[snlemon]

I'm reading this book my mom lent me. She lent it to me becuase she doesn't like to read and she wanted to know what it was about...so I'm reading it.
Anyways, it's basically about the use of discipline, training, establishing the bond with your child.

At first I was intrested because they talked about how if you have to discipline your child, you've already missed the opppurtunity to train them to avoid the behaviour type thing.... Then I was repulsed becuase their training involves using a light swat on the hand (for young children and babies). Then I was intrested becuase they focused on being sensitive to your child's needs and establishing bonds with them, and using training and if you need disciplining in love (aka no emotional outbursts, no yelling, very calm instruction and care when correcting the child). So at this point I've decided to just let DH read the book and see what he thinks before I make a decision.

Anyways, so the very first training session they say to do is to teach the child not to touch things they shouldn't and responding to you saying "No". They reccomend putting the baby down and putting something in front of him that he shouldn't touch. When the baby reaches for it you say "No" in just your normal voice and when they reach for it you just lightly swat them on the hand (not to hurt them, just to make them aware of what's going on). Then put the object back in front of them and repeat until the baby stops reaching for the object. They said that in all the babies they've ever done it with, it only take a couple tries and the baby will then respond to the first NO that they hear. They said that mostly this first lesson is for the baby's safety as well as lying the foundation for future training.

But I just can't help wondering...does a 6-10 month old baby even understand the word No? Or is that part of the training...teaching them to respond to the word? I don't know...I'm not starting a debate, I'm just wondering your opinion....
I know there are a lot of AP mommies in here so I'm sure you guys won't like this idea...but IDK, they way they present it seems to make a lot of sense and have a lot of love behind it.

[toasty]

that is interesting, well there are definitely lots of theories on discipline! I dont know if a baby would understand the concept of no, they might with practice. I guess it also depends how you want to define discipline. To me discipline is better used as a method to develop a certain character from within rather than following prescribed rules of behavior, which is what "training" would accomplish.

Also from my experience kids that hear "no" all the time for every little thing quickly learn to ignore it, and dont percieve the word to have the same urgency and importance as kids who only hear "no" for more severe behaviors. A gentle redirective approach is usually better than learning to obey "no" fifty times a day in my opinion. I dont think there is a rush to get started yet, If you have a close bond to begin with and practice consistency in your methods once you need them, then there shouldnt be too many discipline problems in the future.

[LaughALittle]

Obviously I wouldn't be speaking from personal experience but I would be inclined to say that, yes they can understand "No" even at that age. Nancy has been making some of her needs known other than crying, its more like a "heh heh heh" when she wants something. For instance, she has recently discovered the big red light on the remote control for the TV. She always wants the controller and to press buttons....same thing with the computer keyboard. Once you go to take it away from her, she starts the "heh heh heh" which will ramp up to a crying session unless you give it back. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks too.

[Hailee&Nevansmommy]

Not right away, but after a while, I think they do start to understand it.

[Nykoal]

I have issues with "swatting" period and especially at this young age. Hands are for expressing love and I can't see how they would not associate your hand with pain if you "swat" them with it. Sounds like Pavlov's Classical Condition theory where you do something often enough you'll just not do it because you associate a negitive response instead. SO they're not learning No in as much as fearing the swat if they touch that object.

I also don't like to use the word NO. It's often the 1st word a child learns and nothing bothers me more than to hear a child saying no and using that as their only word. I use words like "Not now", "later", "Uh uh", "please dont", "in a while", etc. My house has no child proof gear in it. I don't have gates up, no locks on cabinets, etc. I can say please leave that alone and Mak will listen. There are other training methods to use IMO than using physical touch as a punishment.

I'm not really sure how much a 6 month old understands in terms of cognitive understanding (if I touch this...this will happen). Relation yes, but rational reasoning as I shouldn't touch this because mommy wouldn't like it....hmmmm.

[mama2jude&rogen]

I agree with Nicole.

[Momof4Boyz]

Originally Posted by Nykoal

I have issues with "swatting" period and especially at this young age. Hands are for expressing love and I can't see how they would not associate your hand with pain if you "swat" them with it. Sounds like Pavlov's Classical Condition theory where you do something often enough you'll just not do it because you associate a negitive response instead. SO they're not learning No in as much as fearing the swat if they touch that object.

I agree.

Originally Posted by snlemon

When the baby reaches for it you say "No" in just your normal voice and when they reach for it you just lightly swat them on the hand (not to hurt them, just to make them aware of what's going on). Then put the object back in front of them and repeat until the baby stops reaching for the object.

This sounds cruel in my opinion
We are not training dogs here, but raising trusting human beings and to swat their hand and purposely put something back in front of them and then swat again until they stop just doesn't make sense to me. I know your just asking opinions...but I'd be leary of that book!

And I have no idea if a baby could learn the word "no" at this point...I need to do some reading on that one, because yes, I am a fellow bookworm too

[IsraelSofiaMalachi&baby]

i know they can understand that young but i agree that that sounds cruel to put something in front of them theyre not supposed to touch and then slap them!!!

[Hailee&Nevansmommy]

I dont say "no" either.. if Hailee would touch things when she was little, id say please dont touch, or if i was frusterated.. dont touch.

[toasty]

Just curious Sarah, what is the title and date of the book? Is it an older or newer school of thought?

[snlemon]

It's called Train Up A Child or something....I think it's an older school of thought...and you'd def have to read the whole thing becuase I can only imagine if like a random quote was pulled it would sound horrible.
I mean they have some good points...so I guess it's like everything else, just take it all with a grain of salt and do what works for you.

I'm having my husband read it to see what he thinks.

[Nykoal]

I just googled the book Train Up A Child by Michael and Debi Pearl and have serious issues with it.

I'm a Christian, raised in a Christian family, was a Children's Pastor for a while, and very involved in my church now. I firmly believe in Proverbs 22:6 but I have red flags when I read the book talk about starting obedience training BEFORE the issues arise. It's like setting your child up and making situations for you to trick/tempt them into doing something wrong so you can "redirect" their behaviour.

I'm from the school of thought that behaviour is modelled by parents. If I don't want children who yell, DH & I won't yell either. If I don't want my children to hit, DH & I won't hit each other or them. If I don't want full blown temper tantrums than DH & I don't have fits of anger. You get the idea...

I believe in being proactive and not reactive. I've worked with over thousands in children over the past 17yrs and have learned a thing or 2 about working with children and dealing with behaviour issues and discipline. Hitting or "training sessions" have never entered the equation.

I believe it's our duty as parents to train/discipine our children and to do it out of love and by modeling the behaviour that we want from them. The dictionary meaning of discipline is to instruct a person to follow a particular code of conduct or "order. The author of the book goes into detail how they use the hand swat as a "training session" and goes into disturbing details about how they go about with these "training sessions". Here are some excepts from the book. The website I took it from has given permission to copy these exerpts.

One father tells of his training sessions with each new toddler. He sets aside an evening for "booty" camp, which is a boot camp for toddlers. The child of ten to twelve months is left alone to become deeply interested in a toy or some delightful object. From across the room or just inside the other room, the father calls the child. If he ignores the call, the father goes to him and explains the necessity of immediately coming when called, and then leads him to the father's chair. The child thus led through these paces is being programmed.

He is returned to the toy and left alone long enough to again become engrossed. Another call, and, if no response, the father gives a patient explanation and demonstration of the desired response. The parent, having assured himself of the child's understanding, once again sets up the situation and calls the child. This time, if there is not an immediate response the child is lightly spanked and lectured. The father continues this throughout the evening until the child readily and immediately responds to a summons. Thereafter, until the child leaves home, he is expected to drop everything and come upon the first call.

I have better things to do with my time than set my daughters up to fail so I can teach them an object lession on learning to obey my commands. The book is rather disturbing from the passages that I read. It uses a lot of hitting and actually encourages starting to spank at as young as 10-12 months and give them a lecture!

A newborn soon needs training...The battle for control has begun in earnest. Someone is going to be conditioned. Either the tender-hearted mother will cave in to this self-centered demand (thus training the child to get his way by crying) or the infant is allowed to cry (learning that crying is counterproductive).

Crying because of genuine physical need is simply the infant's only voice to the outside world; but crying in order to manipulate the adults into constant servitude should never be rewarded. Otherwise, you will reinforce the child's growing self-centeredness, which will eventually become socially intolerable

I'm speechless! Don't even get me started on CIO but to say that by my answering my childs cries is reinforcing their self-centredness and she will become socially intolerable and that she's manipulating me is just wrong on so many levels.

One of our girls who developed mobility early had a fascination with crawling up the stairs. At four months she was too unknowing to be punished for disobedience. But for her own good, we attempted to train her not to climb the stairs by coordinating the voice command of "No" with little spats on the bare legs. The switch was a twelve-inch long, one-eighth-inch diameter sprig from a willow tree.

I could go on and on and quote from this book but I would encourage anybody to just put it down and walk away FAST! Using a switch from a willow tree on a 4 month old???

There are different methods of parenting and some believe in spanking and some don't. I'm not touching the spanking debate with a 10 foot pole but I think I am safe to assume that those who do believe in spanking don't do so on a 4 month. I'm sorry but this seems like an abuse manual not a child raising book!

[LaLaRose3]

I am only going to say that I STRONGLY agree with Nicole. If I say much else this will most likely turn into a heated debate.

Originally Posted by nykoal

i'm sorry but this seems like an abuse manual not a child raising book!

yes, yes, yes!



*steps away from the keyboard*

[mama2jude&rogen]

I'm going to have to go with Nicole and Lauren on this one.....

Especially after reading this part....

Have you ever been the victim of tiny inquisitive hands? The very young child, not yet walking, is keen on wanting to grab any object of interest. There is no fault in this, but sometimes it can be annoying. When you are holding a baby and he keeps pulling off your glasses, you cannot explain to him the impropriety of such socially crude behavior. The little tot is not yet moved by fear of rejection. So, do you try to hold him in a pinned-down fashion where he can't get to your face? No, you train him not to touch. Once you train an infant to respond to the command of 'No," then you will have control in every area where a prohibition is in order.

Get set for training. Hold him where he can easily reach your glasses. Look him right in the eye. He reaches out. Don't pull back. Don't defend yourself.' Calmly say, No." If anything, lower your voice, don't raise it. Don't sound more serious than usual. Remember you are establishing a pattern of command to be used the rest of his youth. When he touches the glasses, again say, "No," and accompany your command with minor pain. He will pull his hand back and try to comprehend the association of grabbing the glasses and pain. (I usually just thumped their little hand with my index finger. I never knew one to cry. They don't even know that you did it. They think it was the glasses, or perhaps the "No" itself causes pain.) Inevitably, he will return to the bait to test his new theory. Sure enough, again the glasses caused pain; and the pain is always accompanied by a quiet little "No." It may take one or two more tries for him to give up his career as glasses snatcher, but he will.

Through this process of association the child will involuntarily recall the pain every time he hears the word "No." There comes a time when your word alone is sufficient to gain obedience.

You can also stop him from assaulting his mother with a bottle held by the nipple. The same holds true for hair and beard pulling. You name it, the infant can be trained to obey. Do you want to wrestle with him through his entire youth, nagging him to compliance, threatening, placing things out of reach, fearing what he might get into next? Or would it be better to take a little time to train? If nothing else, training will result in saving you time.

I know a mother who must call a baby-sitter every time she takes a shower. You should be able to take a nap and expect to find the house in order when you wake.

I'll take the annoyance, over inflicting minor pain upon my inquisitve baby...

I have and do spank Jude when I feel it's necessary (which is rare)...but this seems to be WAY above and beyond that!

[IsraelSofiaMalachi&baby]

wow i am speechless! that is plain horrible!

[gratefulmama]

I totally agree with Nicole.

[wclark602002]

not debating here either but i think its cruel to put sumthin in front of a baby so they will go after it to be told no....thats just mean.now once they are up and movin around i wouldnt say move everything (only the dangerous stuff) but leave the rest and when they go after it say no then but to tease them like that is not right.and the hand swatting i wold say no to as well,yeah they would learn no but to have it associated with a smack...naaa not my thing.JMO

[lttle_one]

I agree with Nicole.

[snlemon]

yeah and that's why I said you have to read the whole book and you just can't pull quotes...becuase yeah I went through the same thing thinking OMG this is terrible but as you continue reading they really explain their position well enough to make it seem like, hey if someone chooses to do that it's fine but maybe not your cup of tea.

Sigh....I'm not a monster really but you have to actually read it before deciding things.