Simply Mother

I’m no longer a grouch and I best get that last post off the main page–I don’t want this website to be a depressing place to visit. But I am trying to keep it real, and the real me is sometimes grumpy, so there ya go.

But I suppose some of you want to hear more on what I think of that book, now that I’ve read more than the first few chapters.

I haven’t quite finished it–the author is extremely wordy (Imagine if I wrote a book. Yeah.) I like it pretty well, but I’ll tell you, those first few chapters were the most helpful to me–where she describes “spirit” and presents all the little things kids do that sometimes drive their parents up the wall in a more positive light, giving explanations for the behaviors that help me respond much better than when all I can come up with is that she’s trying to make me crazy.

Many of her suggestions are things we’ve always done anyway (on good days), but reading them kind of gave me validation, making it easier for me to continue doing them even when it’s hard or it goes against what feels like the “natural” response. (Don’t tell me I should be listening to my natural response, either. My natural response repertoire includes things like yelling, shaming, using sarcasm, and generally being punitive. This is the “nature” I’m trying to overcome with all the books, I tell you!) (I don’t do those things, by the way, at least, not often and if I do slip, I catch myself within seconds, but they are right there on the surface all the time. Still. Don’t know what to do about that.)

I like how her suggestions focus on the question, “How can I help my child be successful at ___?” rather than, “How can I make her stop ___?” Or just, “How can I make him behave.” We want our kids to feel good about the way they are and what they do, not just stop being a bother to us, right? Focusing on planning my day and doing the little things I can do to help them get through struggles positively is a better perspective for me, because it makes me more willing to work with my kids–to see what it is they need and help them get it. Once I do that, and they feel me “on their side,” they’re much more cooperative.

Labels

I have mixed feelings about the whole “spirit” thing, actually. I mean, on one hand, it’s been very helpful to see that some kids are just “more” of certain traits, and thus, tougher to parent. It relieves a lot of the “What am I doing wrong?” feelings I’ve had over the years with Sarah. I never could imagine a child just taking a nap, you know, like you read her a story and then say “Have a good sleep,” and walk out. And she STAYS there. And SLEEPS.

Goodness, gracious, I was certain anybody who got their kid to do that must have some amazing, top-secret parenting techniques or else the poor kid was suffering from terrible abuse and manipulation because that’s what it would have taken to get Sarah to do that! (Okay, no, I didn’t really think anybody was abusing their kids, trust me, I just Did Not Understand how that kind of nap structure was ever achieved without extreme coercion.) Until, of course, I had Jade. And what I described is exactly what she does. (Yes, she’s back to having naps now, and going to bed with her sister at 9.)

I really loved reading about all the different traits that it is common for “spirited” children to be “more” of. I found it very enlightening and also comforting.

But at the same time, I don’t know. “Spirit” really is just another label, and even though it’s positive and wonderful and the whole concept has really helped the way I see certain behaviors, I just hate to “tag” anybody with ANY label. Oh, that’s just because she’s “spirited.” That kind of thing. Which isn’t at all the direction the author is recommending; I guess I’m just afraid of the label being used that way.

Honestly, I think ALL kids–whether they score “spirited,” “spunky,” or “cool” with her little rating system– can benefit from a perspective like this–one that takes into account their limitations (just by virtue of them being CHILDREN, regardless of temperament), their needs–and that what they’re expressing should generally be seen as a legitimate concern.

Consequences

She does talk briefly about using “consequences” in the way that really is just a euphemism for punishment. (As in, “If you’re fighting with you’re brother, you’re ‘choosing’ the ‘consequence’ of having to wash the dishes.) If you’ve read any of my previous blogs (and I know that isn’t very many of you, owing to my habit of abandoning websites without warning, or telling anybody where to find me later), you know that isn’t really something we do. Partly because I read Unconditional Parenting way in the beginning of this gig and Alfie Kohn got me to rethink the whole punishment/reward model.

But part of it, I think, is that that model was just so way wrong for Sarah. (Maybe I should bring back some of those old posts that describe this more.) She just literally turned off–or resisted further–with anything even remotely close to a threat/punishment, or even bribes/rewards. I think that is very common to the type of kids the author of this Spirited Child book is writing about, which is why it’s so weird to me that she even suggests it at all. Especially since all her other advice is so geared toward “working with” your kids instead of “doing to” them. (Alfie Kohn phrases.)

For us, all the “working with” approaches in the world would be totally negated with a single, “But if you still don’t obey, here’s how I’m going to punish you.”

What do I know, though? I only have my own kids to go by, and the author has given workshops and such for thousands of parents–maybe that approach really is necessary and helpful for some kids. We just haven’t found it to be so in our family. It would totally backfire.

It seems a little silly to me anyway–I mean, if we’re so certain that they just cannot do something, why would we give them the choice to do it–as long as they agree to wash the dishes later? In my mind, if you’re just not going to allow something, then you just don’t. You [gently!] stop them. You say, “I won’t let you hurt your sister. Here, I will help you stop.” You don’t say, “You can hurt her, but you’ll have to sit in a corner afterward.”

Here’s the thing though, she really does use kids fighting with each other as an example of a time to possibly employ a consequence (or at least a reminder of the consequence). To me, her suggestion of saying, “Hey, remember if you fight you lose xyz privilege” is the complete opposite of everything she’s saying in her book.

A more fitting response would be to recognize the obvious limitation that small children aren’t especially skilled in problem solving and perspective taking, and help them succeed at working through their dilemma. Saying “Stop fighting or else” doesn’t offer an ounce of helpful advice!

Later on in the book she gives a great example of how to actually be helpful in a situation like that. It’s why I just can’t make any sense of the few paragraphs she spends talking about using “consequences that work.” If you do everything else she suggests, and follow her general theory, consequences in the way she describes become unnecessary, irrelevant, and potentially even counter-productive.

Overall though, the book has excellent suggestions, offers a very benevolent perspective of children, shows how to provide information and instruction without blaming and shaming, and provides plenty of real-life examples. Though the author takes a long time to make her point (and who am I to talk?) the subheadings and chapter summaries still make it an easy reference book. Definitely recommend.

Filed in: parenting • self-reflection | May 27, 2009