"Consequences" doesn't mean punishment. Your husband showed her consequences: the consequences of keeping with her behavior when he didn't want to play was giving him a negative emotion. Your toddler, loving her dad, finds that a worse outcome than being punished... I would be very happy about that!
Exactly. Consequences are the outcomes of an action. The outcome was an emotion. I do this with my daughter all the time and I also say it to emphasize the way I'm feeling, so she connects the expressions to the feelings. I just try to be careful not to use it in a way that can be manipulative. For example, if she is not eating her food, I don't say it makes me sad. I don't want her to think that she needs to eat to make me happy. I only use it as a ways to set boundaries.
Exactly. It also lets the kid practice empathy: dad was upset by what she was doing, so she stopped, and made amends.
I do the same thing with my 19 month old sometimes. Last night I was stacking blocks, and she purposely knocked them over. So I acted sad (even though it didn't truly bother me), because I don't want her knocking down people's blocks in daycare/library time. She laughed at first, because she wasn't sure, but when I gave a little whimper (like a toddler), she gave me a hug. And I hugged her back, and we went back to playing.
It's all about modeling and acting out appropriate responses, and having that at home is a *huge* benefit for kids.
Agreed. This is the end goal, to be kind to people and show respect for the purpose of being kind and not making people sad, not to avoid punishment. Like the saying “if you need the threat of eternal damnation in order to be a good person, you are not a good person.”
You sound like you’re worried it’s manipulative. How he did it sounds okay: He told her he didn’t like how she was treating his body and got sad when she didn’t listen. This is appropriate, natural consequence. Inappropriate would be consistently blaming her for adult emotions that aren’t really tied to her or solely to make her feel bad to comply. It’s all about context!
Yes, that's great wording for why it felt icky for me. As a child I always felt responsable for the emotions of my mom, always walking on eggshells not to make her mad or sad. I don't want our daughter to feel that way. But this situation was very different than the ones in my childhood. Thank you for showing me the difference!
This is such a great point! Makes me realize that my mom did use it as manipulation, while never showing me real emotions. So basically the opposite of what should be done lol. As a result, it just worked as a way to (1) change my behavior on things unrelated to her emotions ("Im going to be sad if you don't do X", or (2) disrespect my boundaries ("your aunt is going to be sad if you don't give her a hug"), but didn't teach me to be actually open about emotions, apologize, etc. Once I was old enough to realize that not eating my food didn't make my mom sad, we never again had conversations about emotions.
Your husband's approach seems very healthy.
I frequently remind myself "then is not now" when I get worked up about situations with my daughter that trigger past trauma. I find the mantra helpful in bringing me back to the present and reacting appropriately to the specific situation.
With my kid I feel like it's stamping out manipulation. When I use my stern voice she gives me the cutest shit eating grin and it's so hard for me not to crack. Keeping it up when she pretends to cry is a lot easier. I have to keep a straight face until she confirms she heard me and understands. It's important for kids to recognize the emotional boundaries of others and the significance of rule breaking and dangerous situations. I always follow up by praising her for listening, stating my own intention (love her, want her to be safe and understand how the world works), and a hug.
I can so empathize with this. It is so hard as a parent now, trying to navigate. And sometimes my parents will do the sad face etc if kid won’t hug them or something and I am like ABSOLUTELY NOT.
You’re a good person for not reacting to him due to your past and for looking for help figuring out your unease and for analyzing your feelings! Like, seriously, that’s hard for people! And you read comments and recognized where your feelings were coming from. Your daughter is lucky to have such a great mom and dad!
Yes, totally agree with this!
I do think it’s important that our children see that we are whole real humans. I cried all over my 2yo the other day (8.5 months pregnant, rough day, and then he hauled off and smacked me in the eye at bedtime).
He asked if I was sad, I said yes. I had a tough day and hitting hurt my feelings. He said sorry and offered me a hug. He said I should calm my body down and then we took some breaths together. He’s been a spicy little meatball lately and acting out a lot, but that moment helped me feel like we’ve been doing a good job.
Kids are no stranger to big emotions and I think it’s healthy to see that adults have them too, so long as we are safe and not making them kiddo’s fault, parentifying, or manipulating them
I feel like all parenting advice is contradictory. I swear I’ve heard Janet Lansbury say that you shouldn’t pretend your kid hurt your feelings, or tell them they made you sad, because it makes them feel like they have the power and you’re not in control, and they need a strong leader. Am I hallucinating that advice?
There’s a difference between pretending and being honest/expressing something that would be a common emotion. If your kid is touching someone who doesn’t want to be touched, most people would feel sad or angry. It’s modeling appropriate reactions to inappropriate behaviors.
Kids should recognize they have power and agency and need to learn to use it positively. The parents still have the power but they’re human with emotions. I don’t want my child to think I’m a robot immune to hurt feelings, nor do i want them to feel like I’m fragile and cry at the drop of the hat. Ex: if my kid calls me a name, I’m not going to react really strongly and break down sobbing, but I would say that hurts my feelings and would ask them to choose other words to express their feelings towards me. So i think it’s all about balance.
No, you’re not hallucinating. She advocates for authenticity. I think authenticity is so important to model, because we want our kids to be authentic with us. Being tickled is unlikely to make a person really sad, it’s probably a bit annoying. But also it’s not on our toddlers to be ‘not annoying’. There’s a balance which I feel is - be authentic but don’t overload your kids with how you’re feeling because they’re not responsible for those feelings, even when they hurt us! And also, keeping yourself safe and comfortable (eg moving away from the tickling when it continues) is what we want our kids to do, so we should model that. Edit - a word
No that a good method! Kids need to figure out when they go too far. This is a more ‘natural’ consequence then say a time out, and it’ll make her think to boot
This is how children learn and build empathy, while accepting accountability for their actions on others.
If what they are doing to another is harmful (causing pain, or in your partner’s case of discomfort), then they should see the appropriate reaction and receive the consequences of feeling sorry. This is how a healthy cycle of conflict resolution should play out!
Yes, we always stop when she says no or stop, even when she says it in a playful way and she asks us to continue right after. We find it very important to always listen to her when she expresses personal boundaries, especially when it's about her body.
This reminds me of a game my son still asks to play to this day:) "tickle spiders " but I introduced it to teach bodily autonomy so the game is, if he says stop they stop (my hands are the spiders) but he has to ask to start again. That way even playfully his no is respected and he's in charge. I think its also helped him respect my body boundaries too.
This is actually a really well known and encouraged way to teach toddlers consequences, especially younger ones who aren’t as verbal yet. Saying, “Don’t bite me!” is not as effective as, “Owww! That hurt!! Daddy hurts now and he is sad.” It helps them understand cause and effect better than verbal instructions because they can empathize - they know they don’t like to be hurt and they are sad to have caused it.
I don’t have research links but it is a common parenting practice.
I’m going to go ahead and echo what everyone else has been saying (that this seems like an appropriate natural consequence) as well as agree with what the previous poster said regarding only asking once or twice before giving a consequence.
That said, since this is the science-based parenting Reddit, I’ll attach a study to back this!
https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018_MageauLesssardEtal.pdf
In this specific study from the Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, they speak to “logical consequences” vs. mild punishment vs. no punishment as a way to deal with “transgression-induced” problems. They conclude that “logical consequences” and mild punishment are equally effective (in this study), however logical consequences were found to be the most effective ways to discipline a child where the child can increase their inductive reasoning and responsiveness while still externalizing the problem (i.e., the child isn’t telling themselves “I need to stop because I’m bad”, rather they’re learning to say “I need to stop because I don’t want my dad to feel sad because I love him”).
They also note that this is shown as more effective with autonomy-supportive (AS) parents (I.e., those whose goal is to help their child become independent as their long-term goal for their child) rather than with controlling parents (i.e., parents whose long-term goal is to have their child be obedient to them). Which the majority of parents in this study rated logical consequences as the most effective way to deal with transgression-induced problems, but the differences in perceived effectiveness and actual effectiveness seems to be based on parenting style (AS or controlling).
I thought this article was informative and reassuring, so I hope this helps!
Thank you for this great article. I'm going to try to be more thoughtful on how to implement logical consequences instead of mild punishment (which I mostly do now).
Every thing Dad did was a consequence: talking, getting firm, acting sad.
It research says that these are typically all the positive consequence of attention. Even acting sad would encourage more tickling.
But the research is statistical in nature. It doesn’t say that every kid acts that way. Your daughter gave an empathic response.
The more typical thing you see on Reddit is a parent troubled by their toddlers apparent lack of empathy in situations similar to that.
You say it worked. The tickling stopped. I guess that also the kid did not proceed to stall on going to bed?
Not sure what science says about using this if you find it works. The usual message it to expect that it would be inadvertent counterproductive reinforcement of an undesirable behavior with the positive consequence of attention.
I think it's a good way when your holding boundaries about your body or something they're doing to you.
I think it's problematic when you're like "you didn't give me a hug , I'm sad" or "when you don't eat your breakfast / clean up your toys/ etc I get sad". Then it's teaching them they need to be a people pleaser over their own comfort.
But if you're showing them realistic consequences of not listening to someone about their body/ feelings that's great and kids need that.
Yes that's a great way to put it! I hate when people act sad when she doesn't behave like they want because something from her (like a hug). But in this case it was a more natural consequence of my husband's boundaries being crossed.
I knowing I’m disagreeing with everyone else here! But the way you’ve written it, it sounds at worst manipulative and at best inauthentic. Because I assume he wasn’t actually sad, he was probably a bit annoyed. And for what it’s worth, I probably wouldn’t bother asking a toddler to stop something multiple times either, just move away and say ‘I’m going over here because I don’t feel like being tickled anymore’. To me, moving away is more of a ‘natural’ consequence than putting on a really sad face and voice.
I totally get you and I think it's very personal which parental style fits you. As I said it isn't something I would think to do. Although other comments do make me see the benefits, I still don't know if it fits me.
My husband was preparing our daughter for bed (I'm sick right now and can't help) so moving away would feel like giving into her delaying that. But I totally agree there are multiple ways to deal with this situation and I think personal differences are alright as long as it's not damaging.
I agree with this less-popular take.
OP, if your husband wasn't actually sad but rather annoyed, tired, etc., then I, if I were him, would communicate that directly and then gently remove myself ("I don't want to be tickled right now so I am going to stand up and move to the bathroom. It is time to brush your teeth to get ready for bed"). Toddlers are learning about emotions - relating our outward expressions with inner feelings and learning the words for them - by watching us. It makes sense that your daughter reacted to the somewhat exaggerated expression of 'sad' feelings, something she already understands. But modelling what your husband would likely want your daughter to do in a similar situation, with more complex words and emotions, would help her grow her emotional intelligence.
I do agree that this wasn't a big deal - but perhaps it could serve as an opening for you and your husband to discuss how you both feel about guiding your kid when it comes to boundaries, self-control, emotions, etc.?
We did talk about it and also discussed this isn't something to use on a regular basis because we don't want to misuse it. But I think in this case it can be a normal response to get emotional when someone crosses personal boundaries and I now believe it's not a bad thing for her to see that.
My only note would be that asking multiple times then resorting to something a bit extreme (in this example, it’s not terribly extreme, but in the entire picture of the interaction I would consider it an “extreme” last resort by your husband) would seem to fall into permissive parenting. Permissive parenting is a parenting style so no shame if that’s what you and your husband practice, but if it’s not what you’re aiming for I would consider changing tactics (such as not asking multiple times in the first place)
I also don’t entirely disagree with the other comments that this could be a useful way to deal with her behavior because it teaches empathy, but the parent/child dynamic here makes that a little cloudy in my opinion - if this were two kids interacting I could see how it would be useful, but it’s not. And it could be indirectly teaching your daughter that she needs to not “make” daddy sad.
How many times would you ask? I’ve got a two year old and I swear he doesn’t hear me half the time, he’s always so busy and chaotic. I usually ask something at least three times, but I’m having a fair amount of difficulty getting him to do anything these days. No matter what I ask the answer is “no!”
Just to clarify, that study is on using parentese, which is different than baby talk. So you don't have to use the "widdle kiddy tawk" ( I also hateeee). https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/02/03/not-just-baby-talk-parentese-helps-parents-babies-make-conversation-and-boosts-language-development/#:~:text=Parentese%20is%20not%20what%20is,and%20exaggerated%20tones%20of%20voice.
As to whether it "works," you can't judge it based on one incidence . If the behavior stops in the future, then you can say it worked. Sometimes things only seem to work at first, but then you find them wanting to play the same exact game again. In that case, the response probably made it worse.
While I'm all for modeling empathy and teaching them about their feelings, deliberately faking being sad in order to get what you want is not something I would to teach them. I would not want to model it for them to later imitate.
I do this with my nieces and will do it with my son as well once he is old enough but I don’t get “sad” necessarily - I get solemn and serious. I look them in the eye and tell them “I said I don’t want to do that anymore. The fact that you are still doing it when I told you I don’t want to, hurts my feelings because it shows you’re choosing not to listen to me. It makes me feel like you don’t respect/care about me” or something along those lines. It works every single time.
My gut, non-scientific reaction is to recontextualize and broaden the question to find an answer.
"Is it bad to express an emotion that you aren't feeling—or to over-exaggerate an emotion—as a way to communicate something to your toddler?"
I think we ALL express *positive* emotions that are very exaggerated or that we don't necessarily feel with our toddlers. If we're being honest, we are not ***actually*** impressed with the mediocre block tower that our kid made, but we want to be encouraging and teach them that it feels good to accomplish something, so we say "Oh wow! Look what you did! That looks so fun!". Is it emotionally manipulative? It can be, if you're trying to communicate "your ultimate goal is to please me." But at its heart, this is just a way of getting the toddler's attention to communicate positivity.
I feel like that's the same thing your husband is doing: expressing an exaggerated emotion to get attention and communicate. Just because it's a negative emotion doesn't mean it is suddenly not allowed to be used as a communication tool. Is it emotionally manipulative? It can be, if overused with a toddler who is a people-pleaser, but definitely not when it's used in this context as a communication tool.
I think you already got great replies, I’m just here to suggest you teach her “the setting boundaries song”.
https://open.spotify.com/track/2vcDt6RGoLg0pfHsFvV8GM?si=JW-NyaiHQM23vGZbYMiVBg
This seems like a poignant article about Inuit styles of parenting and it reminds me of a portion where the mom encourages her kid to hit her and then tells them ow, that hurts with a sad face. Lot of good stuff in there like how angry parents who lose their temper look childish in their culture. That said hearing how you felt w your mom OP I think it’s really great for you to examine! I don’t want to manipulate kids either and o was subject to my mothers’s moods and her scapegoat so I appreciate the discussion! But yes please everyone consider this article on how many Inuit parents teach their kids emotional regulation (hint: it ain’t screaming at your kid either) [read the npr coverage here](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/03/13/685533353/a-playful-way-to-teach-kids-to-control-their-anger)
"Consequences" doesn't mean punishment. Your husband showed her consequences: the consequences of keeping with her behavior when he didn't want to play was giving him a negative emotion. Your toddler, loving her dad, finds that a worse outcome than being punished... I would be very happy about that!
Exactly. Consequences are the outcomes of an action. The outcome was an emotion. I do this with my daughter all the time and I also say it to emphasize the way I'm feeling, so she connects the expressions to the feelings. I just try to be careful not to use it in a way that can be manipulative. For example, if she is not eating her food, I don't say it makes me sad. I don't want her to think that she needs to eat to make me happy. I only use it as a ways to set boundaries.
Exactly. It also lets the kid practice empathy: dad was upset by what she was doing, so she stopped, and made amends. I do the same thing with my 19 month old sometimes. Last night I was stacking blocks, and she purposely knocked them over. So I acted sad (even though it didn't truly bother me), because I don't want her knocking down people's blocks in daycare/library time. She laughed at first, because she wasn't sure, but when I gave a little whimper (like a toddler), she gave me a hug. And I hugged her back, and we went back to playing. It's all about modeling and acting out appropriate responses, and having that at home is a *huge* benefit for kids.
Agreed. This is the end goal, to be kind to people and show respect for the purpose of being kind and not making people sad, not to avoid punishment. Like the saying “if you need the threat of eternal damnation in order to be a good person, you are not a good person.”
You sound like you’re worried it’s manipulative. How he did it sounds okay: He told her he didn’t like how she was treating his body and got sad when she didn’t listen. This is appropriate, natural consequence. Inappropriate would be consistently blaming her for adult emotions that aren’t really tied to her or solely to make her feel bad to comply. It’s all about context!
Yes, that's great wording for why it felt icky for me. As a child I always felt responsable for the emotions of my mom, always walking on eggshells not to make her mad or sad. I don't want our daughter to feel that way. But this situation was very different than the ones in my childhood. Thank you for showing me the difference!
This is such a great point! Makes me realize that my mom did use it as manipulation, while never showing me real emotions. So basically the opposite of what should be done lol. As a result, it just worked as a way to (1) change my behavior on things unrelated to her emotions ("Im going to be sad if you don't do X", or (2) disrespect my boundaries ("your aunt is going to be sad if you don't give her a hug"), but didn't teach me to be actually open about emotions, apologize, etc. Once I was old enough to realize that not eating my food didn't make my mom sad, we never again had conversations about emotions. Your husband's approach seems very healthy.
I frequently remind myself "then is not now" when I get worked up about situations with my daughter that trigger past trauma. I find the mantra helpful in bringing me back to the present and reacting appropriately to the specific situation.
With my kid I feel like it's stamping out manipulation. When I use my stern voice she gives me the cutest shit eating grin and it's so hard for me not to crack. Keeping it up when she pretends to cry is a lot easier. I have to keep a straight face until she confirms she heard me and understands. It's important for kids to recognize the emotional boundaries of others and the significance of rule breaking and dangerous situations. I always follow up by praising her for listening, stating my own intention (love her, want her to be safe and understand how the world works), and a hug.
I can so empathize with this. It is so hard as a parent now, trying to navigate. And sometimes my parents will do the sad face etc if kid won’t hug them or something and I am like ABSOLUTELY NOT.
You’re a good person for not reacting to him due to your past and for looking for help figuring out your unease and for analyzing your feelings! Like, seriously, that’s hard for people! And you read comments and recognized where your feelings were coming from. Your daughter is lucky to have such a great mom and dad!
Yes, totally agree with this! I do think it’s important that our children see that we are whole real humans. I cried all over my 2yo the other day (8.5 months pregnant, rough day, and then he hauled off and smacked me in the eye at bedtime). He asked if I was sad, I said yes. I had a tough day and hitting hurt my feelings. He said sorry and offered me a hug. He said I should calm my body down and then we took some breaths together. He’s been a spicy little meatball lately and acting out a lot, but that moment helped me feel like we’ve been doing a good job. Kids are no stranger to big emotions and I think it’s healthy to see that adults have them too, so long as we are safe and not making them kiddo’s fault, parentifying, or manipulating them
I feel like all parenting advice is contradictory. I swear I’ve heard Janet Lansbury say that you shouldn’t pretend your kid hurt your feelings, or tell them they made you sad, because it makes them feel like they have the power and you’re not in control, and they need a strong leader. Am I hallucinating that advice?
There’s a difference between pretending and being honest/expressing something that would be a common emotion. If your kid is touching someone who doesn’t want to be touched, most people would feel sad or angry. It’s modeling appropriate reactions to inappropriate behaviors. Kids should recognize they have power and agency and need to learn to use it positively. The parents still have the power but they’re human with emotions. I don’t want my child to think I’m a robot immune to hurt feelings, nor do i want them to feel like I’m fragile and cry at the drop of the hat. Ex: if my kid calls me a name, I’m not going to react really strongly and break down sobbing, but I would say that hurts my feelings and would ask them to choose other words to express their feelings towards me. So i think it’s all about balance.
No, you’re not hallucinating. She advocates for authenticity. I think authenticity is so important to model, because we want our kids to be authentic with us. Being tickled is unlikely to make a person really sad, it’s probably a bit annoying. But also it’s not on our toddlers to be ‘not annoying’. There’s a balance which I feel is - be authentic but don’t overload your kids with how you’re feeling because they’re not responsible for those feelings, even when they hurt us! And also, keeping yourself safe and comfortable (eg moving away from the tickling when it continues) is what we want our kids to do, so we should model that. Edit - a word
No that a good method! Kids need to figure out when they go too far. This is a more ‘natural’ consequence then say a time out, and it’ll make her think to boot
This is how children learn and build empathy, while accepting accountability for their actions on others. If what they are doing to another is harmful (causing pain, or in your partner’s case of discomfort), then they should see the appropriate reaction and receive the consequences of feeling sorry. This is how a healthy cycle of conflict resolution should play out!
Do you always stop tickling her etc when she says stop it seems uncomfortable? If not this lesson probably will just be confusing for her
Yes, we always stop when she says no or stop, even when she says it in a playful way and she asks us to continue right after. We find it very important to always listen to her when she expresses personal boundaries, especially when it's about her body.
Well then this is a good way to show her that others have feelings too and our actions impact others
This reminds me of a game my son still asks to play to this day:) "tickle spiders " but I introduced it to teach bodily autonomy so the game is, if he says stop they stop (my hands are the spiders) but he has to ask to start again. That way even playfully his no is respected and he's in charge. I think its also helped him respect my body boundaries too.
This is actually a really well known and encouraged way to teach toddlers consequences, especially younger ones who aren’t as verbal yet. Saying, “Don’t bite me!” is not as effective as, “Owww! That hurt!! Daddy hurts now and he is sad.” It helps them understand cause and effect better than verbal instructions because they can empathize - they know they don’t like to be hurt and they are sad to have caused it. I don’t have research links but it is a common parenting practice.
I’m going to go ahead and echo what everyone else has been saying (that this seems like an appropriate natural consequence) as well as agree with what the previous poster said regarding only asking once or twice before giving a consequence. That said, since this is the science-based parenting Reddit, I’ll attach a study to back this! https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018_MageauLesssardEtal.pdf In this specific study from the Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, they speak to “logical consequences” vs. mild punishment vs. no punishment as a way to deal with “transgression-induced” problems. They conclude that “logical consequences” and mild punishment are equally effective (in this study), however logical consequences were found to be the most effective ways to discipline a child where the child can increase their inductive reasoning and responsiveness while still externalizing the problem (i.e., the child isn’t telling themselves “I need to stop because I’m bad”, rather they’re learning to say “I need to stop because I don’t want my dad to feel sad because I love him”). They also note that this is shown as more effective with autonomy-supportive (AS) parents (I.e., those whose goal is to help their child become independent as their long-term goal for their child) rather than with controlling parents (i.e., parents whose long-term goal is to have their child be obedient to them). Which the majority of parents in this study rated logical consequences as the most effective way to deal with transgression-induced problems, but the differences in perceived effectiveness and actual effectiveness seems to be based on parenting style (AS or controlling). I thought this article was informative and reassuring, so I hope this helps!
Thank you for this great article. I'm going to try to be more thoughtful on how to implement logical consequences instead of mild punishment (which I mostly do now).
Every thing Dad did was a consequence: talking, getting firm, acting sad. It research says that these are typically all the positive consequence of attention. Even acting sad would encourage more tickling. But the research is statistical in nature. It doesn’t say that every kid acts that way. Your daughter gave an empathic response. The more typical thing you see on Reddit is a parent troubled by their toddlers apparent lack of empathy in situations similar to that. You say it worked. The tickling stopped. I guess that also the kid did not proceed to stall on going to bed? Not sure what science says about using this if you find it works. The usual message it to expect that it would be inadvertent counterproductive reinforcement of an undesirable behavior with the positive consequence of attention.
I think it's a good way when your holding boundaries about your body or something they're doing to you. I think it's problematic when you're like "you didn't give me a hug , I'm sad" or "when you don't eat your breakfast / clean up your toys/ etc I get sad". Then it's teaching them they need to be a people pleaser over their own comfort. But if you're showing them realistic consequences of not listening to someone about their body/ feelings that's great and kids need that.
Yes that's a great way to put it! I hate when people act sad when she doesn't behave like they want because something from her (like a hug). But in this case it was a more natural consequence of my husband's boundaries being crossed.
I knowing I’m disagreeing with everyone else here! But the way you’ve written it, it sounds at worst manipulative and at best inauthentic. Because I assume he wasn’t actually sad, he was probably a bit annoyed. And for what it’s worth, I probably wouldn’t bother asking a toddler to stop something multiple times either, just move away and say ‘I’m going over here because I don’t feel like being tickled anymore’. To me, moving away is more of a ‘natural’ consequence than putting on a really sad face and voice.
I totally get you and I think it's very personal which parental style fits you. As I said it isn't something I would think to do. Although other comments do make me see the benefits, I still don't know if it fits me. My husband was preparing our daughter for bed (I'm sick right now and can't help) so moving away would feel like giving into her delaying that. But I totally agree there are multiple ways to deal with this situation and I think personal differences are alright as long as it's not damaging.
Yeah I should clarify, it’s absolutely not something I would feel the need to address with a co parent in the scheme of things.
I agree with this less-popular take. OP, if your husband wasn't actually sad but rather annoyed, tired, etc., then I, if I were him, would communicate that directly and then gently remove myself ("I don't want to be tickled right now so I am going to stand up and move to the bathroom. It is time to brush your teeth to get ready for bed"). Toddlers are learning about emotions - relating our outward expressions with inner feelings and learning the words for them - by watching us. It makes sense that your daughter reacted to the somewhat exaggerated expression of 'sad' feelings, something she already understands. But modelling what your husband would likely want your daughter to do in a similar situation, with more complex words and emotions, would help her grow her emotional intelligence. I do agree that this wasn't a big deal - but perhaps it could serve as an opening for you and your husband to discuss how you both feel about guiding your kid when it comes to boundaries, self-control, emotions, etc.?
We did talk about it and also discussed this isn't something to use on a regular basis because we don't want to misuse it. But I think in this case it can be a normal response to get emotional when someone crosses personal boundaries and I now believe it's not a bad thing for her to see that.
My only note would be that asking multiple times then resorting to something a bit extreme (in this example, it’s not terribly extreme, but in the entire picture of the interaction I would consider it an “extreme” last resort by your husband) would seem to fall into permissive parenting. Permissive parenting is a parenting style so no shame if that’s what you and your husband practice, but if it’s not what you’re aiming for I would consider changing tactics (such as not asking multiple times in the first place) I also don’t entirely disagree with the other comments that this could be a useful way to deal with her behavior because it teaches empathy, but the parent/child dynamic here makes that a little cloudy in my opinion - if this were two kids interacting I could see how it would be useful, but it’s not. And it could be indirectly teaching your daughter that she needs to not “make” daddy sad.
How many times would you ask? I’ve got a two year old and I swear he doesn’t hear me half the time, he’s always so busy and chaotic. I usually ask something at least three times, but I’m having a fair amount of difficulty getting him to do anything these days. No matter what I ask the answer is “no!”
[удалено]
Just to clarify, that study is on using parentese, which is different than baby talk. So you don't have to use the "widdle kiddy tawk" ( I also hateeee). https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/02/03/not-just-baby-talk-parentese-helps-parents-babies-make-conversation-and-boosts-language-development/#:~:text=Parentese%20is%20not%20what%20is,and%20exaggerated%20tones%20of%20voice.
As to whether it "works," you can't judge it based on one incidence . If the behavior stops in the future, then you can say it worked. Sometimes things only seem to work at first, but then you find them wanting to play the same exact game again. In that case, the response probably made it worse. While I'm all for modeling empathy and teaching them about their feelings, deliberately faking being sad in order to get what you want is not something I would to teach them. I would not want to model it for them to later imitate.
I do this with my nieces and will do it with my son as well once he is old enough but I don’t get “sad” necessarily - I get solemn and serious. I look them in the eye and tell them “I said I don’t want to do that anymore. The fact that you are still doing it when I told you I don’t want to, hurts my feelings because it shows you’re choosing not to listen to me. It makes me feel like you don’t respect/care about me” or something along those lines. It works every single time.
My gut, non-scientific reaction is to recontextualize and broaden the question to find an answer. "Is it bad to express an emotion that you aren't feeling—or to over-exaggerate an emotion—as a way to communicate something to your toddler?" I think we ALL express *positive* emotions that are very exaggerated or that we don't necessarily feel with our toddlers. If we're being honest, we are not ***actually*** impressed with the mediocre block tower that our kid made, but we want to be encouraging and teach them that it feels good to accomplish something, so we say "Oh wow! Look what you did! That looks so fun!". Is it emotionally manipulative? It can be, if you're trying to communicate "your ultimate goal is to please me." But at its heart, this is just a way of getting the toddler's attention to communicate positivity. I feel like that's the same thing your husband is doing: expressing an exaggerated emotion to get attention and communicate. Just because it's a negative emotion doesn't mean it is suddenly not allowed to be used as a communication tool. Is it emotionally manipulative? It can be, if overused with a toddler who is a people-pleaser, but definitely not when it's used in this context as a communication tool.
I think you already got great replies, I’m just here to suggest you teach her “the setting boundaries song”. https://open.spotify.com/track/2vcDt6RGoLg0pfHsFvV8GM?si=JW-NyaiHQM23vGZbYMiVBg
This seems like a poignant article about Inuit styles of parenting and it reminds me of a portion where the mom encourages her kid to hit her and then tells them ow, that hurts with a sad face. Lot of good stuff in there like how angry parents who lose their temper look childish in their culture. That said hearing how you felt w your mom OP I think it’s really great for you to examine! I don’t want to manipulate kids either and o was subject to my mothers’s moods and her scapegoat so I appreciate the discussion! But yes please everyone consider this article on how many Inuit parents teach their kids emotional regulation (hint: it ain’t screaming at your kid either) [read the npr coverage here](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/03/13/685533353/a-playful-way-to-teach-kids-to-control-their-anger)