As Glynis conversed with a friend at the grocer’s, her eight-year-old son Andrew tugged at her sleeve, seeking her attention. She shook her head, and continued talking. As a teacher and parent myself, I’m always interested in the ways parents and children interact, so I kept watching. Almost immediately, Andrew grabbed his mother’s hand and started pulling on her arm. Glynis reacted by removing his hands, and said ‘No.’ Moments later, he was jumping up and down, jerking his mother’s hand so hard her head jerked with each pull. Despite that, Glynis kept talking to her friend, ignoring son’s antics.
Why did Andrew persist? Is it because Glynis is a terrible mother, or just that Andrew is a brat? Actually, it’s much simpler than that. Glynis has taught Andrew that ‘No’ means, ‘Try harder to get my attention’ Sound weird? Don’t forget, context determines the meaning of a word.
For example, while driving in Mexico, I encountered eight-sided red signs emblazoned with the word 'Alto.' With my limited linguistic skills, I interpreted 'Alto' to mean 'Halt,' or 'Stop.' After observing the behavior of local drivers, however, I concluded that 'Alto' actually means, 'Honk your horn and accelerate.' I don’t think that’s what the Mexican sign makers intended communicate, any more than Glynis intended to tell Andrew to accelerate his attention-grabbing efforts. In both cases, the context of experience trumps the dictionary definition.
Without intending to, Glynis had actually trained Andrew to step up his attempts to get her attention when she said 'No.' Lots of parents do this sort of thing. It has many variations. Erin’s children, 4-year-old William and 2-year-old Sarah, stamp their feet, shout, and throw themselves on the floor when she says 'No.' Other children react by arguing, and in one extreme case, I knew a 6-year-old we’ll call Rebecca, who resorted to vomiting to get attention– this latter tactic invariably worked.
The meaning of the word 'No' involves more than just parental convenience. The world abounds with hazards for young children. We may put them in protective carriers in cars, put child-proof gates on staircases, child-proof caps on bottles of medication, and block off electrical outlets, but opportunities for harm simply cannot be eliminated. Dangers that cannot be eliminated must be avoided. Young children do not know where many of these dangers lurk: that’s why we keep watch over them. And our primary safety device is the word 'No,' in its many forms.
'No, don’t pull the cat’s tail,' has prevented many a scratch. 'No, don’t touch the knife,' that someone left out on a low table. 'No, don’t touch the hot kettle; no, don’t go into the street.' Parents must use the 'N word' again and again. If our 'No' doesn’t work, we lack a crucial tool, and put our children in needless danger.
On the other hand, when 'No' means no, both parents and children benefit. Parents benefit because they don’t have to expend needless energy dealing with misbehavior and its consequences. Children gain security when the know their limitations. Here are a few guidelines for keeping your 'No' sharp and true.
Don’t overuse it. Any tool can become worn and ineffective when used inappropriately, or used too much. We all change our minds from time to time, and that can be confusing enough. But some parents get in the habit of refusing permission without considering the merits of the situation. The more times we have to backtrack and change 'No' to 'Yes,' the more we encourage our children to ignore our refusal, and the more we encourage them to try and change our minds. Say 'No' whenever necessary, but only when necessary.
Don’t explain. Some parents get the notion that they should explain everything they require of their children. Later, they wonder why their children argue with them all the time. Arguing makes perfect sense, from the child’s point of view. 'This adult speaking to me seems to think they need my agreement, so if I refuse to agree, I won’t have to obey.' As parents, we have to accept the responsibility to require compliance from our children for their own good, whether they agree with us or not.
Besides, explaining to a 3-year-old is an exercise in futility. They simply lack the knowledge, understanding, and experience required. That’s why they have parents. Older children may benefit from explanations, but such dialogue should come after the child complies, not in an effort to get compliance.
Don’t delay enforcement. Failing to enforce our requirements robs 'No' of its power. When we don’t follow up quickly with consequences, children learn to ignore what we say. Annoying at the best of times, it can be dangerous at others. Whether warning an infant against touching an electrical outlet, or cautioning teenagers about driving too fast, an effective 'No' can save a life. So back up your refusal quickly and decisively.
Don’t give in. Parents need to remember the Iron Rule of Behavior: 'What gets rewarded, gets repeated.' Don’t say no unless necessary, but then stick to your guns. Every time you give in after saying no, you tell children that your refusal can be overcome, if only they are persistent enough. Children can be amazingly persistent. After all, you have to worry about meeting appointments, paying bills, preparing meals, doing the laundry, and a thousand other tasks. Children need only concern themselves with wearing down your resolve. In such a lopsided contest, they often win. When you reward them by giving in, it only encourages them to persist longer the next time. You don’t need that.
Give them needed attentions. Earlier I mentioned 6-year-old Rebecca who vomited in order to get attention. How does such an extreme behavior come about? Caught up in her own needs, Rebecca’ mother routinely ignored her children. The children quickly learned that the only certain way to get mum’s attention was to create a crisis. Rebecca discovered, quite by accident, that vomiting guaranteed maternal action. Without realizing it, whenever she felt sufficiently neglected, Rebecca worked herself into an emotional state which produced the desired results.
Even Andrew’s near physical assault resulted at least partially from Glynis’ inattention. Most public settings such as a grocer’s, are not very child friendly. It’s unfair to expect small children to amuse themselves constructively for long periods of time in such settings. As a rule of thumb, children can be expected to take care of themselves for about one minute per every year of age– at most. Even the best behaved 5-year-old, for example, will grow restless after five minutes, a 3-year-old after three minutes, and so on. Teenagers are quite another matter. Let a 15-year-old amuse himself/herself for fifteen minutes at your own risk.
Most often, parents fail to enforce 'no' because they don’t want to invest the time or energy necessary to make it stick initially. But this is a case where a small investment early on can yield big dividends later. Dividends like secure, well-behaved children, who don’t take your every refusal as an opportunity to annoy you.
As Glynis conversed with a friend at the grocer’s, her eight-year-old son Andrew tugged at her sleeve, seeking her attention. She shook her head, and continued talking. As a teacher and parent myself, I’m always interested in the ways parents and children interact, so I kept watching. Almost immediately, Andrew grabbed his mother’s hand and started pulling on her arm. Glynis reacted by removing his hands, and said ‘No.’ Moments later, he was jumping up and down, jerking his mother’s hand so hard her head jerked with each pull. Despite that, Glynis kept talking to her friend, ignoring son’s antics.
