Teach Your Babies Well

The following was originally posted in thread on Gentle Christian Mothers called, “…And I’m the Strict One!“and is a follow up to my previous post, Teach Your Children Well.

At 4 months, what you want to be doing is starting the phase of ‘discipline’ that I call “show and tell” — it’s not a phase where you expect the baby to *do* anything at all. I mean that! And I know it doesn’t make sense to say “start discipline” and “the baby doesn’t do anything” when you are coming from a punitive mindset.

What “show and tell” means is that you are building the vocabulary for whatever you want him/her to be able to do without thinking twice once s/he is a toddler. You build vocabulary by saying a word and simultaneously doing that thing to the baby.

For example, when you say “Up” as you pick a baby up, that’s ‘show and tell’ — but of course, “Up” is not an instruction you want your toddler to follow later, so it’s not a good example of how ‘show and tell’ is a good start to good discipline. It’s just an example of the way that people naturally know that ‘show and tell’ is how you teach stuff to babies. It’s how they learn. That’s why it’s the method you choose when you teach everything, including when you teach the vocabulary you want them to grasp for following instructions. It’s a game. It’s no big deal.

At this stage you have TONS of time. Start by thinking and trying out what words you plan to use as your primary ‘words of instruction’. Once you’ve got them figured out, you need to *stop* using them as ordinary parts of chit-chat and *only* use them when you are going to be ‘show and tell’-ing. Your instruction words should be short and sweet. When possible, they should say what ‘is happening / what to do’ instead of ‘what not to do’. Try not to start with more than 6 to 10 instruction words. Select them carefully and always use them identically. (Many of these instruction words are going to sound like dog commands or military drill commands. That’s OK… it’s basically the same idea.)

This is training for you in pre-GOYB parenting. If you are not going to *do* anything, it’s best not to *say* an instruction at all — otherwise you confuse the child about the instructions that sometimes ‘happens’ and sometimes nothing happens. It waters down your ability to assert authority by spoken words. You are trying to build the bedrock of discipline which is Mommy’s instructions always come true. Emphasis on the *ALWAYS* part — you are trying to make them accept that ‘fact’ as a functional part of their scientific model of their universe. It can be hard to backtrack and make that happen for an older child, but it’s easy when you start with a baby, beginning with ‘show and tell’ teaching.

AND I MEAN teaching not training, not ‘expecting’ — no consiquences, nothing to interrupt the flow of your loving days of fun with baby. Nothing like that. Just like saying “Up!” when you pick him/her up, try things like…

Saying “Still.” (or) “Be still.” — while gently and briefly holding the baby still.

Saying “Hands off.” (or) “Open hand.” (or) “Release.” — while gently prying little hands off of things, or while hovering little hands where they can’t quite reach a thing they would like to grasp.

Saying “Give.” (or) “Give to Mama.” — while taking or trading with toys.

Saying “Careful.” (or) “Careful <relevant body part>.” — while using the child’s body parts in gentle, slow or careful ways.

– when mobile / crawling –

Saying “Back Away” (or) “Come Away” (or) “Redirect” — while pulling the baby back from their destination of interest.

{{{Note: if you have a place/location/object where the baby consistently isn’t going to be allowed, define that place/location/object clearly, give it a name, then add that to the instruction word, such as, “Come away; fish tank.” This is called adding a specifier (which should be consistent) to a known instruction word. You can also use specifiers with above instruction words for example, “Hands off; laptop.” Pause after the instruction word so that the baby gets it clearly, the extra word(s) are just for clarity, to help the child assemble the idea that some places/objects/locations are just not worth trying again. Adding which ‘body part’ to the instruction ‘careful’ is also a specifier, and so is ‘to Mama’ or ‘to someone else’. The ‘instruction word’ is the core of what you say.}}}

Saying “Stay with me.” — while physically keeping a baby right near you, lifting them back when they take a single scooch away.

Saying “Stop.” — while physically halting their motion-to-somewhere.

Saying “Come.” — while standing in one place, then going to get the toddler and bringing him/her to the place where you had been standing.

I want to be super clear: your baby will *NOT* follow your instructions. Don’t expect it. If you can’t do this without expecting it, don’t do it at all.

This is very simple. Nobody is following instructions but you. You are saying the ‘instruction’ for the baby’s *information* while using the baby’s body to demonstrate what the instruction means in bodily-physics. Both you and the baby are simply getting used to the terms and vocabulary. Nothing is expected of the baby. The parent does both the “telling” and the “showing” for the entirety of this very long phase (probably a year). It’s an at of kindness, a very long introduction to the theory that ‘in this universe Mama’s instructions always actually happen’. In my experience, sinking that concept in deeply matters a lot for long-term GBD.

So, pick your favorite ‘words of instruction’ and start by choosing not to use them in everyday language. Instead, if you are going to do something, just say to the baby what it is you are showing them how to do.

Teach Your Children Well

The following was originally posted in thread on Gentle Christian Mothers called, “…And I’m the Strict One!“.

Well, ladies, do you know what’s a show-stopper in a nicely chatting group of Christian Mommies?

It’s when the strictest parent there casually mentions that she doesn’t spank. Here’s the circle of my friends and acquaintances when I mentioned it:  :-o   8-O   :-?

Friend 1:  :-o   “You don’t???”
Me: “Yeah, I used to, but I haven’t in a long time.”
Friend 2:   8-O “Really?”
Me: “I try not to do anything harsh at all, really.”
Friend 1: “Well… but… your kids are angels.”
Friend 2: “Some kids just don’t need it.”
Friend 1: “Yeah, I had one that spanking didn’t work for.”
Friend 2 to 1: “It’s not the right tool for every child.”
Friend 1 to me: “You can leave if you want to, if you think it’s cruel.”
Me: “No, I just think it’s unnecessary.”
Friend 2: “Well… you’ve got angels.”

Conversation continues on which kids “need” it, with lots of “funny” stories. Apparently, their various children’s persistent poor habits means the Mom should do more of what they are already doing (spanking), but the consistent excellence of my children has nothing to do with my methods: they were born that way.

Do these people really believe random selection gave me two angels, that I never had to really parent ‘the hard way’ — while they received an assortment of challenges my methods could never meet? I should extra-respect them for raising more difficult children, beyond my scope of experience? Even if they “have to” hit these challenging children, and even if hitting them isn’t showing any benefits!

(someone asks me to clarify what I mean by “strict.”)

Ok, here’s another tidbit of reality then: my husband is often unwell, and, with rare exceptions, that makes me the only “responsible adult” in my family. That means that, since I can’t handle (much) chaos, I can’t allow it.

I have lines of painters tape on my floor outlining “kitchen” in my open-plan home. Children don’t cross those lines when I am cooking. They haven’t for years. If my daughter woke up this morning to find painters tape barring them from exiting their own bedrooms, they would, I am dead sure, stand there and call me, “Mama? Why us this here? Mama, can I cross the tape? Mama, I need to go potty!” To me, strict means that they would automatically treat a line of tape as a physical barrier.

Of course, I worked on that: with gentleness, and repetitiveness, and role play — and consistent re-enforcement.

My friends don’t see that particular example — but they do see kids who come when they are called, follow instructions, deal with their disappointments without (often) being disruptive about it, obey limits when playing under slight-supervision circumstances, clean up their areas (with reminders), handle their own belongings, and sit quietly when nessisary, and they respect other people’s bodies and boundaries.

These things do add up to some impressive kids: but we worked together to learn each important skill, one skill at a time.

Since, one would assume, you “can’t” get results like that from being permissive, I “must” be punitive out of the public eye, or they must be natural angels.

Now, I do know that some kids are “harder” than others. I’m not saying that all kids who have trouble behaving because of parenting — I’m just saying, in this situation, the idea of how such characteristics appear to be distributed by family isn’t logical.

(Someone asks me what would be the consequences of crossing the tape)

The tape is a training aid — I spent a lot of time teaching, “This is the kitchen” / “This is not the kitchen” / “See the tape” / “Step into the kitchen” / “Step out of the kitchen” — “Yay! What a brilliant toddler you are! You know all about the kitchen!”

Then there was the, “Hey, now, where are you? Is are your feet in the kitchen? How can you tell? Am I cooking? How can you tell? Where do your feet need to be? Yay! That’s the right place for your feet!” It’s a practical application phase — and I was very diligent to catch and re-teach every time.

And that’s really all it really took. The consequence of transgressing the tape is merely to be shown your error and guided to solve it.

I suppose if there was blatant disregard of what I was saying, I’d probably physically lift the child to the correct side of the line. Then I’d tell them (quite pleasantly) that they were now in the right place, and go over the teaching phase again (while holding the child still if necessary). I’d give a direct instruction that their feet needed to stay on ‘that’ side of the line, and set the child free — or initiate a distraction.

If it happened again and again, I’d probably move the child further and further from the line, using a less pleasant voice. If necessary, it would end with the child being put in another room. It might go so far as resulting in a cold supper, since I was prevented from being able to focus on my cooking.

But that hasn’t happened to me. It’s just what I imagine I’d do if I needed to. I haven’t encountered many situations where the kids didn’t pick up the skills I needed them to pick up, just by teaching and consistently working through transgressions until they really ‘got’ it.

Consequences come into play once a child clearly *has* a skill, and is capable of reliably using that skill, even under stress. That’s when ‘teaching’ has done it’s work and you have a child who is choosing between compliance and non-compliance by free choice (not ending up not complying for the more natural reason — that it’s genuinely hard for the child to do what you want them to do).

If the ‘to do’ is *not* genuinely hard any more, then you are in territory where consequences need to be considered.

Honestly, I can’t remember the last time I was in ‘that place’ with my kids. Mostly I spend my energy trying to work with the child to understand a situation, so they can handle what I want them to be doing. Once they can ‘handle’ it, usually they don’t object to doing it just because there’s no reason not to do it.

I do things like “if you can’t handle being here, we will leave” — which is something like a consequence, sometimes… but not really. Because (a) if a child really can’t handle a situation, it’s *kind* to leave that situation, so it’s not a threat to ‘do better or else’ it’s just a statement of how you plan to parent through a tough situation. BUT there’s also the other possibility — (b) that the child can handle themself better, but wasn’t trying very hard. Then the desire not to leave the situation plays a motivational role in helping the child pull themself together and raise their standard of behaviour.

I really like this double-pronged approach, using consequences that are a form of ‘unwanted assistance’ — if the problem is ‘beyond’ the child’s skill, the consequence will help them cope better -and- if the problem is ‘within’ the child’s skill, the consequence motivates them to bring all their skill to the table and make a good try at handling things well.

Wife Only Submission vs Mutual Submission

I have noticed a confusion about the difference between WOS (Wife Only Submission) and MS (Mutual Submission) so I would like to clarify the difference and add some thoughts.

WOS is the belief that, in marriage, husbands are not obligated/called to submit to their wives out of reverence for Christ.

MS is the believe that husbands and wives are both obligated/called to submit to their spouse (and others) out of reverence for Christ.

WOS is often tied with patriarchy — which is the philosophy that, in marriage, the male has authority over his wife due to his gender.

In my opinion, patriarchy can be mostly-healthy, when the man is choosing sacrificial love towards his wife and/or when he uses his perceived authority in wise and godly ways — which would generally include trust, respect some ‘delegation’ of that perceived authority, etc.

In that ‘mostly-healthy patriarchy’ case, WOS is not what is truly going on — because ‘sacrificial love’ fits the Biblical definition of ‘submission’, even if neither spouse would use that word for it, and even though it depends on the (in my opinion, inaccurate) perception of inherent male authority. If the husband is submitting to his wife (by loving her sacrificially) that is a MS scenario, and anything else is just semantics.

The reason WOS (the idea that males are not obligated/called to submit to their wives out of reverence for Christ) is a bigger problem than ‘mostly-healthy patriarchy’ is because if men do not submit to their wives (no matter what vocabulary they prefer to use about it) they are not obeying God’s commands to them, and that’s a problem — often a problem that has effects on many others (the wife, children, children’s spouses, grandchildren). It’s hard for me to see people ‘normalizing’ the disobedience of one gender, while twisting the obedience of the other gender to compensate for it.

Now I believe that the NT describes a situation in which a husband had legal and civic responsibility over his wife, who was, by law his property. He had the full authority granted to him by the Roman government, and he could not ignore it. No one could.

Therefore I find it quite understandable that, in reading the New Testament some readers would draw the conclusion that because that hierarchy is described in the Bible, it is to be understood as ‘the right thing’ for Christians. I hold nothing against people who have honestly come to this conclusion — it’s easy to come by!

Patriarchy was the building block of Roman society. Equality between men and women would have been illegal. Therefore the New Testament gives commands as-to how a man with legal/civic authority is still capable of submitting to his wife, and is not exempt from the command to do so.

Therefore I consider marriages that involve ‘presumed authority’ of the male, ONLY WHEN combined with proper Christian submission (to each other) — to be within the Bible’s definition of a godly way to live.

Patriarchy-with-mutual-submission worked for the 1st Century Roman Christians, and it can work for our brothers and sisters if they want it to. We have no place to stand against them as if their conclusions and choices were sin.

What can’t work (as far as I can possibly see) is patriarchy-without-mutual-submission… because the belief that some Christians are free not to submit to other Christians (for reasons of gender and marital status) is completely out of step with the Bible — encouraging disobedience to direct commandments as well as disregarding the very core of the character of the Christlife.

Patriarchy can hurt people — and does — but it does not always hurt people, and it can be done ‘well’ according to the New Testament.

WOS (the belief that husbands are free to behave unsubmissively towards their wives) is the real poison. Living with someone who claims Christ but lives with a me-before-you attitude, and believes and preaches that it is right and proper to do so… that’s just not right… and people are definitely going to get hurt.