What I don’t understand here is how this child was even diapered in the first place. Did we get consent before putting the diaper on? I think not - I’ve yet to meet a child who consented to that. Clearly we should be leaving this child au natural. The child will let us know when they consent to sharing their bodily eliminations with us.
And furthermore, why are we imposing our Western imperialist standards of bodily autonomy on the child? If the child identifies as an extension of the parent, then we need to honor that. In which case, we should change that stinky diaper pronto.
I also agree it’s not useful to ask kids questions about things that you’re going to do anyway.
There are plenty of choices even little kids actually get to make. Ask them questions about those. Pretending that they have a choice when you’re going to do it anyway seems like it teaches exactly the opposite lesson: that their consent is irrelevant.
I occasionally use the “We don’t do that, Ok?” phrasing, but in that case I am not requesting my son’s thoughts on the matter of doing that, I am requesting that he verbally affirm that he heard me about not doing that.
One of the often repeated bits of parenting advice is to give a choice to hide the lack of choice: Do you want to wear the red shoes or the blue shoes? [because you’re going to put on shoes, and you don’t have a choice about that]. This is blatantly stated in parenting books as giving the illusion of control where none exists. The idea is to fool a 2 year old, not an adult, so the transparency of the deception is not really relevant.
This works great when the kid doesn’t mind putting on the shoes, and gets a sense of self determination. It does not work when the kid does not what shoes at all.
I am pleased to see the consent thing coming up in age and situation appropriate ways. For example in school, if little Kimmy doesn’t want to get a hug, she is allowed to refuse without pressure. It is explained to the kid who wants to do the hugging that Kimmy doesn’t want a hug right now. At least this is the way I’ve seen it at my kid’s school both in written communications and in actual behavior.
Huh. I don’t really see it that way at all. I see the color-choice (for example) as a way for a kid to exercise a limited autonomy and to get practice making the sorts of choices we all make.
I mean, in the morning I decide whether to wear a red shirt or a green shirt, just like my kid. Not putting on a shirt isn’t a viable choice for me, any more than it is for my kid. True, my kid is motivated by my threat of witholding dessert, while I’m motivated by my boss’s threat of calling the cops if I show up to work naked; but both of us have a meaningful smaller choice to make within a larger compulsory action.
It doesn’t work in a foolproof manner, but it’s better than nothing. When the kid is freaking out about shoes, the choice doesn’t eliminate the need to lay down the law; but it can soften the blow (“Look, I need you to put on your sneakers or boots, either one. I recommend the boots, because–” “I’M GOING TO WEAR MY SNEEEEEAAAAAKERS!!!” “–That’s fine!”)
Neither children nor adults have complete freedom to choose anything. By teaching appropriateness I mean defining boundaries: what is the range of things among which a child (or an adult) is free to choose?
A parent might give a child freedom to choose which vegetable to eat with dinner, but not permit the choice of candy instead. Perhaps the child may choose which shoes to wear, but may no go outside barefoot. Certainly, a child may not choose to do things that violate another child’s autonomy without first asking their consent.
Similarly, as an adult I may choose which car to drive, but I may not choose which side of the road to drive it on.