Toddler behaviour

notanewuser

j.e.j. wrote: »

You see, you seem to go from the sublime to the ridiculous. Typical teenage-rebellion mentality.

Who said anything about a big stick? No-one.

No, but you're advocating violence as a behaviour modifier.

I wouldn't use it, no matter the circumstances.

However, the next cat that fouls my front garden is going to be drop kicked a very long way. Presume that would be fine, right? I'm only teaching it to behave.

thorsoak

notanewuser wrote: »

I fall into neither. Theory disproved.

How do you define "naughty", by the way?

I don't think there are any big words or concepts in here that you would struggle to understand. Have a read.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/08/16/why-shouldnt-you-spank-your-kids-heres-9-reasons/

Kim Olver is not exactly a well respected child psychologist/behavourist ....she's an American life coach! Still ...happy, happy happy - it's so nice to be condescending.

notanewuser

j.e.j. wrote: »

You happen to have ONE child who (at the moment at least) happens to be well-behaved.

Give it time..



Having read some of your posts I should also say you seem to be 'a bit different' anyway.. No Christmas, no santa claus.. poor little mite

!!!!!!? She's not a "poor little mite". We had a "xmas" in early December. She was very excited about seeing the people she loves and had a handful of small present s that she adores. As for santa, she's been exposed to the concept and isn't bothered about it. If she ever expresses an interest in having the fat bloke visit then perhaps he shall, until then...........

But sure. Not buying the whole of argos and setting up an elaborate lie for DD year on year, instead opting to teach her the importance of being kind and thoughtful is clearly the worst sort of parenting.

notanewuser

thorsoak wrote: »

Kim Olver is not exactly a well respected child psychologist/behavourist ....she's an American life coach! Still ...happy, happy happy - it's so nice to be condescending.

I don't really care who she is. It's common sense. I googled for reasons not to hit your kids and got that.

Please advise of a well respected child psychologist/behaviourist that advises hitting kids. (I shan't hold my breath.)

j.e.j.

notanewuser wrote: »

No, but you're advocating violence as a behaviour modifier.

I wouldn't use it, no matter the circumstances.

However, the next cat that fouls my front garden is going to be drop kicked a very long way. Presume that would be fine, right? I'm only teaching it to behave.

I GUARANTEE that if you had two naughty little boys (instead of one placid well-behaved little girl) you would be giving them a smack on the bum when they started throwing things, pulling the curtains down off the rails, and generally creating mayhem :rotfl:

It is not advocating violence or whatever nonsense psychobabble you want to spout.

And while I don't much care what you do to next-door's cat, the fact that you equate children with moggies says something about your thinking patterns..

j.e.j.

notanewuser wrote: »

I don't really care who she is. It's common sense. I googled for reasons not to hit your kids and got that.

Please advise of a well respected child psychologist/behaviourist that advises hitting kids. (I shan't hold my breath.)

There are plenty, just google them.

But you'd still dismiss it, because it doesn't concur with your beliefs.

notanewuser

j.e.j. wrote: »

I GUARANTEE that if you had two naughty little boys (instead of one placid well-behaved little girl) you would be giving them a smack on the bum when they started throwing things, pulling the curtains down off the rails, and generally creating mayhem :rotfl:

It is not advocating violence or whatever nonsense psychobabble you want to spout.

And while I don't much care what you do to next-door's cat, the fact that you equate children with moggies says something about your thinking patterns..

A young child of 2 (as that seems to be the theme of the thread) probably has similar mental capacity to a cat.

Again, define "naughty".

It's absolutely violence. You can't dress it up as anything else!

notanewuser

j.e.j. wrote: »

There are plenty, just google them.

But you'd still dismiss it, because it doesn't concur with your beliefs.

I wouldn't. I'd consider any properly conducted research or reasoned arguments.

moomoomama27

j.e.j. wrote: »

I GUARANTEE that if you had two naughty little boys (instead of one placid well-behaved little girl) you would be giving them a smack on the bum when they started throwing things, pulling the curtains down off the rails, and generally creating mayhem :rotfl:

It is not advocating violence or whatever nonsense psychobabble you want to spout.

And while I don't much care what you do to next-door's cat, the fact that you equate children with moggies says something about your thinking patterns..

I've had a really challenging child, she was a menace in her early years, settled a bit throughout middle childhood and in her teenage years went back to menace, but I can honestly say, violence is not the answer.

For me hitting, smacking, spanking, or whatever people like to call it, is a loss of parental control and not a valid or effective discapline method.

j.e.j.

notanewuser wrote: »

!!!!!!? She's not a "poor little mite". We had a "xmas" in early December. She was very excited about seeing the people she loves and had a handful of small present s that she adores. As for santa, she's been exposed to the concept and isn't bothered about it. If she ever expresses an interest in having the fat bloke visit then perhaps he shall, until then...........

But sure. Not buying the whole of argos and setting up an elaborate lie for DD year on year, instead opting to teach her the importance of being kind and thoughtful is clearly the worst sort of parenting.

I'm not going to go digging up the thread again, but it all got very bizarre as I recall. It wasn't even xmas, it was X, wasn't it?? Your daughter got to celebrate X :rotfl: And when I pointed out that Dec 6th is actually St Nicholas day you got a bit annoyed :laugh:


But that's all by the by. Point is, you've got one little girl who does as mummy says (at the moment!) so you've not encountered the kind of situation where a bit of strict parenting is necessary.