# Who here has NEVER punished?



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I was just thinking recently, that my ds has never been punished (he's only 17 mos, but still...I know parents with kids his age already doing time outs







). I'm super lucky that I found gd/positive parenting when he was just 6 mos!
The longer we go without punishing, the less sense punishing makes to me. Like the statement: how do you expect that making children feel bad will make them be good?
I'm talking about intentional punishing, with the intention of making a child "behave". I'm not talking about unintentional punishing- like the couple times ds was extra-fussy all day, and I eventually had to turn around and ignore him for about 30 seconds to recollect myself (basically, for my own sanity). But even stuff like that hasn't happened much at all.

I know that people would say that he's young and "just you wait" and that at some age punishing is inevitable. But I have a feeling that it's not. Any experience there? I know there are some here!


----------



## Rainbow Brite (Nov 2, 2004)

My dd is almost 17 months and we do not punish. I do not believe in punishing. I think that discipline is teaching. I even dislike the new fad natural consequences, b/c it seems like many people just apply concequences to the child, then say it's a natural consequence


----------



## mamachandi (Sep 21, 2002)

I didn't have to discipline my dd until she was almost 3 years old (when her little sister arrived ) who knows how long it would hav been?


----------



## ceilydhmama (Mar 31, 2003)

Dd is 4 and we have never used timeouts or other punishments. I have yelled at her - and told her why while I was yelling








We have guided and respectfully explained limits to her from day one. She drives me batty some times and I am not perfect in my responses (ie when she kicked my camera off my desk while I was downloading work pictures that had been hard to get - I yelled and asked her to find something else to do while I calmed down) but I love our non-punishing relationship with her.

She is confident that her opinions are valid and she respects when we say "no" because we can *usually* back it up with good reasons.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I am an "almost never" type punisher and as I have 4 children I have punished.
However my 2 youngest are 26 months and have never been punished.
My ds1 has had "time out" a handful of times but the very first time he was 2 1/2. This isnt something that happens every day or every week (or even every month).
Even though I have not completely eliminated the whole concept of punishment 100% from my toolbox. I really think it is rediculous to punish a child who simply doesnt know better! Better to teach them than punish them.
Joline


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

ditto what Johub said...but I wish I didn't have to, unfortunately my 15 year old has endangered her life with some of her decisions and I have had to get pretty tough with her. Fortunately she seems to be moving out of this stage and is making better choices but she had a rough year last year.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Hmmm, well I guess it what you mean by "punish." If you mean impose a non-related consequence....then no.

But if you mean, impose a consequence that is not natural but is logical, then yes, occassionally. I do this only to protect the person or property of another.

So if my child was throwing a ball around at someone else's home, and I had told her that she needed to stop because something could break, and she continued to do so, then I might take the ball away. I would probably say something like "Let me know when you think you can have the ball without throwing it at stuff."

At my own house I would probably be more tolerant of this behavior. If something broke it might be a learning experience. But I feel an obligation that their learning does not come at someone else's expense and thus would take the ball away at someone else's home.


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

Maya, I wouldn't consider that punishment. That is protecting someone else's property and it just happens to involve taking something away from your child.

My ds is 20 months and has never been punished. I can't imagine what I would ever punish him for (up to this point.) He's just a little baby, learning and having fun. He's never done anything that would warrent a punishment.

We went to visit friends with a dd the same age as ds, and the mom constantly told her dd to share, don't be mean, etc. and put her in time out twice in 15 minutes for not sharing her toys. Some people have VERY different expectations, I guess.


----------



## kchoffmann (Aug 16, 2004)

At 2 1/2 years we have never punished. For the most part, my DS usually listens to me when I tell him he needs to do something or stop something. Maybe I'm lucky? When he doesn't he's either too preoccupied to hear me, or he's interested in the "no" response and wants to hear it again or thinks it's funny, or he forgets that he's just been told not to. Or, sometimes, he's tired or not feeling well. None of these times when he doesn't listen or do what I want seem like reasonable instances to me to punish. In fact, again, maybe I'm lucky in that I don't see my DS as intentionally trying to do "bad" things, but I can't imagine what would make someone punish a kid this young. As far as I can see, anything he does is developmentally appropriate. He's just trying to get a hang of how the world works and how much he can control what it does. That seems healthy to me.

Discipline, however, is another story. He gets discipline every day and has since he was younger in the form of clear, consistent boundaries. I make clear to him what I will and won't do and what I expect him to do and not do. The result is that while he might express some frustration when he can't do something, he doesn't melt down about it. He just expresses his feelings about it and moves on. And I acknowledge these feelings, but hold fast to my boundaries about it. I like to think this has something to do with why I don't "have to" punish. Then again, I have another baby on the way who may make me eat my words.


----------



## freestyler (Jan 28, 2005)

Rainbow Brite---is the new fad called natural consequences like the new fad called natural childbirth?







Natural consequences have been around as long as there have been living things roaming the earth. Small dinosaur wanders in front of large T-Rex, gets eaten: natural consequence. This is as old as the hills, literally.


----------



## alicia622 (May 8, 2005)

Me, but G is only 4 months old so...

I have worked with children for years and have helped develop behavior plans and taught parents some techniques (such as 123 Magic and time outs). I have given time outs before, but never found them to be that effective and it always seemed primitive to me, but for the families I worked with- a definite improvement from what they were doing.

I find that listening to children/reflecting/and setting clear expectations and not giving in to their pleas for more, more, more as well as natural/logical consequences brought me the most success.

I worked with a boy who had a hx. of stealing so when we went into stores, I didn't give him much breathing room. I was respectful about it and didn't remind him I would do it or anything like that, just didn't let him out of my sight. Once in a while he would get annoyed with me about it, but he understood why I was doing it.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

No punishing here...


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

Antonin is 16 months so we have never punished. Loving discipline is all we do, and all we ever plan to do.









~Nay


----------



## lisac77 (May 27, 2005)

We also don't punish, but we do use a few instances of consequences. For example, if we are on the way out the door and DS chucks something out of anger, more often than not it will be left where it falls until we get home. Then he gets it back right away. I have also removed him from social situations if he is being agressive, but not in a mean way, and I stay with him. At that point it's more about others' safety than his comfort level.

I remember one time recently where I _almost_ made an arbitrary punishment, but stopped myself when I realized how stupid it was. I agree that there's no sense in trying to force a child to be obdient by making them feel bad. It seems so counter intuitive.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I don't punish (DC is 4) but, like some of you here, there are definitely times when I do things that could be considered a "logical consequence", which I think can be defined as punishment depending on your perspective. I'm on the fence about it only because, for me, a logical consequence and a punishment are really easy to mix up.

Definitely no random consequences...yet and I'd like to keep it that way.


----------



## oldcrunchymom (Jun 26, 2002)

My kids are 10 and 7. A few times when they have been out of control angry, I have sent them in their rooms to calm down. I'd say this has happened less than 10 times in their lives. But, when it happens, I feel it is necessary for me to maintain my sanity (I can't go into another room myself because their rooms are the only "rooms" in the house). Otherwise I end up screaming too and it's not pretty.

Other than that they haven't been punished. My mother never "grounded" us or took away "privileges" because she didn't believe in that sort of punishment, and it seemed to serve me and my brother well. So I'm hoping the same thing works for my kids.


----------



## MamaE (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
I'm on the fence about it only because, for me, a logical consequence and a punishment are really easy to mix up.

I also have a hard time deciding what's a logical consequence and what isn't. At 33 months, we've had to use some consequences, though I am not always sure if they are natural - i.e, if you don't brush your teeth, no books at bedtime. I'm willing to do quite a bit of negotiation, but there are some things that I do not negotiate - the car seat and toothbrushing are 2 that come to mind. There has to be a way to get a child to do certain things which are non-negotiable and removal of priveleges such as books or a toy she is holding does the trick. Is this natural/logical? I don't know the answer to that.

My ideal is gentle guidance and lots of explanation. The explanation part usually comes easily b/c I'm naturally very chatty w/ DD and I've been explaining things to her since she was born. OTOH, my response to behavior I find annoying is not always as calm and collected as I would like. But, so far, I have not spanked, done time-out or used any other random punishment (at least not that I classify as random). I also don't yell, though I have raised my voice, and I typically tell DD in no uncertain terms when I am very angry! I tend to think DD gets my displeasure from my tone or my actions and that's punishment or discipline enough, at least at this age. Talk to me in another year or 2, though. This job keeps changing on me and just as I think I've got it mastered, the stakes get raised.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

I've punished, despite having found GD before ds was born. The minimal amount of times I've punished have invariably been those when I've been completely stressed out and in reactive mode. Fortunately, those times became fewer and further between as I started internalizing GD more and we've now been punishment free for a long, long time. It's not my default reaction anymore. I'm so, so happy about that.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaE*
I also have a hard time deciding what's a logical consequence and what isn't. At 33 months, we've had to use some consequences, though I am not always sure if they are natural - i.e, if you don't brush your teeth, no books at bedtime. I'm willing to do quite a bit of negotiation, but there are some things that I do not negotiate - the car seat and tooth brushing are 2 that come to mind. There has to be a way to get a child to do certain things which are non-negotiable and removal of privileges such as books or a toy she is holding does the trick. Is this natural/logical? I don't know the answer to that.

No books for not brushing teeth is definitely not a natural consequence. The natural consequence of not brushing teeth is food on your teeth, maybe bad breath or cavities some day. I'm not even sure if it's logical but I'm sure it could be "spun" that way. This is my thing with logical consequences (a consequence imposed by the parent, which relates to the behavior ~ this is as I understand it) ~ they are too dependent on being "spun" in my experience. Yes, we have some that are very clear like removing a chile that is about to bite another and etc. But, others, require so much semantical stuff in order to not be or seem like a punishment that I get suspicious.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

We don't do punishments for the most part. I have occassionally taken things away, if needed. An example: oldest dd is 7, the other day she was writing on my 3 yo dd with a marker. She wrote the little one's name across her back and proceeded to draw pictures on her. I asked her to stop and she kept doing it. I took the marker and told her she could have it back when she was ready to write on paper. She is 7 and knows not to write on people. I don't really see this as a punishment, she wasn't sent to her room, time out, etc. She also helped me wash her sister in the tub. She wanted to do this; she wasn't made to or even asked to help. Although, if I had asked her to do it, this would have been a natural consequence.

My 3 yo went through a writing on all the walls of the house thing about 6 months ago, so she couldn't draw unless dh or I were sittting with her. It was a major problem. DH was sick of scrubbing the walls. I figured taking away the crayons was better than listening to daddy yell after work. She wasn't punished or yelled at. She just needed to wait to color until one of us could sit with her. Thankfully, that stage has passed.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

I don't see how taking away book reading at bed time is a logical consequence of not brushing your teeth.

But taking away the means of misbehavior, like taking away a marker being used to draw on walls is to me a logical (though not natural) consequence. I don't have a big problem with these when they are used to protect people or property.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

DS1 is a few days shy of 4 years old, and I think the closest that we have come to a punishment is the given option of a 'self-imposed time out'. There were 2 or 3 times when DS1 was non-responsive and I would give him the option of either responding, or going to sit in his rocking chair (one of his favorite places) until he was able to respond. All but once, he choose to respond, but once he choose to go sit in his rocking chair for a bit, I offered to go with him which he declined stating he wanted to be alone, but quickly decided to respond to my original request and release himself from the 'time out'. A few days later when he was feeling frustrated with something (and stubborn), he asked if he could go to his rocking chair for a few minutes and when I said he could, he asked if I would go with him which I did, and we talked for a few minutes. That was all about 6 months ago, and it hasn't happened since.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I consider "logical consequences" punishment. So with that, we have not been punishment free although that is what I strive to be. There have been a few times (somewhere between 3-5 times) that I have lost my cool and taken something away or asked dd to sit on the couch for a minute that were "logical consequences" but this is not something I want to do and it actually has not happened in a few months. As far as punishments like time outs, lost priveledges, etc.....no I have not.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

We haven't yet, but dd is only just shy of 7 months









Believe it or not, some people have already begun punishing babies this young *shudders*

We don't plan on punishing at all. Imo, it doesn't get to the root of the issue at hand, it doesn't do anything to strengthen the relationship, change the behavior that you don't care for -- and it doesn't model how the world operates (in the real world, no one gets punished for not eating their peas or not brushing their teeth)...

Imo, not being able to read books is NOT a natural consequence for not brushing your teeth, it is not even a logical one...it is a straight up punishment in my book. I wouldn't impose a consequence, but for example a *logical* consequence may be that your child is not allowed to eat candy or chocolate or whatever unless they brush their teeth because sugar is the main culprit of tooth decay etc... again, I wouldn't impose that, but that would be more logical because it directly relates to teeth health and care... books don't in any way. That is just denying them something they like because they won't do something you want....kwim? Natural consequences are things that happen when there is no intervention of any kind.... i.e.... not brushing teeth may lead to bad breath, tooth decay, tooth aches etc...

Anywhoo... no plans for punishments here...


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
I don't see how taking away book reading at bed time is a logical consequence of not brushing your teeth.

But taking away the means of misbehavior, like taking away a marker being used to draw on walls is to me a logical (though not natural) consequence. I don't have a big problem with these when they are used to protect people or property.

Well if reading stories is the next step in the bedtime routine after tooth brushing. It is logical that this step would not be reached unless or until teeth are brushed. But this is a logical, not a natural consequence. And only then if the entire routine stops until the teeth are brushed. It is an arbitrary punishment if the routine continues to bedtime with the storytime taken out.
Does that make any sense?
Logical is "we cant read books until your teeth are brushed" because they come next in the ritual.
Arbitrary is "you will have to go to bed without stories if you do not brush your teeth"
Again it is sometimes a very narrow line to walk.

I also think "removing the means of misbehavior" is another term for a logical consequence. Because it is imposed by the parents, but it relates DIRECTLY to the problem and not to the child themselves. (like the marker for example)
I fully believe in this type of logical consequence. But I dont really see it as a punishment because it is not designed to make the child feel badly about the behavior. it is just designed to stop the behavior (no marker, no coloring on the walls) or make a repeat unlikely for a time.
That said before I read Anthonly Wolf, I did think all of these things were "punishment".
Now I think there is a clear difference between a truly logical consequence and a punishment. Time Out does nothing to actually prevent the behavior (unless the behavior is interpersonal, like hitting. Then removal IS the logical consequence) Better to remove the thing, or put the object in "time out" than the child.
"If you throw this toy, it will break. We will put it on the counter for a while to protect it" or "Markers are for drawing on paper only. We will put these up and when you want to draw with markers mom will stay with you."
These ARE logical consequences. But I think they are excellent tools of parenting, and I now draw a distinct line between this type of consequence and "punishment" which is basically revenge against the child for being bad.
(even somethign that seems logical becomes punishment IMO if it extends beyond the minimum needed to stop the action. For example, taking away a toy sword for an attempted beheading of a sibling is logical. But breaking the toy sword or throwing it away or removing all similar toys etc. . . is beyond the simple step needed to interfere with the behavior and are done almost in spite. This is where labeling everythign that is "logical consequence" either as punishment or as something other than punishment gets tricky. I think it can be both.
Joline


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

For example, taking away a toy sword for an attempted beheading of a sibling is logical.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
No books for not brushing teeth is definitely not a natural consequence. The natural consequence of not brushing teeth is food on your teeth, maybe bad breath or cavities some day. I'm not even sure if it's logical but I'm sure it could be "spun" that way. This is my thing with logical consequences (a consequence imposed by the parent, which relates to the behavior ~ this is as I understand it) ~ they are too dependent on being "spun" in my experience. Yes, we have some that are very clear like removing a chile that is about to bite another and etc. But, others, require so much semantical stuff in order to not be or seem like a punishment that I get suspicious.

As usual, I agree.









Back to to the OP's question. I don't consider what we do as "punishment", so I'd say we don't punish... but...we use what other's might consider time-out. To us, it's taking dd out of the situation that is escalating.

For example, dd almost 4, has her recorder and starts hitting the coffee table, pretending it's a drum. Great imagination, but breaking a recorder and scarring my coffee table. I've asked her a few times, getting down on her level, to stop and tell her that she will break the recorder and hurt my table. (Now, this whole "natural" consequences theory would probably say, "let her destroy it... she'll learn not to hit the table with the recorder"). She doesn't stop. I show her that she's scarring my table and also show her how we use recorders as instruments. She goes back to hitting the table. I take away the recorder, she gets angry and tries to hit me. I tell her that hitting hurts and have her sit in a chair, while I sit across from her and explain what's happened. Time out or really teaching (disciplining)? I guess it's a matter of opinion.

And I am NOT going to let my dd's teeth rot out because of natural consequences. At some point, you actually have to parent these kids instead of letting the world teach them their lessons.


----------



## Maman*Musique (May 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic*
And I am NOT going to let my dd's teeth rot out because of natural consequences. At some point, you actually have to parent these kids instead of letting the world teach them their lessons.

On the teeth issue, I think brushing has to happen BUT physically forcing isn't something I have ever been willing to do. We have had to get creative at times when ds was little but have never held either child down to brush.

Answering the op... My kids are almost 5 yo and 17 months. We haven't "disciplined" as I understand it. We do our best to teach and discuss. We attempt to avoid situations that set us all up for stress and frustration. It's not easy but it's what feels right to us. Things have definitely gotten hairy since baby #2 and i'm sure the coming years will bring lots of excitement, lol. We shall see....


----------



## ceilydhmama (Mar 31, 2003)

Quote:

Well if reading stories is the next step in the bedtime routine after tooth brushing. It is logical that this step would not be reached unless or until teeth are brushed. But this is a logical, not a natural consequence. And only then if the entire routine stops until the teeth are brushed. It is an arbitrary punishment if the routine continues to bedtime with the storytime taken out.
Does that make any sense?
Logical is "we cant read books until your teeth are brushed" because they come next in the ritual.

This is how this would look in my house. Not punishing - just a matter of fact. I tell dd that I am responsible to help her get to adulthood healthy, happy and whole and as the parent I need to make sure that some things do and other things don't happen.

I define the difference between punishing and teaching/disciplining as one that helps her understand my perspective (which is also always open to be changed) and leaving her dignity intact.

Natural consequences in some cases are pretty useless - not brushing her teeth and having them rot out of her head does nothing for leaving her diginity intact and educating her about to care for her body.

Also the example of banging on the coffee table. That is just rude and damaging to something a child has no way of fixing. I would stop that one too with first something like "I love that you want to drum - but the coffe table is a bad choice because ... Can I get you your drum and turn on some marching music?"


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm quite surprised by those who feel that "taking away the item of misbehavior" is a punishment, or even a "logical consequence" in all circumstances. I guess I see it as "helping a child to do the socially appropriate thing". (It's definitely not non-coercive, I don't imagine







)
I do see how it would be entirely dependent on HOW you did it. If you did it like "you were bad, and now you must pay by having your ball taken away" then yes, punishment (note- that was being sarcastic- I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen with the gals here). But if its done more like "If you throw the ball, it could break something. Let's put it up here to take away the temptation to throw it" I don't see it as a punishment at all.
Perhaps I'm just looking at it from my ds's perspective- when I do that with him, its not taken as a punishment or a consequence (from what I can tell anyways). So he's throwing his snack on the floor and not eating it at all. I tell him it's for eating, not throwing onthe floor. He continues to throw. I say "Let's put it up, so you can have it later." He is happy to help me put it up, and we move on to something else.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maman*Musique*
Answering the op... My kids are almost 5 yo and 17 months. We haven't "disciplined" as I understand it. We do our best to teach and discuss. We attempt to avoid situations that set us all up for stress and frustration.

Sounds like discipline to me







...just not punishment

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
No books for not brushing teeth is definitely not a natural consequence. The natural consequence of not brushing teeth is food on your teeth, maybe bad breath or cavities some day. I'm not even sure if it's logical but I'm sure it could be "spun" that way.

I was thinking along the same lines. It *might* be logical, like Joline said. But...if the rest of the bedtime routine continues, then it seems more like flat out punishment than anything else.

Thanks for the answers so far. I'm looking forward to more


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I also think "removing the means of misbehavior" is another term for a logical consequence. Because it is imposed by the parents, but it relates DIRECTLY to the problem and not to the child themselves. (like the marker for example)
I fully believe in this type of logical consequence. But I dont really see it as a punishment because it is not designed to make the child feel badly about the behavior. it is just designed to stop the behavior (no marker, no coloring on the walls) or make a repeat unlikely for a time.
That said before I read Anthonly Wolf, I did think all of these things were "punishment".
Now I think there is a clear difference between a truly logical consequence and a punishment. Time Out does nothing to actually prevent the behavior (unless the behavior is interpersonal, like hitting. Then removal IS the logical consequence) Better to remove the thing, or put the object in "time out" than the child.
"If you throw this toy, it will break. We will put it on the counter for a while to protect it" or "Markers are for drawing on paper only. We will put these up and when you want to draw with markers mom will stay with you."
These ARE logical consequences. But I think they are excellent tools of parenting, and I now draw a distinct line between this type of consequence and "punishment" which is basically revenge against the child for being bad.
(even somethign that seems logical becomes punishment IMO if it extends beyond the minimum needed to stop the action. For example, taking away a toy sword for an attempted beheading of a sibling is logical. But breaking the toy sword or throwing it away or removing all similar toys etc. . . is beyond the simple step needed to interfere with the behavior and are done almost in spite. This is where labeling everythign that is "logical consequence" either as punishment or as something other than punishment gets tricky. I think it can be both.
Joline


I really agree. I think that this is why I have no problem with "removing the means of misbehavior" type of logical consequences but I do with others.

The refusing to read a story whether logical or not is not just removing the means of misbehavior and thus I am not comfortable with it.


----------



## Maman*Musique (May 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
Sounds like discipline to me







...just not punishment


Oops, you are correct







Somehow I mixed up "discipline" and "punishment"


----------



## Rainbow Brite (Nov 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *freestyler*
Rainbow Brite---is the new fad called natural consequences like the new fad called natural childbirth?







Natural consequences have been around as long as there have been living things roaming the earth. Small dinosaur wanders in front of large T-Rex, gets eaten: natural consequence. This is as old as the hills, literally.


I know there are real natural consequences, but people are applying regular consequences and calling them natural- that's what I call the new fad. I read one mom who threw out her sons toy b/c he was throwing it and called it a natural cosequence. It seems to be the new phrase to call punishment so it doesn't sound as harsh.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
The refusing to read a story whether logical or not is not just removing the means of misbehavior and thus I am not comfortable with it.

Yes but isnt it really a form of active waiting. (assuming that the whole routine stops until the teeth are brushed, and not just that the story gets taken away and the child goes to bed without brushing teeth or getting a story)


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rainbow Brite*
I know there are real natural consequences, but people are applying regular consequences and calling them natural- that's what I call the new fad. I read one mom who threw out her sons toy b/c he was throwing it and called it a natural cosequence. It seems to be the new phrase to call punishment so it doesn't sound as harsh.

I think a lot of books out there use "natural consequences" and "logical consequences" interchangably and so it becomes very difficult to really know what anybody is talking about.
I am reading "Hold in to your Kids" which I am absolutely loving. But he also occasionally uses the term "natural consequences" to mean what we understand to be "logical consequences.


----------



## Rainbow Brite (Nov 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I think a lot of books out there use "natural consequences" and "logical consequences" interchangably and so it becomes very difficult to really know what anybody is talking about.
I am reading "Hold in to your Kids" which I am absolutely loving. But he also occasionally uses the term "natural consequences" to mean what we understand to be "logical consequences.


Yes, and I guess this is annoying for me, b/c to me, a natural consequence is something you do not have to impose. If you have to impose it, it isn't natural. So it seems on some boards, everything is now a natural consequence


----------



## Girl Named Sandoz (Jul 16, 2002)

We don't use punishments or rewards. I have the pretty much the same views on them as Alfie Kohn (Unconditional Parenting).

I was raised GD. My parents didn't use punishments (no time-outs, grounding, removal of privileges etc.), no threats, and definitely no hitting. All four of us turned out brilliantly.







We weren't easy 'dream children' by a long shot, especially not when we hit puberty, but my parents always treated us as reasonable human beings. IMO, they found a good balance - letting us make our own choices, which built self-confidence while still imparting certain values and guidelines, which led to a feeling of security.

I take a lot of inspiration from the way I was raised and my experience gives me added confidence in following a UP-style GD approach.


----------



## MamaE (May 1, 2004)

OK, so to some of you not reading books is not a logical or natural consequence to not brushing teeth. I can accept that. However, the lack of a practical alternative for getting the job done bothers me. I'm assuming you feel, then, that just letting a child's teeth rot is good parenting? Or perhaps you'll just hold your kids down, kicking and screaming, while you brush? We can carry on and on about who's better than whom (ahem, I mean who's more GD than whom) and why removal of privileges is so evil, but at the end of the day, as I said in my post, there has to be a way to gently get children to do those few, necessary things that protect their safety.

Johub, thank you for articulating my point. Yes, the next step after brushing in our bedtime routine is books, and if the teeth are not brushed, the books cannot be read. I have never once had to follow through with this. I deliver this alternative to my daughter in a matter-of-fact tone and it isn't something I have to do every night. I just can't believe I'm the only mother here with a 2.5 y.o. who hasn't had to coerce her child (albeit gently) to brush teeth. As I said in my post, there are some things that are just non-negotiable. When my child's health and welfare are at risk, there has to be a trump card to save her - I prefer the most gentle ones I can find (such as calmly stating 'if no x, then no y' - it has never failed me).

I love GD and I love MDC, but I often find the tone here to be judgmental and overly-analytic of parenting in general. I think we have to come out of our heads and away from our books once in a while and just take care of our kids already! I hardly think removing the privilege of books is going to scar my child for life. I have to admit I shy away from MDC at times. I get so sick of the implication that comes from certain posts and threads that if you do 'x', you're rotten. If you do 'y', you're rotten. This job of mothering is not an all or nothing thing. It's a journey, and not a single one of us here is going to take it without a few missteps.


----------



## MamaE (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
The refusing to read a story whether logical or not is not just removing the means of misbehavior and thus I am not comfortable with it.

So how do you propose 'removing the means of misbehavior' in this instance, when the means of misbehavior is the refusal to brush teeth and not a tangible object as in the examples of removing toys being thrown? I'm not singling you out; I would really like to know how people get their toddlers' teeth brushed at night. If I am the only one here whose toddler doesn't always cooperate, then I'll feel really sorry for myself! I know I have a spirited one, but seriously!

And since we're being analytical here, why on earth this use of the word 'misbehavior'?? Calling it misbehavior, IMO, is akin to using the word naughty, a term I relegate to my dog and even then, sparingly.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaE*
So how do you propose 'removing the means of misbehavior' in this instance, when the means of misbehavior is the refusal to brush teeth and not a tangible object as in the examples of removing toys being thrown? I'm not singling you out; I would really like to know how people get their toddlers' teeth brushed at night. If I am the only one here whose toddler doesn't always cooperate, then I'll feel really sorry for myself! I know I have a spirited one, but seriously!

MamaE, I'm definitely not non-coercive, but I do get my dd to brush her teeth, and those other things for safety, but without having, or threatening a consequence. And not because I think I'm more GD than anyone, I certainly don't fool myself there!









The reason I try to avoid threats at all cost is because I think it's too easy for them to escalate. For example, I have this friend, who IS a punisher, incidentally, and uses threats like this. "If you don't help clean up the toys, you're not going to get to read books tonight." (I'm not likening this to your situation, it's just coincidence that I've heard her say this.) Okay, so her dd usually immediately helps her clean up. But what if she doesn't? Then she says, "Okay, no books for you tonight," and doesn't read them. (I assume.) But say she's waiting for her to get in the carseat and she's having a bad day and they're in a busy parking lot, AND say dd doesn't really care right then about books. Then what does the mother do? She'll have to threaten worse and worse consequences, may lose her temper, may spank, which she doesn't want to do (non-physical punishment only).

Anyway, my point is that I've found it more effective for me to just re-state, matter-of-factly, what needs to be done, without a consequence stated. This keeps the focus on the issue at hand, and so far, my dd does what needs to be done.

In response to the original question, I've punished. When ds was about 7 weeks old, my dd started hitting him, and I tried putting her in Time-Out. This was very ineffective in helping her feel happier about her brother or stopping her from hitting him more. It may have been somewhat effective in helping me not spank her, because I was having a VERY hard time not losing it, and if I could put her in T/O I at least felt like there was something I could do. But after about 5 times we gave it up, in large part because she was wetting herself when I put her there, which woke me up to what I was really doing, luckily.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

I tried time-out once when DD was about 18 months old and decided it wasn't for us. Other than that, no. DD will be two in three weeks.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaE*
So how do you propose 'removing the means of misbehavior' in this instance, when the means of misbehavior is the refusal to brush teeth and not a tangible object as in the examples of removing toys being thrown? I'm not singling you out; I would really like to know how people get their toddlers' teeth brushed at night. If I am the only one here whose toddler doesn't always cooperate, then I'll feel really sorry for myself! I know I have a spirited one, but seriously!

And since we're being analytical here, why on earth this use of the word 'misbehavior'?? Calling it misbehavior, IMO, is akin to using the word naughty, a term I relegate to my dog and even then, sparingly.


Well I have three dd's and for us I found that by telling them that they must do it, and actively waiting for it to happen made it indeed happen. This does not mean they never said "NOOOOOOO' and start fussing. They did. But unlike you who then theatened to take the book reading away, I just said "I know you don't want to but you must brush your teeth. Your teeth will get sick otherwise" I said this calmly but VERY SERIOUSLY. I then stood their looking at them until it got done. And it happened. So there was no reason to ever threaten anything else.

We believed it would happen, we expected it to happen, we made it clear that there was no choice.. For us, in all kinds of situations this was as effective as any threat, any punishment.

As for using the term "misbeavior" for me its just a short hand word, for not doing what was expected. Its not the most "politically correct" but I was too tired to think of anything better though I am sure there was a better word.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaE*
I would really like to know how people get their toddlers' teeth brushed at night. If I am the only one here whose toddler doesn't always cooperate, then I'll feel really sorry for myself!

Oh, my no! In our house, DC just doesn't brush her teeth. Maybe this is terrible.







I just hope she gets my teeth









Same for eating and sleeping and going to the bathroom. These are the things that I just can't deal with when it comes to "making" DC do it. And, for me, bribes or punishments are not an option. The only thing I can deal with is talking about it.

But you know, this is the only way I can do it. I like to talk about why this is and I like to think about this kind of stuff but, at the end of the day, it's just the only way for me. It's not about thinking it's "best", iykwim.

I have lots of friends for whom another way is the only way. And that's the way it is.

An interesting way to think about this is like this...Is brushing teeth most likely the best thing for kids ~ yea. Is no punishment ~ yea. If you can't have both, which one is most important to you or which choice can you handle as a parent. But, whichever a parent chooses we're still doing the same work ~ trying to get the child to brush her/his teeth without punishment.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

It always comes back to brushing teeth... it could be a thread about the war in Iraq and by the 40th post or so we would be talking about brushing teeth























That having been said, i wouldn't ever make my child brush her teeth.

Talk about cavities, dental health, pick out own toothbrush, have a contest to see who can brush faster, let her pick out a fun toothpaste, let her brush her teeth in the car looking in the rearview mirror, let her brush all her dolly's teeth before she brushed her own, let her brush my teeth, dhs teeth, the neighbors teeth if they were willing, sure...egg timer, stopwatch, music playing, turn on the tv while you brush for 3 minutes (we are tv free though)... wonderful...

Anything within my power to help it be a fun choice...but the key word there is CHOICE...and if she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to brush her teeth.... there will be no forcing, yelling, punishing, denying of other pleasurable things etc....


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

No punishments, no rewards, no bribes, no coercion, no force, no threats, no imposed consequences by anyone, to anyone in our family. We negotiate for mutually agreeeable solutions and everyone has the final say over their own body. We don't always find a mutually agreeable solution in the moment; but we don't "make" anyone else do what we want.

And, yes we brush our teeth, eat vegetables, sleep when we are tired, wear seatbelts, learn math, and don't run into the street. Did I miss anything?







Oh, and we don't stay home all day, everyday of our lives. We are out living in the real world.

The thing that makes our home atmosphere cooperative is that we are *grateful* when we help each other, we don't expect others to do what we want them to do against their will. We appreciate when our son helps us by coming on errands that are important to us. And he appreciates when we help him by going on errands that are important to him. Not as a tit for tat or as a condition of going. But because we *genuinely appreciate* working together to get what we need and want. And we respect eaches' choice when they *don't* want to participate because we don't want to be forced to do things we don't want to do either. (But of course, a child can't really force me, it really is only a one way dynamic where force can be imposed.)

Pat, imposed consequences are punishments. I don't care if you call them natural, logical or conditional. If the parent *initiates*, or *causes* or implements a "consequence" it ain't *naturally occuring*.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaE*

I just can't believe I'm the only mother here with a 2.5 y.o. who hasn't had to coerce her child (albeit gently) to brush teeth. As I said in my post, there are some things that are just non-negotiable. When my child's health and welfare are at risk, there has to be a trump card to save her - I prefer the most gentle ones I can find (such as calmly stating 'if no x, then no y' - it has never failed me).



Hi. I have a 2.5 yo that seems to LOVE tooth brushing some days and HATES it others. As I posted earlier in this thread, I do not consider myself a prefect GD mother. I am trying very hard to never punish (or coerce), but it has happened a couple of times. I am working hard on that every day. However, tooth brushing in not an area that I have had to impose any sort of coersion or consequences. I just redefined tooth brushing







Most days I matter of factly state that I am going to brush my teeth and dd follows. Some days she chooses not to. We have discussed why it is important and while I think it has sunk in a little, I am pretty sure she does not fully grasp the long term consequences. If she chooses not to, I give her other options like eating a couple of carrot sticks or swishing water around. 90% of the time, either she brushes or does another option. The other 10%, I let it go. I do not see how 10% of the time is really going to have serious long term consequences and even if it did, it is my feeling that a few cavities is better than being coersed into having her body violated (in her mind). If she flat out refused to brush her teeth ever and was not interested in carrots or water, I would hoenstly drop it. She will someday soon more fully understand it and at that point it really is her choice.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

I do the waiting thing, like Maya described. I also give them the choice between doing it themselves or having Mommy brush for you. This is not done in a threatening manner, nor would I hold them down. It's merely a choice. In general, 2 of my dds prefer to do it alone, while one sometimes just wants me to do it. No problem, as long as it gets done. I don't really see never brushing your teeth as an option. Maybe its from living in the mountains and seeing some terrible looking mouths! When they are young, they don't really get the long term implications of not brushing. Since baby teeth affect the big teeth and I have 2 with some big teeth, they do need to brush. Eventually, mine will do it. They may whine and complain, but they will do it without being held down and forced, punished or bribed.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Scuba and CC said it better







Sorry for my incoherant blabbering post......


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Pat, imposed consequences are punishments. I don't care if you call them natural, logical or conditional. If the parent *initiates*, or *causes* or implements a "consequence" it ain't *naturally occuring*.

I totally agree that any imposed consequence is not naturally occuring.

The question though is not that. The question is are all imposed consequences punishment.

If you scoop up a small child (gently) heading for the street you have imposed a consequence to them running torward the street. Even if you put them back down immediately there has still be an consequence to their action (the scooping up) Is that punishment? I think not.

So I posit that not ALL imposed consequences are punishment. To me consequences for the express and sole purpose of protecting the safety of that person or another are not punishment.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
If she chooses not to, I give her other options like eating a couple of carrot sticks or swishing water around.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Well I have three dd's and for us I found that by telling them that they must do it, and actively waiting for it to happen made it indeed happen. This does not mean they never said "NOOOOOOO' and start fussing. They did. But unlike you who then theatened to take the book reading away, I just said "I know you don't want to but you must brush your teeth. Your teeth will get sick otherwise" I said this calmly but VERY SERIOUSLY. I then stood their looking at them until it got done. And it happened. So there was no reason to ever threaten anything else.

You know, the more you post, the more I think you and I are 2 peas in a pod.







This is how I handled things with ds, too, when no amount of playing, etc. would work. I also told him the reasons he needed to do these things - stinky breath, yellow, sick, teeth, etc. For him, there was a particularly important reason - he had deep crevices behind his front teeth that had to be kept clean or else there was a very real risk of major cavities. That's why non-coercive me pushed the issue. Sometimes we just did behind those teeth. And, admittedly, sometimes we compromised and he skipped an evening then brushed first thing in the morning. I'm okay with that... I occasionally skip an evening myself.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaE*
I love GD and I love MDC, but I often find the tone here to be judgmental and overly-analytic of parenting in general. I think we have to come out of our heads and away from our books once in a while and just take care of our kids already!

This is what I spend my whole day doing (the actual parenting, I mean).







I come to MDC to analyse what I'm doing and learn and grow in a different way. It's interesting that I almost never read judgment into the words of people on the this board, even when the posts are directed specifically at me. I guess I just assume we're all here to grow and help, and that the words are meant to meet that end, even when they come across a little harsh (because we all know that much meaning gets lost when tone isn't heard).

I'm sure your daughter will not be permanently scarred by removing her books (though I would be concerned about linking reading to punishment in any way). I think what those of us who do things differently are saying is that there's pretty much always another way. There's a lot of space between removing something important to your child as punishment and letting your child's teeth rot out of her head.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
I totally agree that any imposed consequence is not naturally occuring.

The question though is not that. The question is are all imposed consequences punishment.

If you scoop up a small child (gently) heading for the street you have imposed a consequence to them running torward the street. Even if you put them back down immediately there has still be an consequence to their action (the scooping up) Is that punishment? I think not.

So I posit that not ALL imposed consequences are punishment. To me consequences for the express and sole purpose of protecting the safety of that person or another are not punishment.

If the child *dissents* to the "consequence" then it is punishment, in the child's opinion, I would surmise.

Pat


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
If the child *dissents* to the "consequence" then it is punishment, in the child's opinion, I would surmise.

Pat


If you are really saying that it is punishment to momentarily scooping up a very small child (or gently holding them) to keep them from running in the street because they "dissent", I think your defintion of punishment is different than most peoples. Even from most people here.

Are you saying then that it is not ever OK to do this? Even if the child might be hurt otherwise and does not understand that their action could result in death?


----------



## MamaE (May 1, 2004)

My posts were defensive. Sorry.







:

Thanks for the candid replies, though. I'll rethink my "threats" and try to find an alternative next time. I hadn't thought of just standing and waiting for the toothbrushing to happen. Usually, DD runs away from me when she isn't feeling cooperative, so standing there and waiting doesn't look like a viable option. Next time, however, I will simply wait it out - repeating my request over and over again. We shall see how my little firecracker responds.









Question though, doesn't it seem there's an implicit threat in standing/waiting/looking at them until it's done? Maybe I am just picturing my father glaring down at me and making me feel about 2 feet tall...

To me, not brushing her teeth is not an option - it's a clearcut health/hygiene issue to me. It just feels like my responsibility to her, yk?

Dragonfly, lucky you to have not seen judgment here at MDC - I don't see it every time I come, but I do see it. I think it happens b/c we get so invested in what we're doing that it can naturally come across that we're right and/or better somehow.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaE*
Question though, doesn't it seem there's an implicit threat in standing/waiting/looking at them until it's done? Maybe I am just picturing my father glaring down at me and making me feel about 2 feet tall...
.

I think it is all about body language. If you stand there glaring with your legs akimbo and your ams crossed. Yeah, that would seem indimidating.
But if you are down at eye level and keepign the interchange friendly and positive, I dont think so.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm curious, Pat (and others), of your view on the instances of taking the ball away when it's being thrown carelessly, taking the snacks away when they are being thrown on the floor, etc. I guess I hadn't thought of those types of situations as punishment or even consequences. Maybe its just semantics? But I don't ever think of the "consequence" of throwing a ball is that it's taken away (sorry to use that over and over lol). I see it as helping a child to avoid the temptation of doing something that could harm someone or someone's property. (Perhaps this is based on my belief that kids WANT to do the socially acceptable thing?)
I guess in my snack situation, if ds had *dissented* to having the snacks put away (he helped), then I would have figured it was important to him to continue. But in that instance, nothing was going to be hurt by it.
When ds wants to mess with my dirty dishes in the dishwasher, I tell him "Lets shut the door to take away the temptation to mess with this" and he helps me shut the door. Would I shut the door if he dissented? probably- I can move the knives and such, but there are still dirty dished, that can have germs on them. (I do try to avoid washing dishes when he's around, because I know he'll want to do this).
I'm honestly curious







I like hearing different views here.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
It always comes back to brushing teeth... it could be a thread about the war in Iraq and by the 40th post or so we would be talking about brushing teeth























It does, doesn't it? lol

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaE*
We can carry on and on about who's better than whom (ahem, I mean who's more GD than whom)


Quote:

I love GD and I love MDC, but I often find the tone here to be judgmental and overly-analytic of parenting in general.
I think there's a difference between being judgemental, and simply pointing out that something is a logical consequence, not a natural one. I see a lot of people get offended by something that someone said, that I don't think *I* would have taken that way. Very few here are saying that logical consequences are evil (though I do think many here don't think they are wonderful, or particularly useful). I think what most are trying to say in instances like this is that what is happening IS a logical consequence.


----------



## Black Orchid (Mar 28, 2005)

No punishing here. The times we do find ourselves heading down that path we try to think, "Is this really going to teach her anything?" and make a differenet choice. It is really hard sometimes at this point, DD can be extremely frustrating sometimes! And I was raised with lots of non-logical/natural consquences, so it is ingrained in me that every "misbehavior" has to have a consequense. But DH and I try to keep a "check" on each other and have a code word (Muscrat- from Meet the Fockers







) if we see the other person heading down the "punishment" path.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaE*
My posts were defensive. Sorry.

Hugs!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
If the child *dissents* to the "consequence" then it is punishment, in the child's opinion, I would surmise.

Pat

The thing I never got wit the dissension thing (especially within TCS conversations) is that it doesn't seem to factor manipulation that can bring about compliance without dissent. This seems coercive to me at best and likely more damaging than a situation where there is some dissent, iykwim.

There have been many times where I knew I could get easy compliance (either by "framing" the way I say things or other ways of manipulating the situation) but it doesn't feel better to me than "dissent".

I'm not suggesting that people who can get by without dissent from their kids are necessarily manipulative but I find it difficult to do it (without manipulations that I'm far less comfortable with).

Interesting discussion, OP!


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Another thing that has come up regarding punishment and natural consequences for our family is that the natural consequence can become a punishment. So, it's not just that logical ones are iffy...it's just that the situation is complicated all around. And, I was raised without punishments (or rewards). I just can't imagine how much more challenging this whole thing would be without that!


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I think it is all about body language. If you stand there glaring with your legs akimbo and your ams crossed. Yeah, that would seem indimidating.
But if you are down at eye level and keepign the interchange friendly and positive, I dont think so.


I agree with this. It is about body language. I don't stare or glare at my kids. I usually do something else, like clean up the bathroom, change the toilet paper roll, etc. while I wait for them to decide to brush. It doesn't take long and they do it, or let me do it for them, depending on their mood/preference that day. I agree that standing there and glaring at them would be punitive and counter productive. Could also turn into a power struggle, which I avoid like the plague.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaE*
Question though, doesn't it seem there's an implicit threat in standing/waiting/looking at them until it's done? Maybe I am just picturing my father glaring down at me and making me feel about 2 feet tall...

Yes, it's possible that this is how it would seem if you were to do it. There are suggestions given here in the GD forum all the time that I simply can't do because they wouldn't come out right when I tried it. I can't do the "playful, distraction, sound all cheery..." thing with my child and, frankly, I'm not good a the stand there thing either. It just doesn't come naturally to me.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
Another thing that has come up regarding punishment and natural consequences for our family is that the natural consequence can become a punishment. So, it's not just that logical ones are iffy...it's just that the situation is complicated all around. And, I was raised without punishments (or rewards). I just can't imagine how much more challenging this whole thing would be without that!


I agree that some natural consequences can be punitive and ridiculous. When I was pregnant with dd #1, I made my husband go to a parenting seminar. (he thought this was nuts, since we didn't even have a baby yet, but that's another story.)









Anyway, at this seminar, the topic turned to natural consequences. A few examples given: If your child repeatedly forgets her lunch, the natural consequence is to be hungry for the day. Now, to me this is crazy. I could never let my child go hungry for not remembering the lunch box. My kids go to school a half hour away, but I couldn't live through the day knowing they had nothing to eat! Another one was, the natural consequence of not bringing your dirty clothes to the laundry is being made to wear dirty clothes to school. This is another one I don't think I could live with. I guess we just have to pick and choose what we can live with that won't be too damaging.

The running in the street thing actually happened to me once. I had taken my 2 dds to the pet store and as we were leaving, my then 2 year old started running for the exit. I tried to catch up with her, but the store had an automatic door. She ran through the door and was about to step into a VERY busy parking lot with a lot of cars pulling in and out. I tried to grab her shirt to stop her from literally being killed. Accidentally, I caught the back of her hair. I felt awful and apologized for hurting her. But, she was about 3 inches from being hit by a car. So I figure, pulled hair is better than dead any day. Sometimes we must impose the consequence or lose the child.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
If you are really saying that it is punishment to momentarily scooping up a very small child (or gently holding them) to keep them from running in the street because they "dissent", I think your defintion of punishment is different than most peoples. Even from most people here.

Are you saying then that it is not ever OK to do this? Even if the child might be hurt otherwise and does not understand that their action could result in death?

My point is that it is not what *I* am saying or what someone else is saying _is_ "punishment", (or a penalty for an action), it is the *child's* perspective that matters.

The act of assent or consent in a life-threatening event, may not be possible. I would risk *assuming* that *anyone* would assent or consent to the protective act of force of pull them out of harm's way where prior discussion *is not possible*. However, it is only in a *life threatening* event do I feel comfortable assuming this. I would consider imminent danger to be that which occurs when discussion is not possible. Others obviously feel comfortable imposing their will (assuming consent? or regardless of dissent?), based upon "having to" eat vegetables, have bedtimes, brush teeth, yada, yada.

So, I am comfortable scooping up a child, out of harm's way; and discuss the issue immediately afterwards. I don't believe that a child would interpret the experience _in a life threatening event_, as punishment.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
The thing I never got wit the dissension thing (especially within TCS conversations) is that it doesn't seem to factor manipulation that can bring about compliance without dissent. This seems coercive to me at best and likely more damaging than a situation where there is some dissent, iykwim.

There have been many times where I knew I could get easy compliance (either by "framing" the way I say things or other ways of manipulating the situation) but it doesn't feel better to me than "dissent".

I'm not suggesting that people who can get by without dissent from their kids are necessarily manipulative but I find it difficult to do it (without manipulations that I'm far less comfortable with).

Interesting discussion, OP!

I am not sure I disagree. I believe cognitive manipulation is coercive too. Fraudulant misrepresentation or evasion of the facts is similarly manipulative. One is unable to have the opportunity of dissent if prevented from having a choice. However, I don't see it is necessary to offer a choice that is contingent upon something that one is opposed to, until and unless the choice is desired. "Don't offer; but don't refuse, either."

The parent does have the same ability to dissent that which involves himself. But, I choose this with full awareness as possible, and not with the intent to control our son's choices.

For example, I don't introduce conventional marshmallows because they have artificial colors. But, I don't control our son from eating them once he learns of them either. We discussed the variables and I found some without food coloring. I would buy them if they were requested. But I don't initiate buying them without a stated desire either.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
Another thing that has come up regarding punishment and natural consequences for our family is that the natural consequence can become a punishment. So, it's not just that logical ones are iffy...it's just that the situation is complicated all around. And, I was raised without punishments (or rewards). I just can't imagine how much more challenging this whole thing would be without that!

I am fine with our son _choosing_ to experience natural (and I mean organically occuring) consequences. Even those imposed by society. However, I proactively attempt to fully inform him, to the best of my ability, if there is are probably unpleasant consequences that he would probably desire to avoid. For those things which *I* am just (maternally) concerned about, I don't state 'be careful', 'watch out', 'this might happen', 'what if....' ad nauseum about things which are not *probably* going to result in an emergency room visit. I do give specific practical information about safety; but with trust that our son will judge the situation himself, based upon his priorities. And I trust that he wants to be safe. (He is 4.5 now.)

For instance, I don't go on and on about wearing a coat, or being careful on his bike, brushing his teeth, eating vegetables, getting enough sleep, or that sort of thing. We discuss the real life experiences of his choices. I guess I don't consider an experience as a result of an informed choice, a negative consequence. And certainly not punishment. We just work to find a more pleasant alternative in the future. It is just a learning opportunity.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
For instance, I don't go on and on about wearing a coat, or being careful on his bike, brushing his teeth, eating vegetables, getting enough sleep, or that sort of thing. We discuss the real life experiences of his choices. I guess I don't consider an experience as a result of an informed choice, a negative consequence. And certainly not punishment. We just work to find a more pleasant alternative in the future. It is just a learning opportunity.

I was on a train of thought earlier regarding this but couldn't phrase it well and gave up. I'll try again. I've wondered for a while now if people who are less coercive are more comfortable with the results of natural consequences.

I can definitely see the advantages of being non-coercive but, because I'm not comfortable with so many natural consequences, being non-coercive often doesn't work for us. I think it doesn't work because I feel the need to protect DC from many natural consequences (for various reasons...the most important of which is that DC seems to want this) and, therefore, DC is just not learning the lessons the way a non-coerced kid learns them.

So, what I'm wondering, is if non-coercion is even compatible with protection from (non-life threatening) natural consequences.

I suppose this is somewhat off topic but it is about my perception that the lack of protection from some natural consequences is punishment ~ or could be perceived that way to the child.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
I was on a train of thought earlier regarding this but couldn't phrase it well and gave up. I'll try again. I've wondered for a while now if people who are less coercive are more comfortable with the results of natural consequences. I can definitely see the advantages of being non-coercive but, because I'm not comfortable with so many natural consequences, being non-coercive often doesn't work for us. I think it doesn't work because DC is just not learning the lessons the way a non-coerced kid learns them.

So, what I'm wondering, is if non-coercion is even compatible with protection from (non-life threatening) natural consequences.

I suppose this is somewhat off topic but it is about my perception that the lack of protection from some natural consequences is punishment ~ or could be perceived that way to the child.

You have worded this so well , thank you. I have been trying really hard to really put my finger on it and you have communicated it well.
It is my opinion that part of my job is to mediate between my child and the world and all the "natural consequences" out there which can harm or make my child uncomfortable. In order to mediate I sometimes have to coerce or replace the natural consequence I have rescued my child from with a milder logical consequence which may still be memorable but which will harm my child less than the natural consequence.
I am not comfortable with allowing my child to face the full force of the natural consequences of their actions. And I very much find coersion to be (in my opinion, and my home) preferable to natural consequences.
I had not really thought about it in this way clearly until your post helped my thoughts fall into place.
Thank you. That is much clearer than "it's not for me"


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
I was on a train of thought earlier regarding this but couldn't phrase it well and gave up. I'll try again. I've wondered for a while now if people who are less coercive are more comfortable with the results of natural consequences.

I can definitely see the advantages of being non-coercive but, because I'm not comfortable with so many natural consequences, being non-coercive often doesn't work for us. I think it doesn't work because I feel the need to protect DC from many natural consequences (for various reasons...the most important of which is that DC seems to want this) and, therefore, DC is just not learning the lessons the way a non-coerced kid learns them.

So, what I'm wondering, is if non-coercion is even compatible with protection from (non-life threatening) natural consequences.

I suppose this is somewhat off topic but it is about my perception that the lack of protection from some natural consequences is punishment ~ or could be perceived that way to the child.

I am not sure I follow your train of thought. I don't "allow" or cause natural consequences to ensue if I think they might be mitigated by providing information, spotting, support, assistance. At any point in time, I am willing to help our son find a pleasant outcome. But, I don't "make" or cause our son to do whatever I believe would mitigate the natural consequence if he doesn't want my assistance either. (ie. I don't keep a coat from a cold child just because that is the "natural consequence" of going outside when it is cold. Nor do I make him wear one. I suggest the coat, give explanation about the environment, bring it along, provide it willingly and don't 'tell him so' if he needs it.)

My goal is to live consensually, not to "avoid coercion" as a focus of my parenting (or other) relationships. So, in relationship work to find an agreeable solution. But, I don't have final say for our son's body. He does. Just as I do for mine.

Does that clarify your question?









Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
I'm curious, Pat (and others), of your view on the instances of taking the ball away when it's being thrown carelessly, taking the snacks away when they are being thrown on the floor, etc. I guess I hadn't thought of those types of situations as punishment or even consequences. Maybe its just semantics? But I don't ever think of the "consequence" of throwing a ball is that it's taken away (sorry to use that over and over lol). I see it as helping a child to avoid the temptation of doing something that could harm someone or someone's property. (Perhaps this is based on my belief that kids WANT to do the socially acceptable thing?)

I believe in the child's opinion it could be perceived as punishment. If putting the ball up is the result of throwing it and it isn't contested, then I don't see how it isn't a mutually agreeable solution. No more than taking the ball outside isn't a punishment, if that is agreeable. But, *taking it away* has the implication of lack of choice, from my perspective, and thus is a penalty for an action, or a punishment. If dh took away my car keys for coming home 30 minutes late, you bet I'd perceive it as way past punishment.







But, if he said, 'let's stay home for now, you seem tired, let's put the keys up and go watch a show' that doesn't sound like punishment. Restricting choice due to an action seems punitive when I substitute "an adult friend" in the equation.

I believe there are alternative ways to "avoid temptation" rather than *taking* an item. Placing the ball out of sight when no longer in use, doesn't sound like punishment, unless it is forbidden when a stated desire for it occurs subsequently. I totally agree with the 'social beings' concept.

Quote:

I guess in my snack situation, if ds had *dissented* to having the snacks put away (he helped), then I would have figured it was important to him to continue. But in that instance, nothing was going to be hurt by it.
When ds wants to mess with my dirty dishes in the dishwasher, I tell him "Lets shut the door to take away the temptation to mess with this" and he helps me shut the door. Would I shut the door if he dissented? probably- I can move the knives and such, but there are still dirty dished, that can have germs on them. (I do try to avoid washing dishes when he's around, because I know he'll want to do this).
I'm honestly curious







I like hearing different views here.
I'd wash his hands after touching the dirty plates, or create a game of washing the plates or as you did, redirect with an explanation.

Pat


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*

Does that clarify your question?










Yes, somewhat, I was more wondering if you think the learning experience from a natural consequence is vital to the way your family functions and the way your child learns.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Restricting choice due to an action seems punitive when I substitute "an adult friend" in the equation.

I believe there are alternative ways to "avoid temptation" rather than *taking* an item. Placing the ball out of sight when no longer in use, doesn't sound like punishment, unless it is forbidden when a stated desire for it occurs subsequently.

I don't know though. If I replaced an adult friend in the removal of the ball after it's not in use scenario...it seems very punitive ~ and even a little passive agressive


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
Yes, somewhat, I was more wondering if you think the learning experience from a natural consequence is vital to the way your family functions and the way your child learns.

Vital, yes. Imposed, no. Elective, based upon ds being able to make an imformed *choice* of experiencing the organic consequence "if it isn't probably going to send him to the emergency room". That is my litmus test of whether I actively choose to redirect (or support) him, or just offer information. 'Actively choose to redirect', does not imply 'enforced compliance'. Active redirection (to me) is suggesting an alternative to meet his need, or creating an environment in which he can explore safely.

For instance, if he wants to climb the outside of the staircase along the banister edge, I would hold my breath and stand under him, *if* he couldn't be redirected to the playset outside or some other enticing climbing opportunity in the moment. And I would seek to provide for the underlying need in some more mutually agreeable fashion in the future. Perhaps, joining an indoor climbing club, building a climbing wall, learning rock climbing and repelling, setting up ladders to climb, building a tree house, etc. But, there would be no imposed consequence for choosing to explore something with dangerous consequences. The focus is on meeting the underlying need as an advocate and partner.

Quote:

I don't know though. If I replaced an adult friend in the removal of the ball after it's not in use scenario...it seems very punitive ~ and even a little passive agressive.
Hmmm....with children, out of site is out of mind, but I don't see how that is imposed unless there is no recourse, as in the item is hidden and I don't bring it out of hiding when asked. For instance, if I were to leave my Godiva chocolate (my extravagant Christmas gift) out on the counter and the neighbor was visiting, I wouldn't feel it was passive aggressive to put it up in the cabinet while they weren't looking.







Selfish, yes.







But, there are natural limits to sharing too. Since toy relocation (ie. I put the toys away) is my normal activity, I don't quite see it this way. If I hid a child's favorite, but opposed short, short skirt, for instance, I do think this is both punitive and passive aggressive if it isn't available upon request.

Thanks for helping me to think about the nuances.

Pat


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

OT

Is climbing the outside of the banister a bad idea? Not challenging you at all, I just do not see it as any more dangerous than the much-higher playground eqpuipment. Wondering if I should....... Dd and the cats think it is great fun.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

My dd was doing this, until she watched the cat fall from the top and hit the ceramic tile. She doesn't climb there anymore. She just drops her dolls from the banister upstairs to watch them fall.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama
I was on a train of thought earlier regarding this but couldn't phrase it well and gave up. I'll try again. I've wondered for a while now if people who are less coercive are more comfortable with the results of natural consequences. I can definitely see the advantages of being non-coercive but, because I'm not comfortable with so many natural consequences, being non-coercive often doesn't work for us. I think it doesn't work because DC is just not learning the lessons the way a non-coerced kid learns them.

So, what I'm wondering, is if non-coercion is even compatible with protection from (non-life threatening) natural consequences.

I suppose this is somewhat off topic but it is about my perception that the lack of protection from some natural consequences is punishment ~ or could be perceived that way to the child.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joline*
You have worded this so well , thank you. I have been trying really hard to really put my finger on it and you have communicated it well.
It is my opinion that part of my job is to mediate between my child and the world and all the "natural consequences" out there which can harm or make my child uncomfortable. In order to mediate I sometimes have to coerce or replace the natural consequence I have rescued my child from with a milder logical consequence which may still be memorable but which will harm my child less than the natural consequence.
I am not comfortable with allowing my child to face the full force of the natural consequences of their actions. And I very much find coersion to be (in my opinion, and my home) preferable to natural consequences.
I had not really thought about it in this way clearly until your post helped my thoughts fall into place.
Thank you. That is much clearer than "it's not for me"

With these two posts together, I believe I see more clearly what you are getting at. 'Are people who don't coerce, more comfortable with their child "suffering" the natural consequences of their actions?' Assuming this is the question, I would say probably so. And yes, I do think that life is a "good teacher". We do practice "Life Learning", but again not in a hands-off, 'take your lumps, you made your bed' sort of way. And I am fine with intervening as an advocate, which may be perceived as "rescuing". My litmus test of intervening is higher than most parents, probably. I don't intervene in 'uncomfortable' learning opportunities, but I don't withhold information either. *AND*, I am a willing participant in resolving the 'uncomfortable consequence'. This is all much more involved "learning", but also not directed learning. And I don't create any consequences for our son's choice in order to 'teach him a lesson'. We focus on the mediating the impact (retroactively) of his choices on himself and others, not in punishing for the impact.

I guess, it would be like learning to ride a bike, I can't do it for him; but I can give him information in advance. And sometimes he falls down while learning to balance. And I pick him up and help him back on. There isn't just a limit to riding imposed proactively or retroactively. There is support while learning to ride using his own balance and judgement.

What are some Real Life examples of uncomfortable organic consequences that someone wouldn't allow to occur that I might not obstruct from occuring, nor impose a consequence instead? And I'd be glad to help trouble shoot toward more collaborative learning.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
OT

Is climbing the outside of the banister a bad idea? Not challenging you at all, I just do not see it as any more dangerous than the much-higher playground eqpuipment. Wondering if I should....... Dd and the cats think it is great fun.









It does take my breath away. Thankfully, (knockonwood), ds hasn't climbed all the way to the second floor on the outside of the rail. A friend's daughter loves to do so. She is a natural climber. And yes, the higher playground is "supposed" to be safer because of the "protective" ground surface. But, cement steps in a hotel stairwell are as hard as.... well....*cement*. If one is just *walking* and trip.....life has risks and is uncomfortable.









No, I don't protect our son from life. I intentionally choose to live without fear. And to facilitate an environment in which he (and we all) can explore without fear. Actively engaging in his passions allows me to be attuned to his needs to explore and informs me how to facilitate him as safely as he desires. This is the basis of Unschooling and it is very engaged learning. Unlimited learning in real life. The joy of the dance of observing learning unfold is so amazing. My trusted advisor role is vital to being a facilitator of active unschooling though.

Pat


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

Vital, yes. Imposed, no. Elective, based upon ds being able to make an imformed choice of experiencing the organic consequence "if it isn't probably going to send him to the emergency room". That is my litmus test of whether I actively choose to redirect (or support) him, or just offer information. 'Actively choose to redirect', does not imply 'enforced compliance'.
Does this mean that if he does something that may send him to the emergency room despite your explanations and attempts to redirect you would ??? what??? hold your breath and hope for the best? I know there is a leap between possible broken arm and possible paralysis and even again to loss of life. I read you would intervene if loss of life were likely and you believed the child would not dissent. Maybe or maybe not depending on the child's grasp of the consequence and temperament. Would life threatening be the only time you would feel comfortable the child would not dissent and even if the child did dissent in that moment where would you draw the line when intervening? Strictly at life threatening?

Also my dc are young but I wonder sometimes and think this is all going to get alot more complicated when drugs, alchohol, driving, sex, etc. are possibly introduced by peers. I know I have no control over another's actions, but how easy will it be to offer explanations and redirection only if your child chooses to do unsafe or illegal things as a teen? I totally hope not using punishments, shaming, etc. and not being forceful and respecting my dc will greatly reduce the likelihood of them choosing to do unsafe or illegal things, but what if they do? What then?


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
I can definitely see the advantages of being non-coercive but, because I'm not comfortable with so many natural consequences, being non-coercive often doesn't work for us. I think it doesn't work because I feel the need to protect DC from many natural consequences (for various reasons...the most important of which is that DC seems to want this) and, therefore, DC is just not learning the lessons the way a non-coerced kid learns them.

So, what I'm wondering, is if non-coercion is even compatible with protection from (non-life threatening) natural consequences.

I was on the TCS list for many years and I saw this discussion come up a few times. The general true NCP idea is that you should protect your kids from natural consequences they would most likely want to be protected from. Does that make sense? If you see your child's book outside and it starts to rain you should bring it in. If they forget their lunch and will otherwise go hungry you should bring it to them. It's punitive otherwise.


----------



## rumi (Mar 29, 2004)

Quote:

No books for not brushing teeth is definitely not a natural consequence. The natural consequence of not brushing teeth is food on your teeth, maybe bad breath or cavities some day
yeah i guess i am not really up to date on the whole consequences thing, but i guess i do a fair bit of explaining consequences. it dont consider this a punishment though. i would say that i have never punished or even wanted to punish because i dont see much point in it. we have raised our dd with such a sense of mutual respect that she would probaly not understand why i woudl do something just to show my authority over her - we have just never done things that way.

but when i see other parents with more than one kid and also who may not necessarily have an explicit committment to GD / AP etc, I can see that it is very hard not to be authoritative, hard not to lose patience. My way takes a LOT of patience and there are times i wonder if i have enough or if it shoudl really be this hard - maybe i am doing something wrong.

but i was drawn to this poist since you mentioned toothbrushing. till 2 days ago this was never a problem (except when it was prior to dd's being about 15 or 16 months old ... so anyway , we had 12+ months of trouble free toothbrushing). Suddenly she decides no toothbrushing. She calmly explains that she can do without her teeth and will just nurse.

So although this may not be considered a punishment per se, I felt a little like i was deviating from my policy of full honesty respect, when i started "pretended" to make a dentist's appt to have her teeth pulled so that we would not have to bother with brushing. Anyway it worked but I really didn't like doing it (okay i admit it was kind of humorous) and I dont want to do it every day. But I am not sure how much leeway I can give her with this because I think that toothbrushing is just too important...


----------



## stephineprine (Jan 3, 2006)

Hi there,

I'm new here and I have no idea if I am posting properly but here goes. I have never punished my daughter, Sage, who is now 4.5. She was a total demon-child at 3 for about 6-8 months. I still never punished her. She's currently the picture of cooperation and connection. She's helpful, loving and is developing empathy and understanding of others. We use no rewards and try hard to get rid of praise and labels (a la Alfie K.) My in-laws and own mother know that punishment is not an option and that is sage is having a hard time the only option is to call me to come and get her. (has never happened) I'd also like to mention that she's not an low need kid either - she's extremely intense, explosive even and still, we've never punished/bribed or rewarded. (as a theme- I have bribed her to get her to eat when we've missed her food cues, is melting down and she's not been able to make the decision to eat when what she needs is to eat in order to think.)

We use our own melange of NVC (nonviolent communication), positive discipline and often go to Lisa Stroyan's website for support (empathicdiscipline.com).

Hope this helps.

Stephanie


----------



## rumi (Mar 29, 2004)

well i have read more of this thread now and i see that many of you out there dont enforce toothbrushing. is that really okay? i really want to unschool but dont tell me cavities are part of unschooling ... natural consequences and all....

Quote:

No, I don't protect our son from life. I intentionally choose to live without fear. And to facilitate an environment in which he (and we all) can explore without fear. Actively engaging in his passions allows me to be attuned to his needs to explore and informs me how to facilitate him as safely as he desires. This is the basis of Unschooling and it is very engaged learning. Unlimited learning in real life. The joy of the dance of observing learning unfold is so amazing. My trusted advisor role is vital to being a facilitator of active unschooling though.
I find this quite fascinating. I wish I could be more fearless but actually I think I often project fear because I actually feel it. But I am working on that. Any tips on overcoming fears?


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

I realize the thread has gone past the toothbrushing thing, but I think it brings up a point that often gets lost in these discussions and that is that 1) the conflict is almost never really about the act of brushing their teeth on the part of the toddler and 2) many of us are dealing with more than one child and so the standing and waiting strategy, for example, just isn't practical. I see so often on threads that solutions are posed that don't take into account families who are trying to provide adequate attention to two or more children at the time the "misbehavior" occurs.

Quote:

*MamaE* wrote:Yes, the next step after brushing in our bedtime routine is books, and if the teeth are not brushed, the books cannot be read. I have never once had to follow through with this. I deliver this alternative to my daughter in a matter-of-fact tone and it isn't something I have to do every night. I just can't believe I'm the only mother here with a 2.5 y.o. who hasn't had to coerce her child (albeit gently) to brush teeth.
FWIW we do the exact same thing, here.







To me, what is really going on is this: my 3 yo toddler is using intentional non-cooperation as a strategy to delay going to bed. Making toothbrushing fun has been tried but if her ultimate goal is really to take up as much time as possible during the toothbrushing stage, she can delay going to bed even though she is too tired to wake up on time in the mornings and has to be woken up and is then grumpy for a couple of hours every morning. Our bedtime routine is done simultaneously with 3 yo dd and 1 yo dd. So while one parent is helping with pajamas and brushing teeth with one child, the other is doing it with the other child, and then we convene on the sofa for bedtime story, all together.

If one child refuses to do her part in the bedtime routine (put on pajamas or brush teeth), they are not allowed to progress to the next step of the routine. It so happens that the step after brushing teeth is gathering together to read a story. If she hasn't brushed, she misses storytime. After story, little sister goes to bed and she needs to climb into bed too or risk waking her little sister up by going in later (plus she needs to be in bed by 8:30 or she is impossible to wake up and get ready for the day the next morning).

So, to sum up, to me it's everyone contributes their part to the task of getting ready for bed. It's not about punishing or threatening or consequences at all; it's about 'you do your part and I'll do mine'.


----------



## rumi (Mar 29, 2004)

Quote:

(empathicdiscipline.com).
didnt open for me.
is the URL right?


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom*
I realize the thread has gone past the toothbrushing thing, but I think it brings up a point that often gets lost in these discussions and that is that .... many of us are dealing with more than one child and so the standing and waiting strategy, for example, just isn't practical. I see so often on threads that solutions are posed that don't take into account families who are trying to provide adequate attention to two or more children at the time the "misbehavior" occurs..

I am not sure you are correct. I am one of the biggest proponents of "stand and wait" here and I have THREE dd's. From ages 12 to 9 and have done this most of their lives.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
I am not sure you are correct. I am one of the biggest proponents of "stand and wait" here and I have THREE dd's. From ages 12 to 9 and have done this most of their lives.


I also have 3 dds (ages 3 to 7) and am pregnant with baby #4. We do the stand and wait approach and it works for us too.


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

Well actually, I have 3 dd's too!







I just didn't mention the third one. (Maybe we should start a 3 girls tribe, lol!) I'm glad it works; I've tried it and, frankly, I just get tired of waiting (by the kids' bedtime, I am WORN.OUT.) So I should correct myself and say that it doesn't work _for me_.









So, what do you do with the other two dds while standing and waiting for the one who isn't doing whatever? Do they stand and wait, too?


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

First I want to say I value the opinions and insight expressed here. I have learned so much in the short time I've been reading here. I reread my earlier post and wondered if the tone might come across way different than the one I was thinking in when I wrote it.

Pat, I have found many of your posts insightful and hepful, thus my asking questions about your post, to better understand your views, not as a calling you out type thing. Hope it didn't come across that way.

And as far as asking about teens- this is because I totally see how not punishing little kids nor teens is a good idea. I would not think punishing a teen for making a harmful to life threatening decision would be helpful in any way. I just can not see what would be the helpful, respectful thing to do either. I can not see what the equivalent to scooping a small child up in a life threatening situation would be with a teen, and whether or not their dissent at the time would stop me from intervening in some way. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissRubyandKen*
First I want to say I value the opinions and insight expressed here. I have learned so much in the short time I've been reading here. I reread my earlier post and wondered if the tone might come across way different than the one I was thinking in when I wrote it.

Pat, I have found many of your posts insightful and hepful, thus my asking questions about your post, to better understand your views, not as a calling you out type thing. Hope it didn't come across that way.

And as far as asking about teens- this is because I totally see how not punishing little kids nor teens is a good idea. I would not think punishing a teen for making a harmful to life threatening decision would be helpful in any way. I just can not see what would be the helpful, respectful thing to do either. I can not see what the equivalent to scooping a small child up in a life threatening situation would be with a teen, and whether or not their dissent at the time would stop me from intervening in some way. Any thoughts on this?

Please allow me to answer this. I have a 13 year old daughter who has had a lot of freedom and I would consult her and discuss things with her and provide information and hope she made the right choice. I thought that by avoiding an adversarial relationship with her it would make her unlikely to participate in rebellious activity just to spite me.
Turns out this was not effective prevention and my dd really started spiraling out of control. At first I discussed her problems with her and she would look at me in the eye and agree how important honesty is and why it is reasonable that I know where she is at all times and that there are risks and all of that. But then she would go out and do whatever he friends thought was cool with complete disregard of her own frontal lobe and ability to reason. She started smoking and failing classes. THis all came to an end when she got caught shoplifting and I realized that Natural consequences werent enough because when it comes down to it, I am legally responsible for her and the state and the courts will hole ME and not her responsible for her actions. THe same is true for the school and attendance etc. . . The store called me in and released her to me if I signed something agreeing to a small civil fine. The other option was to have them callt he police, which would have been the "natural consequence" but I would have been responsible still and just have had to pay MORE legal fees etc. . . There was no winning. So before signing the paper I asked her what I should do and that by signing I am taking responsibiliy for her behavior from now on.
That wasnt the end of it though because after she had earned the money back she was still manipulative and dishonest and would lie about where she was, and was basically risking her life.
As a result the "pulling her in from the street" result has been that she no longer has any trust. Which basically is to her the same as being "grounded" but I am not doing this to "punish" her but to protect her from herself.
TO her I am sure it looks the same. But right now I have to keep her alive and help prevent her from making mistakes where the "natural consequences" stay with her forever. And if that means I have to disrespect her. I HATE it. But that is what I am going to do.
I am currently reading "Hold On to your Kids" and oh how I had wished I had read this instead of "Positive Discipline for Teens" by Jane Nelson.
She would have me just visiting my dd in jail and bringing her cookies.
"Hold On to your Kids" is the best parenting book I have yet read which really deals with dangerous Teenage behavior (rather than glossing over it as a phase that probably wont do any harm, or worse, making the assumption that it just doesnt happen when parents are loving and open etc. . .)
Joline


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom*
Well actually, I have 3 dd's too!







I just didn't mention the third one. (Maybe we should start a 3 girls tribe, lol!) I'm glad it works; I've tried it and, frankly, I just get tired of waiting (by the kids' bedtime, I am WORN.OUT.) So I should correct myself and say that it doesn't work _for me_.









So, what do you do with the other two dds while standing and waiting for the one who isn't doing whatever? Do they stand and wait, too?


Mine don't wait with us. THey continue their routine: going to the bathroom, getting a drink of water, picking out stories for bed time, finding whatever they will sleep with (bear, doll, etc) while I wait with the one who is reluctant to brush. It really doesn't take too long. By the time the other two are finished what they are doing, we are all usually ready.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
Mine don't wait with us. THey continue their routine: going to the bathroom, getting a drink of water, picking out stories for bed time, finding whatever they will sleep with (bear, doll, etc) while I wait with the one who is reluctant to brush. It really doesn't take too long. By the time the other two are finished what they are doing, we are all usually ready.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Never punished and have zero intention of doing so.

I find some of the accounts here of what supposedly does and does not count as a punishment quite... um... creative. Probably no one is doing that deliberately, but I think it's better to flesh out one's parenting philosophy so that a punishment is a punishment (noting that there are various forms of this) and then, if one chooses to use them, to have a solid defense for that rather than to chop symantics and make it sound as though one is anti-punishment when this is not the case. Seems the more consistent and honest approach and if punishments are truly sometimes o.k., there surely there is nothing wrong with admitting that. (I also found some posts in which what is clearly not a punishment was thought to be such. For me it's helpful to be clear on this type of thing, especially since my goal is to not punish Simon.)

To me a natural consequence is being cold if out in the cold and not wanting to wear a coat. Some of the suggested variants are a looong shot from that. I don't use the term "natural consequences" to explain anything that we do. To use it implies to me that I want for those situations to occur -- as indicating that it's a method of discipline that I use entails that I mean for it to be a learning tool .

From the descriptions given by some, I think that "logical consequences" is an epithet for "related punishments."

Joline, shoplifting is a very common thing for teenagers to do. I did it. My parents just ignored it (as they ignored me), but the whole experience was of course humiliating. Even if I hadn't gotten caught (which I did twice for maybe 15 or so shopliftings), well... I am 100% certain that I would have grown out of it, just as I grew out of other foolish teenage things that I did (like driving down an isolated road as fast as my parent's car would go -- I was going so fast that the car was shaking. It's completely freaky to think about this now). I grew out of shoplifting before many of my friends did. Several of them were still doing it for kicks up to or even after their 18th birthdays. I stopped when I was maybe 15 or so. We were all decent kids and we've all turned out to be well-functioning happy adults. We had money in our pockets. Shoplifting was just a twisted small town way of getting kicks. While I don't appreciate that I was ignored, I do appreciate that I wasn't further humiliated about the experience by my parents. Punishing me would not have helped. None of the few punishments that were given to me had any affect whatsoeve, they just made more manipulative and better at lying.

Back to the stealing... my parents asked what happened (the store had called them) and I made up a bogus story about the items falling into my oversized pockets. Whatever. Of course they saw through that, but they just let it go. Same thing happened when I came home drunk. Just want to say that from what you say... your daughter certainly doesn't sound like she's destined for jail if you do not punish her. I'm doing very well and am an "upstanding citizen" as far as following the laws and whatnot goes (and hopefully otherwise too). I just needed to grow up. Oh... and the school situation for me was HORRID. Me and public schools are a crap mix. If your daughter isn't doing well in school, perhaps the same is true of her and she'd do better in an alternative arrangement? I just don't see how treating her as completely trustless is going to help her to deal with whatever is going on with her life that is causing her to act like a teenager. I don't see that as helping her to build her sense of self-worth and feelings of self-competence, and see that as so extremely important in the teen years (as always, but especially in the early years and the teen years). Just my 2 cents. I'd also suspect that her peer group has a major impact to play in how she's acting. Is there a friendly way to intervene with them as well?


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal*
I find some of the accounts here of what supposedly does and does not count as a punishment quite... um... creative.

I feel that this is how it is for me sometimes...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal*
Probably no one is doing that deliberately, but I think it's better to flesh out one's parenting philosophy so that a punishment is a punishment (noting that there are various forms of this) and then, if one chooses to use them, to have a solid defense for that rather than to chop symantics and make it sound as though one is anti-punishment when this is not the case. Seems the more consistent and honest approach and if punishments are truly sometimes o.k., there surely there is nothing wrong with admitting that. (I also found some posts in which what is clearly not a punishment was thought to be such. For me it's helpful to be clear on this type of thing, especially since my goal is to not punish Simon.)

And I agree with you completely here ~ totally. But, (and I can only speak for myself) I find it very difficult to get clear. Part of it is probably because I over think some things but part of it is because I'm afraid I'm a manipulative person. There I said it.

I don't think of semantics because I'm trying to make myself non-punitive. I think about it because it seems that way...such subtle differences that I still have no idea if they're significant.

I have this problem with other people as well...it's not just a parenting thing. When interactions get intense I tend to get confused. Sometimes I think I was manipulative but then I remind myself that my intentions were good. Other times, I'm totally straight with someone and that feels wrong.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

IdentityCrisisMom, I agree that there is a lot of subtlety. Right or wrong, I was left with the impression that some (though I have no one in particular in mind) haven't given the matter much thought, and so they ended up thinking that they are punitive when there isn't much reason to think of what they do as such. I suggested trying to work out an account of what is and isn't punitive because it would suck to want to be non-punitive but feel that one wasn't living up to this when one actually is... and likewise... it would be helpful to deciding how to parent (and how not to parent). It could be that I'm missing something and there was more thought to whatever it is that made me say that than I suspected (can't even remember what gave me that impression).

I definitely don't have all of the answers; I still have a lot of thinking to do on this and I'm sure it will continue to evolve.

Hugs to everyone!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal*
Joline, shoplifting is a very common thing for teenagers to do. I did it. My parents just ignored it (as they ignored me), but the whole experience was of course humiliating. Even if I hadn't gotten caught (which I did twice for maybe 15 or so shopliftings), well... I am 100% certain that I would have grown out of it, just as I grew out of other foolish teenage things that I did (like driving down an isolated road as fast as my parent's car would go -- I was going so fast that the car was shaking. It's completely freaky to think about this now). I grew out of shoplifting before many of my friends did. Several of them were still doing it for kicks up to or even after their 18th birthdays. I stopped when I was maybe 15 or so. We were all decent kids and we've all turned out to be well-functioning happy adults. We had money in our pockets. Shoplifting was just a twisted small town way of getting kicks. While I don't appreciate that I was ignored, I do appreciate that I wasn't further humiliated about the experience by my parents. Punishing me would not have helped. None of the few punishments that were given to me had any affect whatsoeve, they just made more manipulative and better at lying.

Back to the stealing... my parents asked what happened (the store had called them) and I made up a bogus story about the items falling into my oversized pockets. Whatever. Of course they saw through that, but they just let it go. Same thing happened when I came home drunk. Just want to say that from what you say... your daughter certainly doesn't sound like she's destined for jail if you do not punish her. I'm doing very well and am an "upstanding citizen" as far as following the laws and whatnot goes (and hopefully otherwise too). I just needed to grow up. Oh... and the school situation for me was HORRID. Me and public schools are a crap mix. If your daughter isn't doing well in school, perhaps the same is true of her and she'd do better in an alternative arrangement? I just don't see how treating her as completely trustless is going to help her to deal with whatever is going on with her life that is causing her to act like a teenager. I don't see that as helping her to build her sense of self-worth and feelings of self-competence, and see that as so extremely important in the teen years (as always, but especially in the early years and the teen years). Just my 2 cents. I'd also suspect that her peer group has a major impact to play in how she's acting. Is there a friendly way to intervene with them as well?

I just wanted to point out that the shoplifting is only one symptom of my daughters problem. Her loss of trust was only at the time related to going to retail stores.
What REALLY lost trust was repeatedly lying about where she was and staying out all night when she was supposed to be spending the night at a friends staying IN.
I am confident that my daughter would "outgrow" shoplifting or whatever. But that is not my goal. I have to protect her and keep her whole and keep her from having consequences that could ruin her life forever. So like the 2 year old who will someday also learn not to run out into the street. In the moment you cant really wait for that to happen. You have to protect them NOW.
My daughter has no trust because I cannot trust that when she says "I will be at This friends house" that she will actually BE there. OR even with that friend. This is not a one time thing. This actually happenned one day, we discussed it. She gave me the whole "I feel so bad about lying I will never do it again" shpiel. And did it WORSE less than 24 hours later.
I just want to clarify that just because I did not post the full range of difficulties that I face with my daughter does not mean they are nearly as simple as they appear from a single shoplifting incident.
Punishing is not intended to "help teach her a lesson"
I agree that that does NOT Help. HOwever. If she is not capable of making decisions when unsupervised, she will have to learn those skills before she gets the chance again. If she cannot be trusted to tell the truth, then her word will no longer be enough. And if she is looking to her friends instead of her parents for cues on what is and is not acceptable, appropriate behavior andwhat her values are, then she will need plenty of time apart from them and plenty of time rebonding with her parents and her family.
I dont care if shoplifting and staying out all night and lying and focusing on peers to the exclusion of family are "normal" . And I dont care if she will grow out of them. These things put her life and future in danger.
Like a toddler running into the street, I have to try to stop her.

ETA, I wanted to address this separately

Quote:

I don't see that as helping her to build her sense of self-worth and feelings of self-competence, and see that as so extremely important in the teen years (as always, but especially in the early years and the teen years). Just my 2 cents. I'd also suspect that her peer group has a major impact to play in how she's acting. Is there a friendly way to intervene with them as well?
The way it helps her build her sense of self worth is to remove from her the influences which potentially damage her self worth, and giving her freedom from those influences to explore her own concept of her self rather than relying on how her peer group defines her.
The same is true for feelings of self-competence. As long as she is following her peers blindly and is not choosing her actions from her own solid understanding of her self, the less self competent she is going to become. Her peers do not have unconditional love or acceptance for her. But we do.

And yes, her peer group is the major influence, and I only wish I new 5 or 10 years ago how dangerous this could be so I could have taken action in prevention rather than trying to heal the rift it has caused.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

The teenage years are so hard and you are doing a good job! We went through teenage hell with my stepdaughter. It does get better. I remember telling her in 11th grade that she was turning human again! Her mother kicked her out at 15 because of her behavior, failing, etc. I said she could live with us on the condition she went through counseling. I was lucky to find a GREAT counselor to help us with her. She told us we had to make her accept responsibilty for her actions. We met with her teachers regularly and watched her as closely as we did her preschoolers. She began to turn around in 11th grade and went from failing/summer school, sneaking out and being generally untrustworthy to achieving honor roll the last two years of high school and graduating on time. I remember telling her once that she would graduate, even if it killed both of us! She now tells people that she never would have finished school if it wasn't for my persistance and that I've been more of a "real mom" to her than her real mother ever was. Eventually, she will realize that what you do comes from love and she will appreciate it.
Hang in there mama!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
The teenage years are so hard and you are doing a good job! We went through teenage hell with my stepdaughter. It does get better. I remember telling her in 11th grade that she was turning human again! Her mother kicked her out at 15 because of her behavior, failing, etc. I said she could live with us on the condition she went through counseling. I was lucky to find a GREAT counselor to help us with her. She told us we had to make her accept responsibilty for her actions. We met with her teachers regularly and watched her as closely as we did her preschoolers. She began to turn around in 11th grade and went from failing/summer school, sneaking out and being generally untrustworthy to achieving honor roll the last two years of high school and graduating on time. I remember telling her once that she would graduate, even if it killed both of us! She now tells people that she never would have finished school if it wasn't for my persistance and that I've been more of a "real mom" to her than her real mother ever was. Eventually, she will realize that what you do comes from love and she will appreciate it.
Hang in there mama!

Thank you so much! Your post really made me cry!
It would be so much easier right now to give up on her and give her what she wants and what she thinks will make her happy (unlimited freedom and me off her back). But I really feel that she is in terrible danger so much so that I have to face her anger and resistance to my guidance with the hope that some day she will look back and think "Thank GOD mom was around to help me! What was I thinking back then!"
Your post was such a thoughtful pick me up! Thanks and thanks again.
Joline


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

Hmm, do I punish? I don't think so, but it probably depends on who you ask. Ask most of the mainstream world, and they would say that no, I do not punish. But here on the GD boards? Many would probably consider it punishment.

Like earlier today. I was putting away laundry and ds1 was watching a video. Ds2 apparently tried to grab the remote from ds1, so ds1 hit him in the back with it. This is very unlike ds1, no one hits in this house, which I told him. I also then turned off the tv. To me, that's what happens when you act badly while watching tv. But I know some here consider that punishment.

But a 17 month old? Would never even cross my mind. My youngest is 18 months, and there is no discipline at all. I mean, if he continues to hit my face while nursing, we stop nursing. If he keeps throwing the trains, I remove the trains so no one gets hurt. But it's done with distraction and redirection, not with the intent to punish.


----------



## MamaE (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal*
I find some of the accounts here of what supposedly does and does not count as a punishment quite... um... creative. Probably no one is doing that deliberately, but I think it's better to flesh out one's parenting philosophy so that a punishment is a punishment (noting that there are various forms of this) and then, if one chooses to use them, to have a solid defense for that rather than to chop symantics and make it sound as though one is anti-punishment when this is not the case.

Dal, I assume you didn't mean this part of your post to come off sounding as judgmental and presumptuous as it did. I think most of the mothers here have put a lot of thought into their parenting. The fact that we don't agree on definitions doesn't mean that those of us who dissent from the narrow view of GD espoused by one contingent here at MDC haven't thought about our parenting.

That said, I still do not think of myself as a punitive parent. In fact, I think I could successfully argue that choosing not to brush your child's teeth in order to avoid conflict is failing to protect your child from the natural consequences of tooth decay. This failure to protect a child is, in my book, a form of punishment. I will reiterate, when the health and welfare of my child is at risk, I consider it my duty to step in. I do so as gently as possible. For those that make the argument that their child has the final say with his/her body... I am not familiar with any young children who are well-versed in the ramifications of tooth decay. With my layman's understanding of child development, children are not even capable of this extended line of reasoning. Are you saying you do not protect your child from things he/she wants but are not in his/her best interests? I thought that was the definition of my responsibility as a parent, or at least, this is how I have defined my role as a parent, to teach and to guide when my child lacks the ability or maturity to make safe and sound choices.

My mission here at MDC is to support and be supported. I hope I haven't crossed that line with this post. I don't see a place for judgment here at MDC and I think it's unfortunate for all of us when a thread, any thread, is reduced to people scrambling to prove their GDness. I'm sorry I got caught up in that. I am trying to be comfortable with and confident in my own parenting with the ultimate goal of raising a healthy, happy, well-rounded, loving child. If we can reduce it that far, isn't that all any of us wants? We all know there is no award for being the most GD/AP/CLW/TCS/etc... (as if we could even define that). The greatest reward any of us will ever receive is for our child to become a successful adult (in whatever manner we choose to define that term).


----------

