guard that is in place does the job as long as theres not 3 stone of child repeatedly pushing and pulling it. The door handles are well screwed in place but, rattle and pull anything with that amount of weight behind it, it's going to break. The old cabinet is massive, too big to move and I've no idea what could be put in front of it that would be less dangerous.

I agree that a child this age needs to explore and find himself in a very exciting world. But he also needs to learn that not everything is a toy and some things can be dangerous.

Screaming NO at a child for every tiny thing is pointless but refusing to say it all and refusing to discourage a him from doing things that are not welcome is worse. Not every place you go to is child proofed, what do they do when they're in a shop, do they let him pull everything off the shelves, break things and not expect to pay for things. I doubt it.

totally agree with your last post confuzzled. re the child proofing thing, yes there is a need to make some things safe but i do think children have to learn that there are some things they can't touch and not everything is a toy.

we've not really child proofed our house as such and dd knows what she can and can't touch, never really had a problem with her because she's learnt what she can and can't go near. Mind you our house is hardly full of precious ornaments

I think this is the problem with visiting though.

When you're in your own home, a child gets used to not being allowed to pull all the books off the shelf/ all the pans out of the cupboard, because of constant repetition of that. When you're in a shop, you are only there for 15 minutes or something, so it's no big deal to pick a toddler up and carry them for 15 minutes. But one week is the problem - it's too short a time for a child to get into a habit (actually it's not, most habits take no more than a week when they're that young, but it takes all week to get into that habit IYSWIM) and it's too long a time to pick them up and distract for a bit. Neither fish nor flesh.

I just wouldn't go and visit someone for that long with such a young child tbh. Precisely because the visit really would consist of getting a child into a habit which by the time s/he's learned, s/he doesn't need anymore as it's time to go home. That sounds like a really duff week to me.

'The boy wanted to lob the stone into the paddling pool and dad was saying 'I'd rather you didn't do that, somebody might get hurt. I'm going to leave the decision to you. I want you to think about what could happen and put the stone down' .'

I find that sort of thing so irritating-I would want to wade in and say 'put that stone down NOW'.It is so easy-the Dad is pathetic and if I was the Parent of the DD who got hit on the head I would really let rip and tell him what I thought about his parenting methods!
I don't think it is difficult to get a toddler to leave things alone if you are consistent.

Oh for chrissake, how on earth are children supposed to learn about danger, the difference between right and wrong, respect, consideration - and all the other joyful things we have to teach our offspring without the use of the word NO. Its the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard and is a great source of frustration for me when I see it, regularly. New-style parenting, that IMO, breeds little brats that other adults typically take an instant dislike to - and it's not the fault of the child, but the parent. These are usually the same children that are allowed to eat with their mouths open (and I'm not talking of toddler age), make horrid slopping sounds, have absolutely no idea of any basic manners like please and thank you - because, oh, we don't want to spend our precious time with our precious children telling them off.

Give me a break!

I have namechanged

but wanted to say my friend has brought up her son this way and he is a total menace

he is now nearly 5 and virtually unteachable - he's a youngest child (with sisters, both of whom were brought up very strictly) but he was the much longed for son and gets away with murder.

For example, when he was taken to watch the girls in a music display, his mum let him run round the hall and shriek and shrugged as if to say 'what can I do' (even though asked to take him out).

He bites and scratches and draws blood constantly but the poor victims get told 'oh dear, he's a bit impulsive. Boys will be boys.'

There is nothing wrong with this child at all but he has no boundaries and has never ever been told no (I have known them since he was born). Now at nursery, the school has told her he will not listen to them, does not sit still in assembly and is rough with other children. Essentially, he does what he wants like he has always done at home. They have removed him from his first school because it was 'too restrictive' for him which I suspect was code for 'they did not want to listen to what the school was telling them'.

I find it selfish and tbh, I try not to, but it does make me judge the parents. Why do this to your children?

I don't see why asking a child to think about the consequences of their actions is so bad. You can do that while at the same time ensuring that the action doesn't happen. The mistake that bloke made in that event, was that he didn't intervene to ensure the stone wasn't thrown. The problem with just saying "No, put that stone down", is that if the child hasn't been made to think through the consequences of their action, s/he may throw the stone next time an adult isn't around to intervene and stop them. I don't know why it's so awful to ask a child to think about their actions, rather than just stopping them without any discussion and any chance for them to think about why they're being stopped. The problem with the idiot Dad, is that he's only doing half the job - asking the kid to think about consequences of an action, without using his adult authority to ensure that the action doesn't take place because the consequences are too serious to allow it to.

Re post of *Herbeatitude) above, I agree to a point, but it really depends on the age of the child. For example, a child from 6 months-2 yrs - maybe even 3yrs, really wouldn't get that whole think about the consequences stuff. Whereas a firm "No" and redirecting the child elsewhere would do the trick just fine, when applied with consistency.

I have said it before and i will keep saying it,it is our role as parents to ensure our children are not anti social,whether this is amongst our family and friends,their family and friends and the general public on the whole.I can't stand badly behaved children racing around restaurants/shops/pubs while their parents look on fondly (as long as the kids aren't actually hassling them they don't really seem to care)
i think it's a form of child abuse to rear unholy terrors that NOBODY wants to be around. It's not fair on the kids or other children who are forced to spend time with them.

well said stretford

I'm swith stretford on this. Bit of a bugbear for me this whole issue. I have 2 children, 10 and 6, they are absolutely not angels, but do know right from wrong, have been told no, consistently from birth and I am always complimented on their manners when we take them out (just a shame they can be little brats at home LOL). When I do think they are little horrors, I just have to look around in public places and see the others that have never heard that wonderful word in our language... NO. It makes me very proud of them (tee hee, particularly when my 6 year old DD said to me today (in McDonalds), goodness me Mummy, have you seen that little girls awful table manners? She is eating with her mouth open and making a horrid sound. Why doesnt her dad tell her it's rude?

IMHO 16/18mo-2yrs is a nightmare time for parenting though.They can run around and get into trouble but they are hardly more than babies in terms of understanding.
Sure you can say no all you like or you can explain why its wrong but at least for my DD prompt removal and distraction were the only things that worked.
Its bloody hard work. I recall we were invited to a wedding where she just wanted to run around the reception venue like a loon. It was a choice of running or screaming. She did not have the attention span for books or drawing. It was embarrassing and not enjoyable for anyone. Now only 6 months later it would be a completely different story.
All I'm trying to say is maybe if he's their 1st they know its not going well and are wishing they never came!

don't get me wrong,mine aren't perfect (for me) but they seem to be always in other peoples good books-the baby is still learning to behave but i am 'on it'(and to be honest i am still learning how to handle a child like her as she is very very different to dd1)
i am going to zip it on this now i think as it may come back to bite me in the arse at some point in the future!

Oh the man in the pool would irritate me very much.

But i am a bit cynical when i see these parents and thinking 'hmm does he give a full intellectuall essay to a little baby every time he wants him to stop something? Would he do the same at home or just in public places like 'look at me how i talk to my son'

Young children do not understand the consequences of their behaviour through explanation. Most kids have a very poor grasp of cause-effect and understanding of 'why?'-type language before the age of (and often much older - although they may say why, they don't really understand it). They have neither the cognitive nor the linguistic ability to understand the consequences of their behaviour and act on this understanding.

So saying things like 'throwing stones is dangerous but I'm going to leave the decision to you' is just negligent IMO.

Saying 'leave that because it's going to get broken' is fine if the child can understand a sentence of eight words with a clause, but even if you think they can, very few toddlers are at this level of language development..

"No" is a word readily understood by most eight month olds.

So it's a choice: explain to a child who can't understand the language you use, or set a boundary using clear, simple language.

Sorry, above should read before the age of 4..

I think it utterly unfair to leave a small DC with the decision of whether they hurt someone or not! They aren't mature enough. They would feel much more secure with 'you will hurt someone-put it down'. Life must be very hard for the DC when a parent won't parent effectively.