"Alternatives to threats"?

I just got this week's ParentCenter email for 2-year-olds, and there's an article on "alternatives to threats" as a discipline tool. Here's one of their examples:

QUOTE
Instead of saying, "If you hit me once more, I'll take those drumsticks away," say, "Hey, I don't like having my head hit. So would you rather drum on the steps or on the floor?" Participating in this type of decision-making teaches your 2-year-old to think for himself and to assume responsibility for his actions.


Now, that's all well & good, but what if your toddler decides she'd still rather drum on your head? Giving empowering choices is usually my first approach, but it doesn't always work.

I also don't think "threats" have to be as extreme as they say. I don't yell, and I don't threaten anything I'm not prepared to follow through on. But I do say a lot of things along the lines of "If you slam the door again, we're going to have to play in the living room instead of playing in the bedroom." Is that a threat, or just a reasonable consequence? If I framed it as "I expect you not to slam the door," would that really make some kind of magical difference?

Here's the article:
http://parentcenter.babycenter.com/0_alter...hreats_72255.pc

Thoughts?

 

I'm a Love and Logic girl...and as far as offering choices/consequences go you ALWAYS offer two choices you're happy to live with. (Drumming on my head would not be an acceptable choice for me to offer).

I'm with you on this one, Alden.

 

I guess I'm using a combination. I'd say, "Ouch! Stop drumming on my head, that hurts Mommy. You may drum on this ball or that block." Still gives them a choice but not the option of continuing to drum on me. And yes, if they do drum on me again, I'm taking the sticks away and telling them why. Sometimes they need a basic consequence reminder.

 

I agree with debid, I think that's exactly how I'd handle it. I also don't consider a consequence an actual threat, to me a threat would be something you'd most likely not follow through on.

 

My rule is it's not a threat if you follow through, it's natural consequences!

 

I do threats, but like the rest of you, more natural consequences-type threats. I don't really threaten something that is unrelated to the behavior, i.e. "no fighting or you won't get to watch Sesame Street". Mine would be "no fighting or that toy (the one they are fighting over) goes in the closet".In the drumsticks example, I would probably say "No drumming on Mommy, that hurts, drum on this" but if they continued to drum on me, I would take them away.
I don't know if at this point they would understand "I expect you not to slam the door" but they do seem to understand "If I do x, then y happens" and sometimes I think they test it just to see if y really does happen.

 

Woops too late to edit. Just wanted to add to the above, that in the fighting over a toy scenario, I would first try to get them to share, then if that doesn't work, go to threatening to take the toy away.

 

My first thought about the senario was immedately take the drum stick away and tell them hitting is not appropriate in our house, it hurts mommy and you need to say sorry.
If they were were older, I would still take the drum sticks away and put them in time out for hitting. They know the rules by that point.

When it comes to other actions, I try and give them two choices "Do you want to wear your pink PJ's or your footed PJ's?" when really she wants to sleep naked and it is cold. That way she get some say, but she still needs to wear them, which is what needs to happen.

Or maybe I missed the point.... ardon: