Your best parenting bright idea?

[pegkerr]

One of the most important rules Rob and I instituted as parents is the "Please stop" rule. It is breathtakingly simple. The rule in our family is that if someone objects to something that someone else is doing to them and says "Please stop," then the other person has to stop. We enforce this rule in a specific way. If child A comes to us with a complaint about the other ("She's teasing me!") instead of turning to child B, we ask child A "Did you tell her 'Please stop'?"

If she says "Uh, no," then the ritual reply is "Well, tell her 'Please stop' and she has to stop."

If child B still does not stop the behavior upon being told to stop by child A, then only at that point do we step in immediately to enforce the rule, removing child B if necessary.

I grow more and more deeply impressed with this rule over the years. Consequences: the girls don't torment each other. I think we have a lot less sibling trouble than some of the families we have known. Secondly, we leave first responsibility for reinforcing this rule with the girls themselves, which keeps us out of the middle of many squabbles.

Most importantly, they have learned that they have the right to say "No," and that "No" will be respected. They have been very struck by what a difference that makes as they have moved out to interact with children outside their own family. "Mom," they have told me, "you can really tell when kids haven't grown up with the 'Please stop' rule. They don't make very good friends." Which is exactly what I hoped they would learn.

I realize that they will continue to encounter people who don't respect the 'Please stop' rule, and they will have to work out strategies accordingly. I hope, however, that growing up with this rule will innoculate them with their own self-worth and keep them from choosing bad relationships with power imbalances.

They understand and respect the power of "No." This rule, by the way, applies to both parents and children. They can tell us, for example, to stop tickling them, and Rob and I will immediately stop. We think it is important for them to be able to tell an adult "No" if they don't like something. Again, this is very protective for them.

Tell me about a parenting precept you have enforced which is important to you, and what effect it has in your family and why you think it is worthwhile.

Comments

[scott-lynch.livejournal.com]

*Files for future reference.*

Seems like an excellent idea... allows them to be squirelly, teasing, playful little hellions, yet firmly, instantaneously declare that something has gone too far without room for misinterpretation. *Definitely* filed for future reference.

[tiellan.livejournal.com]

Wow! What a great concept! We'll have to adopt that once we adopt. Obviously, with no children in the house we don't really have any family rules like that yet. But it's something we've talked about a lot. The parenting precept that I'm really looking forward to is the idea of a Talking Stick. You've probably heard of it, or of something like it. The idea is that you have some kind of object (it doesn't have to be a stick necessarily) which can be passed around from one family member to another. The rules are simple. Whoever holds the talking stick can say whatever is on her mind and nobody can interrupt her. When she hands the stick to another family member, before he can speak he must first paraphrase what the last person holding it said. If she doens't feel like he got it right, she can speak again to help him understand. Once she feels that the understands what she's said, it's then his turn to say whatever he wants without being interrupted.

This helps assure that (1) whoever is holding the talking stick can have his/her say and (2) everybody else must listen (they can't speak until they paraphrase what was said). A funny thing happens when you're not allowed to interrupt and when you have to really listen -- communication! It's important to me personally because I always felt like I didn't have a voice, as a child in my parents' house. I want to make sure that our children know they have a voice, and that they know they can speak up.

The other idea I have about the talking stick is to actually have two sticks. One would be something small that can held in a person's hand, but the othe would actually be a big stick, we might even buy a nice walking stick from The Walking Store or someplace similar. My idea is that each child who comes to our home will add something to the big stick. That's more of a family ritual than a parenting precept I guess. But that way, they add a little bit of themselves to the family stick, and if we have foster children who move on to another home (right now we're planning to adopt, but foster parenting is still an option), that's another way of telling them "Even if you don't live with us, your still part of our family."

[marikochan.livejournal.com]

That's a great rule. *files away*

What do you do if, say, they say "Please stop" to your asking them to eat vegetables/clean their room/whatever? Or does it only work on non-verbal behaviors?

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, that never really comes up. They understand it applies to "behavior that is annoying" and seem to realize that parental guidance or authority is just an entirely different kettle of fish.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

An important one for us was never to say, "Because I said so" when asked Why. Even more important, I think, was that we tried never to tell them to do things for which the only answer to Why would be "Because I said so."

(I have the same policy in my copyediting, now that I think about it.)

[peacockharpy.livejournal.com]

Oh, I really like that. I'm going to adopt that one.

Our favorite technique of the moment is the "1 2 3" count. If Meg is doing something we don't want her to do, she has until we count three to stop doing it or there will be Dire Consequences. It gives us a chance to cool down before launching into punishment, and it gives her a chance to recognize misbehavior and step back from it. Usually if she steps back, she gets a "Thank you."

The rules are that the parent must declare "if you don't stop doing {misbehavior} by the time I count three, {Dire Consequence} will occur," but I've often just said, "Meg, ONE." to get her to stop, say, running through the store racks.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Some of my friends' parents had heard of doing this when we were little, but they really didn't want to have to enforce any consequences on the misbehavior. So they would say, "Jill, stop that right now. Jill, I'm going to count to three. Jill, ONE....TWO......two and a half......two and three quarters......."

It may have taught the kid fractions/powers of two, but even at three I could articulate that Jill's mommy wasn't going to do anything, so Jill might as well do what she wanted. So actually hitting three is a good innovation.

[peacockharpy.livejournal.com]

We don't do fractions. (I've seen that, and the watered-down "count to three" doesn't do squat.) When we have gotten to three, there have been Consequences as advertised. There's no sense in setting up a consequence if you aren't willing to carry through!

Of course, this leads to funny (as in funny when you think about it later) things, like Meg yelling "No count to three! NO COUNT TO THREE!" when she's mad about being told to do something she doesn't want to do...

[callunav.livejournal.com]

Interesting.

Working with kids in a behavioral health/psych setting, where you get kids who act just like regular kids except MUCH MUCH MORE SO, and where a lot of them have poor control over their behavior, /feel/ out of control, have few or no coping strategies, and also often have some cognitive delays, one firm rule I formed, after my first year, was "Never count three. Always count five, and always count down." The kids I was working with simply couldn't process fast enough to decide to change their behavior in a count of three, and the shortness of it made them feel pressured, and thus more explosive. And counting down made it much more final. There was a kind of open-endedness to counting up, which counting down avoided. Once I'd said 'One," there really was nowhere left to go. Obviously, that's an emotional interpretation, rather than an argumentatively logical one, but it was surprisingly pervasive.

One of the keys - which I think you hit on - is to be clear what the consequence of not complying by the time you finish before you start - and then, of course, do it if necessary.

But I think it's interesting that kids with fewer disadvantages respond to a count of three. I wasn't sure - it's been so long since I spent much time with kids who didn't need to be in the mental health system!

[peacockharpy.livejournal.com]

I definitely think that what works and what doesn't largely depends on the child and his/her personality. As someone else pointed out, they found that their kids used the count of three to prolong what they were doing until the last possible second. Meg doesn't do that now, but no doubt she'll figure out that little loophole and then we'll have to alter our approach.

I can see where 5 4 3 2 1 would be a better gambit in the situation you describe. It gives the kids that extra time to process and to decide not to do what they're doing, and it limits the expectation that you could go on longer. We usually count down for things like getting out of the bath, thus making it a game ("3, 2, 1... liftoff! and she's flying out of the tub...") and circumventing potential resistance.

[jeanineers.livejournal.com]

I'm glad this technique works well in your family.

In our family there's strong evidence that the 1, 2, 3 count means that the child doesn't actually have to comply when first asked to discontinue poor behavior. She need only comply when she hears the number 3.

I prefer the technique of providing very clear expectations, followed by very clear explanation of consequences. For example, rather than say "I want you to behave in the store"... say, "While we're in the store, I want you to behave in a courteous manner, that means no running, no hiding in close racks, no shouting, no pushing", (and whatever other poor behavior eo which the the child is inclined). Then follow it with the consequences of non compliance. "If you do not behave in a courteous manner, you will lose your gaming privileges for one week", or whatever consequence seems dire enough to catch the child's attention.

And then, here's the hard part, follow through. Once a child, or anyone else really, figures out that you're not actually willing to follow through with a stated consequence, they're free to do as they like. You have given permission to be disobeyed (or in the case of spouses, permission to continue to treat you poorly).

[peacockharpy.livejournal.com]

Well, Meg is three years old, and she hasn't yet figured out the finer points of gaming the system. When the day comes that she starts actively resisting until we hit three (as I'm sure it will), we'll have to come up with something new. As of now, "one" slows her down and makes her think, and she's usually in compliance (or working to get to it) by "two."

We have tried setting clear expectations before we go into a situation (the store, etc.), but at her age, she needs some kind of reminding and reinforcement, which is why counting to three works for her.

Following through with any disciplinary measure is definitely key. It's actually made us pretty careful about what we say we'll do, since we have to be willing to go through with it, too. And once we say "no you can't get in bed with us," for example, no matter how crazy the ensuing demonstration gets, we can't back down.

[http://users.livejournal.com/anam_cara_/]

This why you should be freelancing for family magazines!!!!!!

[dreamflower]

Not sure if it's a "precept" or not, but our son always had to take care of his room and make his bed from the time he was a dinky dude. His grandmother lived with us from the time he was six, and she offered to do his laundry with her own, so that she would have a load. This left me free to do my husband's and my laundry, and the towels and linens and so forth. DS was responsible to bring his clothes down to the laundry room for her.

When he was about 12, we found Grandma bringing his laundry out of his room. Apparently, he was "forgetting" to take it for her. His dad told him that if he "forgot" again, he would have to do his own laundry for a week. If he forgot again, then he would have to do his own laundry from then on. Well, of course that happened, and we didn't relent. The upshot was, that we have a grown son who not only does his own laundry, but puts his own clothes away and irons them as well. And a very grateful daughter-in-law!

[eal.livejournal.com]

Oh I love this.

My son isn't even six months old yet, so I don't think we have any parenting ideas that are super helpful to anyone else.

Although . . . my husband doesn't read parenting books, and so he just tries things with B and lets him learn how to do things without thought about whether B is actually old enough to try it. At almost six months, B can hold his own bottle, hold his stories at story time (so long as they're board books), lean forward to have his bib snapped on, and eat from a spoon. He also lifts up to help with diaper changes. He's a good kid our B.

[catmcroy.livejournal.com]

Tell me about a parenting precept you have enforced which is important to you, and what effect it has in your family and why you think it is worthwhile.

From the moment my daughter was born, I started to really think about my own childhood, in particular, the words "bad" and "good". I have tried to never refer to my daughter, herself, as bad. I've made a conscious effort to differentiate between herself and her behaviour. For example, "Anie, you did bad. Go to your room." instead of calling her a bad girl. I knew it had taken root when she was about 17 months and knew she wasn't supposed to touch the computer. Dialogue ensued.

Anie: Mummy, look
Me: *looks*
Anie: *touches computer keyboard* I do bad. Sap hand *smacks her own hand*

I really like the idea of "please, stop", though that being said I'm raising an only child here

[aome.livejournal.com]

How old were they when you began the "Please stop" policy? I like it! We try to respect the wishes of our kids, and point them out to the other one, ie "MiniPlu said she doesn't want you to push her on the little car right now", but to have a flat policy is good. What do you do if Child B doesn't respect Child A's "Please stop"? What is their motivation to comply? (We use general timeouts and redirection and such, but I'm curious to hear how the policy is implemented in full, at your house.) What about if they use "Please stop" for something selfish, ie, not wanting to share something that should be shared?

As for us - I suppose it's a pretty general, common-sense thing, nothing earth-shattering, but we don't promise or threaten anything we don't intend to follow-up on. If I promise to read a story after I've finished the dishes, I do it. If I somehow forget, and the girls remind me, I apologize for letting down my end of the bargain, and I uphold it immediately. If we threaten consequences for misbehavior, we give them the choice to behave or get Consequences, and always deliver. If they object, we remind them they had the choice. That way, they know that what we say can be trusted, and isn't just words.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Their motivation to comply is that pretty soon they figure out that it works both ways: if they respect the rule if their sibling says "Please stop" to them, then they can in turn count on their sibling stopping annoying behavior if asked to do so. We started the rule very early; I don't remember exactly when, but I'm pretty sure it was while Delia was still pre-verbal.

[qwyneth.livejournal.com]

I showed my boyfriend this, actually (we're raising his son), and he come up with the same idea, basically. Apparently he was the kind of kid (total jerk) that would have gamed the system so as to try and make his sisters have to stop doing something that wasn't bugging him, just to bug them. I really, really, really like this idea, but it makes me worry about whether it would work for us.

[qwyneth.livejournal.com]

*came. CAME, for god's sake. Not come. Ugh.

[naomikritzer]

Never turning on the TV.

Okay, to clarify, we do turn it on sometimes in the evening (for instance, we've had it on three times to watch the Olympics) and when Molly is really sick we'll turn on the TV and let her veg out for as long as she wants. But we've never gotten into the habit of having it on, at all, during the day. Partly this is just because our reception is so bad that we can't get any of the decent children's program on PBS. (We don't have cable.) And the TV is almost always on at the health club childcare, so they get to see it there.

The results I see:

* They don't nag me for stuff because they saw it advertised.
* When they're in a bored, I-want-to-be-entertained mood they bug me to set up a play-date, take them to the park, read to them, or let them bake cookies. Turning on the TV never comes up.
* They're really, really good at amusing themselves in active ways.

There are other things that I think may be the result of their minimal TV exposure, like their really weird creativity, but there are plenty of creative kids who watch TV. I will say that most of the other kids I know this age who get a more typical amount of TV nag endlessly to watch more of it, and seem to have a much higher expectation that people will entertain them.

[aeditimi.livejournal.com]

I grew up without television, because we had no reception and my parents thought it rots one's brain. Aside from the fact that my college friends and my husband make fun of me from time to time about not knowing the pop culture of my childhood, I think it was the best thing that ever happened to me. I think my sister and I read more, playerd more, reflected more, did better in school and socially, all because we hardly ever veged out in front of the TV (except right now, because te olympics are on...) Bravo.

[ldygwynedd.livejournal.com]

The please stop rule sounds awesome. I wish I had thought of it when I was raising kids.

The best thing we ever came up with was the self-regulating time out. If one of the children was being objectionable, we'd send them to time out with the proviso, "When you are ready to (follow the rules) (stop teasing the dog) (whatever the behavior is you wish to stop) you can get off the chair (our time out station)." The chair was a wooden rocker in a quiet part of the house.

Now of course, the kid would go to the chair, sit on it, and then pop right off, but 9 times out of 10 the misbehavior would stop and not reappear. If it didn't, he/she was sent back until he/she was ready to stop being objectionable but this hardly ever happened.

The best thing about this is that the child learned that he or she was responsible for his or her behavior. He/she was in control of it. He/she could change their behavior and get immediate consequences. It wasn't so much punishment as a regrouping but the end result was we had kids who were in control of their behavior and took complete responsibility for their actions.

[jeanineers.livejournal.com]

Oh! that technique worked really well for my brother. When he was behaving poorly mom would send him to his room. He could come out as soon as he could behave better (or master his emotions if he was having a fit). It worked so well for him because he HATED to be away from everyone else. He would do just about anything to make sure he was with his pack.

The technique did not work for me. Fine! Send me to my room, it's where my stuff is. I'll just read, or write, or listen to music... I suspect I would have sat in the "time out" chair until I fell asleep. I was very contrary, willful and independent. I didn't need the pack thankyouverymuch.

I really don't know how my mother survived my 17th year.

[weaselmom.livejournal.com]

You *were* contrary, willful and independent? ::looks at you - looks at cat - looks at Scott - looks back at you:: What is this "were"? ;-)

[jeanineers.livejournal.com]

True. I continue contrary, willful and independent.



and
I still like to be sent to my room.

[ldygwynedd.livejournal.com]

The reason it didn't work for you was because you wanted control and your mother wanted to punish you. The way you got control was by making sure your mother's punishment wasn't effective. That sounds pretty clever to me, honestly.

In our case we wanted our children to realize that they have control over themselves and so we gave control to our children over their behavior up front. It worked. My children are fine people. Cassie is 24 and Jonathan is 20. We didn't have a hard time raising them and we didn't have those "traditional" rebellious years that every one says all teens have. I believe that this has a lot to do with the fact I've taught high school for twenty-some years and understand the nature of the beast.

It's all in perspective.

We rarely had to punish our children but, especially with our son who could be impulsive, we did have to "remind him to think first" on many occasions.

A time out place shouldn't be the child's bedroom for exactly the reasons you said. It needs to be a specific, quiet place away from stimulation.

[franticgoddess.livejournal.com]

When I was little and protested or dragged my feet about doing something, mom would say:

We can do this the easy way, or the hard way.

For a long time My reaction was "NO, I don't want to do it the hard way!" And thus, we went for the easy way where mom explained why I was being asked to do what I was being asked to do, or whatever. This worked for a really long time, until one day I said "Mom, what is the hard way anyway?" She then explained that the hard way involved me whining and screaming and us both getting angry and in the end I do the thing anyway. "Oh," said I, "The easy way is better."

It didn't work tooooo great all the time after that, but sometimes I still think about tasks in those terms. The easy way or hard way :)

[snippy]

The first one was: when I'm in the bathroom I don't exist. No talking to me through the door! Eventually we also had "the invisible robe" and the person who is wearing it is invisible except that everyone can take care of them by loving them and doing things for them--you wear the invisible robe when you're feeling low or exhausted or the kind of sick where you're cranky.

The second one was: everybody must knock on closed doors, whether it's a bedroom door or bathroom or whatever. No just bursting in, everyone is entitled to notice that someone's coming and in most cases you have to wait for permission if appropriate (e.g., entering someone's non-shared bedroom, or the bathroom).

The third one grows out of both of those: r.h.i.p. Rank Hath Its Privileges. I'm the mom and because I have more responsibilities I get more privileges. And so on down the line.

[aeditimi.livejournal.com]

We haven't been at this very long--only a year--but our one rule so far for us as parents is Stand Together. So far it mostly takes the form of mid-night stamina, as we teach LittleOne to sleep through the night (or to eat her dinner and therefore not go to bed a bit peckish). When she starts her sob story or her whining or whatever it is, we say to eachother, "be strong" or "stand together." The idea being that as long as we are on the same page when we draw a line, we can handle it together. Love the please stop rule, and will use it if we have another (or a reason to teach our one and only).

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, that is one that we use, too. We have taught the girls from the beginning that with us they cannot play Divide and Conquer. "If Daddy said "x" then that's the way it's going to be. So why are you asking me?"

Another rule of thumb for us is that if Mommy and Daddy disagree privately on anything, the option which is more conservative in terms of safety wins by default.

[jeanineers.livejournal.com]

This is hard. Especially when it comes to little things. I think it's easier to show a united front over the big things. There is often some small thing that one spouse feels strongly about that the other spouse just doesn't get at all.

The following situation was shared by a friend of mine.
The unenforceable rule: Don't leave have full glasses on milk around the house.
My friend thought it important for reasons of cleanliness, etc. And why should she have to hunt down the awful smell to find the glass?
Her hubby thought it unimportant. Just go through the house and pick up any glasses that are around. Including glasses, cups and pop cans left around the house by said hubby.

I thought it important to enforce the rule for everyone. If her husband couldn't or wouldn't show her respect by standing by her, she should try corrective behavior. I suggested that she explain how it makes her feel to be the biotox technician in the family and that the kids are learning to disrespect her. I suggested (almost facetiously) that the husband's desk become the lab bench for all the experiments found around the house that originated with the him. Simply continue to gather glasses, cups, cans, etc. as she has been, but leave his stuff on his desk. I figured that it wouldn't be long before he'd be happy to back her up in this little thing.

Sadly she decided to go down the path of least resistance and makes a daily pass through the house for glasses, cups, etc. Not too surprisingly she now finds plates, bowls and other stuff left behind by other family members. After all, mommy will take care of it. (And mommy is becoming resentful and very unhappy. Torn between loving her family and hating living in a house with them).

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

Does that mean if I come live in GA you won't talk to me?

Oh, and I'm at work. Frozen in whee! But yay for DOUBLE TIME!

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

You are most welcome to add me. Glad you enjoyed the entry.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

Love the "please stop" rule. It's nice because it redirects the kids to solving their own problem rather than trying to get parent's attention. Probably works best when the kids are close to the same age.

My parents had some good rules. I think the best one was the "crying and whining rule." It was based on the precept that when children get tired they start crying and whining (for some reason, none of us kids ever questioned that fact). So... the rule was that you didn't have to go to bed if you weren't tired, but if you started crying and whining you had to go to bed without argument. I think you got 2 warnings, and on the 3rd notice it was off to bed with no backtalk. The kids liked it because it gave us a sense of control. If we wanted to stay up later, we just had to behave ourselves. I think it also helped us learn to monitor our own behavior and recognize when we were tired. The advantages to the parents are obvious.

This rule worked really well in a family of 5 kids. I don't recall using it with my 2 kids. You don't really need it with the 1st kid (because the crying and whining usually comes out of interaction with siblings) and my second child had no problem realizing that she was ready for bed.

[whapnoggin.livejournal.com]

I'm not a parent yet, so I don't have rules of my own, but I think this is wonderful. It would have been extremely useful!

[jemyl.livejournal.com]

I really like the "Please stop" rule and will be referring my daughter to this entry since her three love to argue and tease whenever she is on the phone.

I used to count to three, a hand down from my parents. One of the most important rules that we had once our youngest was about six was the "no bedtime but a getting up time" rule. It grew out of a counseling session our class viewed as part of my master's training and my girls called it Mother's Psych Rule.

I was tired of fighting with my girls over bedtime and of all of the delays of glasses of water, bathroom again, lights on, lights off and just plain, "but I don't WANT to go to bed yet" that went on in our house too. Therefore I talked with my husband and we decided to try the rule suggested to the counseling couple for their children. It was a really simple concept. There was no more set bedtime for either child. They could stay up as late as they wished or go to bed as early as they wished. After ten p.m., however, they had to ask and get parental premission to be out in the common rooms of the house, watching TV or such and it was considered to be quiet time for everyone if someone went to bed early.

While this sounds like a child's dream, there was a corollary to it. They were required to get up in the morning and go to school on time and being sleepy was not tolerated as an excuse to stay home. Any and all methods of assuring their compliance with the getting up time were allowed, up to and including being dressed by a parent and bodily placed in their desk at school. (That was never required in our experience but was mentioned as one of the consequences of non-compliance.) We also warned the school and the teachers that we were doing this and encouraged them to give no quarter and not to accept sleepiness as a reason for not doing anything required. In other words, the girls would bear the consequences of not getting enough sleep.

The results of this rule were absolutely amazing. The first week, they tested the rule by staying up until after midnight for three nights and getting permission to watch a late night movie on TV. I only had to blast them with Sousa Marches to get them up one morning. The rest of the time they got up and went off to school on schedule. That week my older daugher got her first C on a math test. By the end of the second week both girls were going to bed at a decent hour and often earlier than their former bedtime. They had learned to plan carefully and to take a nap after school on those days when they particularly wanted to watch a late night movie or program and they made sure that we approved of the program. There was no more fighting over bedtimes. They soon also were getting up happy and their school work improved as well. My younger daughter started getting straight A's and my older one was back on the dean's list.

[jemyl.livejournal.com]

(Sorry it takes two to do the rest) One rule that I also found useful was the "two to tangle" rule. Whenever the girls fought, and they did, I found the she did, no she did whining more than I wanted to deal with, since it was usually difficult to sort out who started it and such. Therefore I would simple say, "It obviously takes two to tangle so both of you time out on the sofa for X minutes (usually five or ten) and until you can do those minutes without making faces at each other. As they got a bit older they would start to fight and look at each other and say "two to tangle" and cool it before I had to break it up. They both HATED having to sit on either end of the sofa with nothing to do for five minutes.

The other, often humorous, kind of rule we had was "put some ice on it". This evolved because my girls fell down a lot, as kids do, and my younger one would come crying like the world was about to end. I would look at the bump, on either girl and say, "Let's put some ice on it to see if that helps." This seemed to happen most frequently when we were out camping and, after a while, nomatter where we were, whenever anyone got hurt the tears would start and then, ver shortly and getting shorter as they aged, the injured child would say, heading for the ice box or the refrigerator, "I know, put some ice on it." It got so even now when one of the family gets hurt, everyone else says, almost in unison, "put some ice on it." It has saved many a trip to the E.R. over a minor injury and it let the girls feel somewhat in charge of their pain and that something was being done about it which seemed to limit the wailing and screaming. Of course, if it was something serious, we would go to the E.R. but with a calmer child holding an icepack on the injury.

Those of you who know first aid will see what this did. The ice helped swelling and the pressure stopped almost all bleeding and doing something changed to focus to doing something from being a sad victim. The ice also tended to limit the pain or to stop some of it.

My girls are now 40 and 44 and both successful women, one as a career woman and one as a full time mother and homemaker. I am glad that they are grown as I think the world today is a much more dangerous place in which to bring up children. Both of my girls are very independent women. I feel strongly that parents have done their job when their children learn to think for themselves and become adults able to disagree with their parents in a constructive way. I think that it is also important that children learn and experience, within reason, the natural consquences of their actions. For example, if you don't put your clothing in the hamper, it won't get washed and then you have to wear dirty clothing to school and if it smells, you WILL be teased or asked to leave. Also, if you don't do your homework there are consequences and you may not stay home "sick" because you didn't do it. (We did allow one mental health day a month not on a test day, which, once allowed, were very rarely taken.)

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Interesting. My mom used to say that the "It takes two to Tango." (Referring to the Tango dance).

[jemyl.livejournal.com]

Welllll, when I first mentioned it with tango, my one literalist child told me, quite seriously, that she and her sister were not dancing. Therefore I changed it to tangle which circumvented her literalist reply quite nicely. Both of my girls have IQ's in the gifted range which made disciplining them interesting as they both liked to find ways to wiggle out of stuff. That is one reason we learned to make consequences as natural as possible. It is also why we found it necessary to institute the "rank has privilege and veto power" and parents outrank everyone rules, though we only invoked them as a last resort.

I think one of the most important rules for my sanity was the "house rules apply" idea. That means that in whosever house one is at the moment determines what rules apply at that time. Grandma Dind let them jump on her bed. I didn't at home and neither did Grandma Dutchy. Certain foods and eating snacks or coffee drinking, etc., were observed at various Aunts', Uncles' and Grandmas' Houses ONLY. The girls soon adjusted to knowing which rules applied where and I could relax, knowing that when they were at home my rules would apply and other relatives could "spoil" or "treat" them to different ideas without my having to defend my home rules or try to enforce them all when we were not at home. Nowhere was this better illustrated than the day both girls began jumping on Grandma Dutchy's new sofa. She inquired as to what on Earth they thought they were doing. The girls looked at each other, said in unison "Oops! Wrong house!" and immediately sat down and then said, "Sorry Grandma" from one and "We forgot where we were for a minute" from the other. It turned out that Grandma Dind let the girls get rid of their energy by bouncing on the basement sofa or on one of the upstairs beds on rainy days when they were visiting. When I asked the girls about it later they also said, "but we know which sofa and beds are jumping ones and that Grandma Dutchy and you and Daddy have a no furniture jumping rule."