Smasharoo wrote:
Maybe this is semantics. You don't think it's more likely they understand 'when Daddy used that tone of voice before, he hit me, that sucked' then 'Father is disciplining me for demanding an extended television watching period and hurling things at him to make my point clear. Oh dear, I will endeavor to avoid that in the future.'
It depends on their stage of cognitive development. Both sets of cognitions amount to, "If I do A, Mom/Dad does B, and B is bad, therefore A is bad." The reasoning is just more sophisticated in the second case.
You seem to be saying that:
Quote:
'when Daddy used that tone of voice before, he hit me, that sucked'
I know the gold standard is for Mom/Dad to always be this wonderful, glowing, safe presence, but that doesn't have to equate to "Mom/Dad = Doormat." If the child feels TOO safe, to the point where he thinks he can do absolutely anything and there will be no ramifications, then there needs to be a reality check, a point at which they understand, if they cross the line, Mom/Dad will not be so safe, Mom/Dad can be a bit scary (not harmful-scary, just surprising-scary), so it's best not to cross that line.
Even a toddler has the cognitive ability to form the association, "throwing myself down on the aisle of the grocery store and kicking boxes of cereal onto the floor = SafeMommy becomes ScaryMommy, thus throwing myself down on the aisle of the grocery store and kicking boxes of cereal onto the floor = BAD."