# Timeouts? In the Corner?



## PollySoloMiller (Aug 26, 2005)

why would someone do this? :-(


----------



## water (May 15, 2003)

We don't do timeouts with my 4yo ds because a) it doesn't work, b) like you said, it's disrespectful, and c) I don't consider it a part of GD. So no explaination there, but I hear ya mama!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I do timeout, but nothign like "in the corner"
My child just takes a break from the action in a nearby chair.
Not a special "time out" or "naughty" chair. Not facing the wall.
No nails driven into it or anythign like that.
A perfectly soft, cushy chair with full view of the room. Sometimes the couch.
To me the point is the stop in action, the break in time. Not that be a miserable break.
Joline


----------



## katallen (Jan 4, 2005)

I don't do timeouts. I do tell her that I won't be around her if she is going to hurt me and then walk away to another part of the room, but I don't make her stay away from me, if she follows me over or comes over at any time we play. This is just what I have found works for her. If she has a melt down I pick her up and hold her and talk to her and explain why she can't have or do something. If she keeps doing something I ask her not to do I bring her into another room or we leave the house and go to the park or the pool. I feel that time out gives to much attention to behavior that I don't want to give much attention to and I have seen it create resentment in some children and then they acted out again because they were angry at being punished.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I'd be surprised to hear anyone on this board sending their kid to "the corner" for a time out. The few people here who use timeouts do so very thoughtfully and not as a means of isolating the child in punishment. Most of us don't use them at all.


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

I wouldn't want to be stuck with my nose in a corner so I wouldn't do the same to my child. I find it degrading. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## fire_lady (Aug 24, 2005)

Sometimes I do time out when Im really tired. But its not that mean time out,its just a break in our comfy sofa and talk to him in a calm voice what is wrong.


----------



## Leilalu (May 29, 2004)

Interesting, I have never heard anybody talk that way here....

We only do a seperation time out when dd is violent.Always lots of explaining, then hugging, cuddling, making things better afterward.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I know people who do that, but I've never read anything like that here.

I think that's humiliating, and at some point it would have to be backed up with physical power.


----------



## hotmom (Jul 23, 2005)

I do timeouts and timeouts in the corner.
Not often but when my child has gone through the other steps of being removed from the situation, activity interupted and behavior discussed and still the offending activity persists, I will do a "sit in the corner time out". I see nothing wrong with it at all actually. He/she is allowed to see the room just not be involved in the activity in which they demonstrated (violent) behavior. It's a natural consequence.
I also have the soft reading area where I can redirect my children to relax and give themselves a cool out. A variety of things can be done, it's about having more than 1 tool in your teaching toolbox.
IMO gentle discipline is teachinng a child without violence and humilation. In my home a time out is not humilating.
jmo







flame away


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I won't flame but I will say that there is *nothing* natural about sitting in the corner for a time-out. That is not a natural consequence. A natural consequence is like if it's raining outside and you walk outside, you get wet. If you have to tell your child to sit in the corner, it isn't natural.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

He/she is allowed to see the room just not be involved in the activity in which they demonstrated (violent) behavior. It's a natural consequence.

Quote:

I won't flame but I will say that there is *nothing* natural about sitting in the corner for a time-out.
I've got to say that the way she described it seems like a natural consequence to me. Just like getting wet in the rain, if you hurt people and continue to do it after being asked not to, people won't want you around them and you'll get sent away.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

People not wanting to be around you might be a natural consequence, but being sent away, or being forced to sit in a corner aren't natural consequences. Someone has to tell you to do something - it doesn't happen automatically with no interference.


----------



## Leilalu (May 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee*
People not wanting to be around you might be a natural consequence, but being sent away, or being forced to sit in a corner aren't natural consequences. Someone has to tell you to do something - it doesn't happen automatically with no interference.

Yes, but sometimes children need to be protected from themselves, they aren't inherently wise~it is a learned life-skill.Children don't automatically choose the right things. Or understand right and wrong.Sometimes, if I don't seperate dd, ds will get very hurt, adn I cannot LET that happen. Dd needs to learn that violence is unnaceptable. So, if I am teaching non-violent discipline and allwoing her to be violent at times, unchecked-what message does that send?If dd is violent during play, depending on the severity , she will either be asked to make it better, or seperated temporarily and talked to.She doesn't yet have impulse control, doesn't understand natural consequences fully, and needs to be taught these things.I think seperation is a good natural consequence for rough play.It gives her a chance to think(if only for a minute) and to be able to remove herself mentally from the situation. A change of scenery can work wonders for kids.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Leilalu*
So, if I am teaching non-violent discipline and allwoing her to be violent at times, unchecked-what message does that send?

Two things. It isn't accurate to say that parents who don't use timeouts or otherwise punish are "allowing their children to be violent at times, unchecked." There are ways to respond other than punishment, such as talking to the child about better ways to express his/her feelings, saying that we are gentle with each other, etc.

The second thing is that by not punishing when your child is violent, IMO you are teaching your child that you love him/her unconditionally, in other words regardless of his/her behavior. You being a general you - all parents - and not you specifically.


----------



## slightly crunchy (Jul 7, 2003)

I'd say we don't do "time outs". But I think probably a lot of parents who use GD just do a gentler version of it, they just don't think of it as a time out.

For example, my 3 year old is going through a time where he screams a lot. I have a new baby and I am not willing to tolerate this screaming (and I do mean screaming at the top of his lungs when he is frustrated) in the baby's presence esp. when sleeping. And actually some times it is so loud that it hurts MY ears. So yes we do talk about other ways to express feelings, and that it is okay to have very big feelings. It is even okay to scream if he REALLY needs to (and at this age perhaps he does until he learns other ways), but he can scream where it will not hijack the whole household. We all live here and we need to respect each other. If he is unwilling to go to his room to scream and he cannot or will not stop, I calmly help him to his room. There is no shaming involved, no lecturing. Is this a time out? Well, I don't know, but I don't feel it is done in the *spirit* of timeouts as a punishment. I don't force him to stay there. I will stay with him if I can, but not always possible, that's life with two kids.


----------



## Leilalu (May 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee*
Two things. It isn't accurate to say that parents who don't use timeouts or otherwise punish are "allowing their children to be violent at times, unchecked." There are ways to respond other than punishment, such as talking to the child about better ways to express his/her feelings, saying that we are gentle with each other, etc.

The second thing is that by not punishing when your child is violent, IMO you are teaching your child that you love him/her unconditionally, in other words regardless of his/her behavior. You being a general you - all parents - and not you specifically.


Well, it is a good thing I didn't say that then. Of course that is innacurate!I never said that. And if you bothered to read the rest of my posts, we do all those things.

I don't really get what you are trying to say in the second part.Are you assuming I punish?This is another assumption on your part. if I were to let dd go around slapping, kicking, punching, knocking over, running into ,etc- her brother whenever she felt like it and not doing anything about it,like not separating her momentarily and talkning to her so she can calm down or whatever~~~~I would not be a good gaurdian of ds. I do teach my child unconditional love, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I am making!My love for her never comes into question. It is a simple matter of correcting behavior that hurts others. If dd is physical in a wrong way, there needs to be a point where I can protect dd from herself, and ds. That is just common sense.

So please bother to read my posts before making innacurate assumptions next time.


----------



## MsMoMpls (Oct 22, 2002)

The only time outs in this house are for mommy... I often need a time out. I take them when I can't be the kind of parent I believe in being.

I also don't believe that sitting in the corner is a natural consequence. Natural consequence is something that happen unless we get in their way. Being frustrated, wanting space from a kid that is hitting, is natural.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Leilalu

Sorry if I misunderstood. It sounded like you were defending the concept of time outs, which are of course a punishment.

Separation is a consequence, but I disagree that it is a natural consequence. I personally don't do time outs, but I do consider time outs to be a part of gentle discipline.


----------



## Leilalu (May 29, 2004)

So if seperation , temporarily from another person or child when a violent act is being commited is unnatural, what is the "natural" consequence?The natural thing for me to do is the release the mama bear in me. I can't sit by and let my children hurt each other. that is not natural for me. I don't think leaving children to themselves all the time is wise.They don't naturally do the right things all the time. They need to be taught. And I think there are definitely instances where intervention from a loving adult is nessecary.
I don't see how I was advocating punishment in my posts. I also see that you have one child so this isn't an issue for you yet.


----------



## dillonandmarasmom (May 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Leilalu*
So if seperation , temporarily from another person or child when a violent act is being commited is unnatural, what is the "natural" consequence?

Coming from a former teacher who believes in karma and natural consequences, the natural consequence is whatever occurs as a result of the child's violent behavior. Either the other child cries showing how hurt or upset hitting can make someone, or the other child leaves showing that if one is violent, others won't play with him/her, or child reacts equally violently.

The jist of a natural consequence is simply one that occurs because you DON"T get involved. Once you involve yourself, the consequence isn't *natural* to whatever the child did, regardless of whether it was your *natural* reaction or not. Whether it was *right* or *just* is an entirely different issue...


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Leilalu*
I don't see how I was advocating punishment in my posts. I also see that you have one child so this isn't an issue for you yet.

I just wanted to respectfully point out that it comes across as very condescending to say something like that to moms of "onlies". I'm sure I will face a whole new set of challenges when we have another baby, but even so I think everyone has a valuable contribution to make regardless of how many children they have.

I don't have anything to contribute to this conversation so I'll go back to







:


----------



## dillonandmarasmom (May 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*
I just wanted to respectfully point out that it comes across as very condescending to say something like that to moms of "onlies". I'm sure I will face a whole new set of challenges when we have another baby, but even so I think everyone has a valuable contribution to make regardless of how many children they have.

I agree. And, you do have things to contribute as an "only's" mom. This doesn't have to occur between sibs...it could happen anywhere. Wouldn't your consequence be the same regardless of who your child acted out toward? I hope so. (The "you" was somewhat general, but also kinda directed at Leilalu)


----------



## canadiyank (Mar 16, 2002)

To the OP - as you can see, people vary in their definition of GD.







I really haven't seen people advocating a stand in the corner thing here. Personally, we do not use time-outs or other punitive discipline, although I've done mommy time-outs, as a PP metnioned.


----------



## Leilalu (May 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*
I just wanted to respectfully point out that it comes across as very condescending to say something like that to moms of "onlies". I'm sure I will face a whole new set of challenges when we have another baby, but even so I think everyone has a valuable contribution to make regardless of how many children they have.

I don't have anything to contribute to this conversation so I'll go back to







:

I am sorry to have offended. And that it came across that way.... I just felt kind of defensive.


----------



## polka hop (Dec 23, 2003)

*


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Leilalu*
I don't think leaving children to themselves all the time is wise....I think there are definitely instances where intervention from a loving adult is nessecary.

I agree. But I don't see how making them sit in a corner is "intervention from a loving adult" unless you are there with them. Do you sit in the corner and talk with them? Do you teach them while they are sitting there? If so, then I think that is totally appropriate.

When my DD hits her baby brother, I have to intervene, but I don't punish her. Removing a child from "the action" and making them watch and not be allowed to participate is punishment, IMO. And since we choose not to use it, we find other ways of dealing with hitting.

When I deal with it, the underlying assumptions are: 1) she knows hitting is wrong, 2) in the moment her emotions were too much for her to control herself, and 3) she herself feels guilty and bad inside that she did something she knows was wrong, that she lacked the control to stop herself. She doesn't need anything from me to relate that message to her. What she needs is constructive advice on how to prevent hitting in the future.


----------



## hotmom (Jul 23, 2005)

Interesting discussion. I thought I would be eaten alive, I see you are indeed very gentle








Well in my home, it's a natural consequence. lol
If you are hurting someone intentionally and repeatedly, you will be asked to leave. If you live here or if you do not.







I understnad the disection of the terms, I am just using them loosely.
I also understand from the perspective of having mutiple children, discipline is different at times because different situations arise and persist. (that's another post)
Of course my child is not always hurting his siblings, but when it does occur I take a firm approach.


----------



## rowantree (May 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riotkrrn*
Definitionally, the natural consequence would be that the other child is hurt, and possibly does not want to continue to play with your child. As others have said, the term "natural consequence", when used in discussing discipline, is generally accepted to mean a consequence that results directly from an action, not one that is imposed by an authority figure.

A logical consequence, OTOH, is one that does generally involve an authority figure. Many people incorrectly describe punitive actions as "logical consequences", so the term has acquired something of a bad reputation. To define the terms using your example of Child One hitting Child Two:

Natural consequence - Child Two is in pain. Child Two may or may not decide to continue playing with Child One.

Logical consequence - Parent physically prevents Child One from continuing to harm Child Two for the purposes of protecting Child Two.

Punishment - Parent imposes a consequence whose purpose is to teach Child One a lesson through discomfort - be it separation from the fun, shaming, or spanking.

As you can see, adult intervention is not synonymous with punishment.

thank you

logical consequence is what parenting is all about IMHO. esp. when one child is too young to adeqautly dispense an appropriate 'natural consequense, ie wants to be accepted etc...


----------



## Leilalu (May 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
I agree. But I don't see how making them sit in a corner is "intervention from a loving adult" unless you are there with them. Do you sit in the corner and talk with them? Do you teach them while they are sitting there? If so, then I think that is totally appropriate.

When my DD hits her baby brother, I have to intervene, but I don't punish her. Removing a child from "the action" and making them watch and not be allowed to participate is punishment, IMO. And since we choose not to use it, we find other ways of dealing with hitting.

When I deal with it, the underlying assumptions are: 1) she knows hitting is wrong, 2) in the moment her emotions were too much for her to control herself, and 3) she herself feels guilty and bad inside that she did something she knows was wrong, that she lacked the control to stop herself. She doesn't need anything from me to relate that message to her. What she needs is constructive advice on how to prevent hitting in the future.


OK, JUST TO CLARIFY:

I do not "punish" my children!
Second, I do not EVER make them sit in a corner.I don't understand why everyone is assuming this about me??!?!?!

And I don't understand this:

When my DD hits her baby brother, I have to intervene, but I don't punish her. Removing a child from "the action" and making them watch and not be allowed to participate is punishment, IMO. And since we choose not to use it, we find other ways of dealing with hitting.

Removing my dd temporarily and talking with her and allowing her some time to cool down is often what she needs. This is just her personally. Sometimes, we immediately hug and make things better and go on.Sometimes she needs a little quiet form the distraction going on around to settle down. I really don't see how in an extreme case, giving her some time to cool down is bad.


----------



## Leilalu (May 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riotkrrn*
Definitionally, the natural consequence would be that the other child is hurt, and possibly does not want to continue to play with your child. As others have said, the term "natural consequence", when used in discussing discipline, is generally accepted to mean a consequence that results directly from an action, not one that is imposed by an authority figure.

A logical consequence, OTOH, is one that does generally involve an authority figure. Many people incorrectly describe punitive actions as "logical consequences", so the term has acquired something of a bad reputation. To define the terms using your example of Child One hitting Child Two:

Natural consequence - Child Two is in pain. Child Two may or may not decide to continue playing with Child One.

Logical consequence - Parent physically prevents Child One from continuing to harm Child Two for the purposes of protecting Child Two.

Punishment - Parent imposes a consequence whose purpose is to teach Child One a lesson through discomfort - be it separation from the fun, shaming, or spanking.

As you can see, adult intervention is not synonymous with punishment.


thank you








So, just so everyone here knows, the "logical consequence " is what I choose in this particular area of GD.

I can't agree dd would naturally stop hitting sometimes, and I can't assure she understands or has impulse control. But as gaurdian, I do need to protect the child being hurt, and teach the child inflicting the hurt. Not through seperation or isolation. Or any other method pf punishment. Children learn wisdom. I am sorry to say, but IMHO some things do not come naturally.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Regarding sitting in the corner specifically: I think the idea that it is humiliating is a huge assumption. It is what you make of it. (The same is true of many other discipline techniques--I know adults who were not GD'd who feel that verbal empathy, no matter how sincere the tone, is condescending and therefore infuriating!)

In my childhood home, the corner used for timeouts was behind a door that, when fully open, created a space about 2 feet wide between the door and the wall. There was also a furnace intake vent in this corner. One of the ways (no, NOT the only way







) my parents dealt with misbehavior was to tell me to sit in that corner until the timer went off. It was not necessary to use physical force to make this happen (as a PP seemed to think) because our foundation of mutual respect meant that I generally responded to the Firm Voice. I would sit down, my parent would open the door such that I was in an enclosed space, and then I would hear the kitchen timer ticking on a nearby table.

We talked about this at a family reunion several years ago and discovered that my parents and I had totally different perceptions of what happened during the next 5 minutes. Their intention was to remove all other stimulation so that I'd have to think about what I'd done wrong and how I could do better. I guess that might have been kind of humiliating...if I'd done it! Instead, what happened was that I'd find myself suddenly transported from whatever situation had frustrated me enough to misbehave (usually my little brother bugging me until I snapped) into this strange little shadowy room-within-a-room where there was so little obvious amusement that I had the opportunity to notice all kinds of fascinating things. Did you know that a door hinge, even though it moves dozens of times a day, still gets a little tuft of dust on the top?







Nobody had ever mentioned to me the function of that particular vent, and it blew my mind when I figured out all on my own what it was--I had known for a long time that the furnace blew air OUT all over the house, but I'd never thought about how it got the air IN! I would think about these things, or I would just sort of soak up the darkness and privacy and fall into a sort of meditative state. When the timer dinged, I'd hop up and return to everyday life feeling as if I'd returned from a faraway journey.







It worked very well as a way to correct my behavior, but it didn't work the way my parents thought it did!









[Edited to add: The only way I can see that this method would have been harmful is if someone had shoved the door >90 degrees open when I was sitting far enough back from the corner to get smashed behind it! In retrospect, I'm surprised that never happened.]

Piglet68, I have great respect for you as a gentle disciplinarian, but in this case I think your thinking is rather narrow. A discipline method using "intervention from a loving adult" does not necessarily have to involve the adult constantly hovering and directing the entire course of the discipline; sometimes the discipline (and the loving) continue after the direct intervention is done. YOUR daughter may respond well to a lot of talking in the immediate aftermath of misbehavior, but a lot of kids don't--they need to cool down before they can listen, and they may not want your "constructive advice" but prefer to figure it out themselves. It's great that you understand that "She doesn't need anything from me to relate that message to her," but it's funny that you say that right after saying that having a child sit out of the action for a moment is okay only if you "talk with them" and "teach them"! Maybe that is the only way it would be useful for Emily, but for a lot of other kids, having a moment to calm down ALONE can be very helpful.

Overall, I think timeouts are an acceptable method if used gently and in the right situations. (For example: "I just noticed that this vase was broken an hour ago. When I approached you while you were quietly drawing and asked if you broke the vase, you lied. Go sit in the corner!" doesn't make sense.) If the timeout location that works well for a family is a corner, I think that's fine. Corners are not inherently humiliating.

Now, if you make the child wear a dunce cap, or if you get her into the corner by whipping her, or if you let the other kids dance around jeering at her while she's in the corner, that's another matter. The humiliation comes from these other tactics, not from the corner itself.


----------



## canadiyank (Mar 16, 2002)

Children can be given the option to have time alone to cool down w/o being "made" to go in the corner for an arbitrary amount of time. I am one of those people who needs time alone when upset or angry to collect my thoughts, so ITU where you're coming from...I give dd the option when she has big feelings, too, but not where she "has" to go nor for what amount of time. Usually she throws her self on her bed, cuddles her animals, and comes out calm a few minutes later.

I think learning to deal with disappointment/frustration/anger etc. are huge life skills...I just don't think sending a kid to the corner teaches this. I doubt even children like you and me, who enjoyed a brief reprieve, go to the corner to calm down! :LOL Why not teach them how we *do* calm down, and learn some new ideas for kids who may need social interaction instead of isolation?


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Leilalu, I owe you a big apology. I got your quote mixed up with another poster's comments. I meant to respond to hotmom's post where she wrote:

Quote:

He/she is allowed to see the room just not be involved in the activity in which they demonstrated (violent) behavior.
I quoted you b/c I like the way you had phrased things, but then neglected to say in my words that I was directing my words at the above quote, not you! I'm really sorry.

And, I guess it didn't come across well in my words, but I wasn't intending to put down somebody who uses punishment. It was trying to say "this fits into my definition of punishment". That's all.

And Envirobecca, ITA with you. I guess I wasn't clear in that point either (strike 3,







. I totally understand that some kids need "alone time" and my DD is actually like that in some situations, but it's not "imposed" on her. Like canadiyank said, it doesn't have to be forced. I wouldn't "make" my DD sit alone or whatever. If it was clear that she wanted to be left alone I would do that. I think there's a big difference between giving a child the time/space they need to cool down, and forcing it (and not saying anybody here is doing that, either).


----------



## Leilalu (May 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
Leilalu, I owe you a big apology. I got your quote mixed up with another poster's comments. I meant to respond to hotmom's post where she wrote:

I quoted you b/c I like the way you had phrased things, but then neglected to say in my words that I was directing my words at the above quote, not you! I'm really sorry.

And, I guess it didn't come across well in my words, but I wasn't intending to put down somebody who uses punishment. It was trying to say "this fits into my definition of punishment". That's all.

And Envirobecca, ITA with you. I guess I wasn't clear in that point either (strike 3,







. I totally understand that some kids need "alone time" and my DD is actually like that in some situations, but it's not "imposed" on her. Like canadiyank said, it doesn't have to be forced. I wouldn't "make" my DD sit alone or whatever. If it was clear that she wanted to be left alone I would do that. I think there's a big difference between giving a child the time/space they need to cool down, and forcing it (and not saying anybody here is doing that, either).


ok, lol









This thread is actually very encouraging for me-hearing everyones take on this.Because sometimes I tend to question whether what I am doing is right, or the correct thing to do..


----------



## Anesidora (Feb 16, 2004)

I wonder if anyone here in this thread has a truly spirited, very emotional child who melts down the way mine does. The people here who are saying time outs are never an acceptable form of discipline must never have needed to truly use it. I find gently using our quiet times so that DD can get control of her emotions to be the ONLY way to calm her down so that we can then get to the reason why she had to sit there for two minutes and why some things are just not acceptable behavior. It's a very easy thing to say "Time outs should never be used as an acceptable form of discipline" when your own child responds perfectly fine to just something simple from you... or comforting... or simply saying "Can you please stop hitting? etc" Simple solutions like that don't work for all of us, including our DD.

Our little girl has always been a spirited, sensitive, high needs child. Redirection would work when she was younger. However, now that she is older (2 yrs old) that does not work anymore. She has been prone to tantrums since a long time back. I found that the more I went to her and tried to comfort her the more she flew into a fit of rage. I had to just let her get her frustration out wailing on the floor until she was cool enough to come and "talk" to me. She was a very late talker, which I believe led to a lot of her frustration. She has also been a hitter, since the beginning (again I believe connected to the fact that she didn't talk early so she didn't know how to communicate her bad feelings.) We have never once hit her in any way so I truly believe that her hitting was connected to the late talking. She also has issues with people being in her personal space. She would hit other children if they hovered or came too close. This sensitivity caused many a mighty tantrum in which the only way to calm her down was to have her sit in quiet time. Simply trying to tell her... Just tell so-and-so to step back or whatever just didn't work until JUST recently... and she is almost three.

Nowadays, the tantrums have decreased majorly but we still have our moments. The only way I have found for her to stop doing behavior that is certainly not okay (hitting another child or animal or throwing an all-out fit because we did not respond quickly enough or do something the right way etc) is to sit her down in the hall with the door halfway closed. I have tried to start calling it quiet time instead of time out so that it doesn't have such a negative connatation to it. She is definitely a child who needs her own cooling off time to be able to even think about what she was doing wrong much less talk to me about it. She gets so angry that any intervention from me completely and totally snowballs into an even bigger tantrum and fit.

I cannot think of another way to help my child calm down and/or to show her that some behaviors are just not acceptable (as in hitting). She is so highly sensitive that this is the only way I have found to gently show her that some things are just not okay to do. I am highly against spanking/hitting of any kind.

I cannot tell you how frustrating it is when your child completely melts down like this.... and does not respond to anything at all except for sitting alone in quiet time. The problem I have is yelling when this happens. I have to try so very hard not to just lose it and raise my voice and even yell, but sometimes she gets so angry that I do yell. I hate it. It's a constant battle.

I am open to suggestions... especially about the yelling and keeping your cool when your child completely breaks down. I have major stress issues... just not handling stress well (hormonal PMS symptoms). This does not help me to not yell.... it is so hard to stay calm myself (even when I know I need to).

It seems some women can just handle stress like it is nothing. What do those of do who cannot? How can we learn to stay calm and be a good role model for our children?

Anyway, I just wanted to commisserate with the others in this thread who find it incredibly difficult to not use a quiet time as a source of discipline. It really so much depends on the personality and temperment of your child. Mine is one who just does not always respond to talking. Now that she is older, it is getting easier... I haven't had to use quiet time in quite a while. I try to only use it when she is in the middle of a meltdown or when she does something like hitting, etc.


----------



## Leilalu (May 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anesidora*
I wonder if anyone here in this thread has a truly spirited, very emotional child who melts down the way mine does. The people here who are saying time outs are never an acceptable form of discipline must never have needed to truly use it. I find gently using our quiet times so that DD can get control of her emotions to be the ONLY way to calm her down so that we can then get to the reason why she had to sit there for two minutes and why some things are just not acceptable behavior. It's a very easy thing to say "Time outs should never be used as an acceptable form of discipline" when your own child responds perfectly fine to just something simple from you... or comforting... or simply saying "Can you please stop hitting? etc" Simple solutions like that don't work for all of us, including our DD.

Our little girl has always been a spirited, sensitive, high needs child. Redirection would work when she was younger. However, now that she is older (2 yrs old) that does not work anymore. She has been prone to tantrums since a long time back. I found that the more I went to her and tried to comfort her the more she flew into a fit of rage. I had to just let her get her frustration out wailing on the floor until she was cool enough to come and "talk" to me. She was a very late talker, which I believe led to a lot of her frustration. She has also been a hitter, since the beginning (again I believe connected to the fact that she didn't talk early so she didn't know how to communicate her bad feelings.) We have never once hit her in any way so I truly believe that her hitting was connected to the late talking. She also has issues with people being in her personal space. She would hit other children if they hovered or came too close. This sensitivity caused many a mighty tantrum in which the only way to calm her down was to have her sit in quiet time. Simply trying to tell her... Just tell so-and-so to step back or whatever just didn't work until JUST recently... and she is almost three.

Nowadays, the tantrums have decreased majorly but we still have our moments. The only way I have found for her to stop doing behavior that is certainly not okay (hitting another child or animal or throwing an all-out fit because we did not respond quickly enough or do something the right way etc) is to sit her down in the hall with the door halfway closed. I have tried to start calling it quiet time instead of time out so that it doesn't have such a negative connatation to it. She is definitely a child who needs her own cooling off time to be able to even think about what she was doing wrong much less talk to me about it. She gets so angry that any intervention from me completely and totally snowballs into an even bigger tantrum and fit.

I cannot think of another way to help my child calm down and/or to show her that some behaviors are just not acceptable (as in hitting). She is so highly sensitive that this is the only way I have found to gently show her that some things are just not okay to do. I am highly against spanking/hitting of any kind.

I cannot tell you how frustrating it is when your child completely melts down like this.... and does not respond to anything at all except for sitting alone in quiet time. The problem I have is yelling when this happens. I have to try so very hard not to just lose it and raise my voice and even yell, but sometimes she gets so angry that I do yell. I hate it. It's a constant battle.

I am open to suggestions... especially about the yelling and keeping your cool when your child completely breaks down. I have major stress issues... just not handling stress well (hormonal PMS symptoms). This does not help me to not yell.... it is so hard to stay calm myself (even when I know I need to).

It seems some women can just handle stress like it is nothing. What do those of do who cannot? How can we learn to stay calm and be a good role model for our children?

Anyway, I just wanted to commisserate with the others in this thread who find it incredibly difficult to not use a quiet time as a source of discipline. It really so much depends on the personality and temperment of your child. Mine is one who just does not always respond to talking. Now that she is older, it is getting easier... I haven't had to use quiet time in quite a while. I try to only use it when she is in the middle of a meltdown or when she does something like hitting, etc.

Hey, my dd can be the same way







Come join us in the short-fused mamas tribe


----------



## Anesidora (Feb 16, 2004)

Thanks, Leila!! I most certainly will.. I could definitely use some gentle guidance as to how to be more gentle when confronted with the tantrums and ultra-sensitivity with my daughter that occurs every single day...


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I think time alone at the child's discretion (she decides where to go and for how long) is a great idea if it works. For me, if I'd not had the little brother problem, it might have worked even at a young age--I don't know because the corner-and-timer method was used. Once I was about 6 years old, my parents would instead tell me to go into my room until I calmed down. I don't know whether they made that change and then I changed my response, or they changed where they were sending me because I changed my response--but what I remember about that is pitching a huge fit in my room, crying loudly and writing angry things, for at least half an hour. It was very different from the contemplative state in the corner and left me feeling more worn-out than refreshed, but it did calm me.

"The little brother problem" was that my brother, two-and-a-half years younger, would do things purposely to annoy me, and IF I TRIED TO REMOVE MYSELF VOLUNTARILY FROM THE SITUATION HE WOULD FOLLOW ME. My parents rarely stopped him from doing this, maybe 10% of the time. Typically, I would say, "I'm tired of hearing that song. I'm going to go read in the living room." and he would then appear in the opposite corner of the living room still singing the song. I would say, "Go away!" and he would say, "I went a way; I went THIS way!" as he started swinging on the corner of the couch where I was sitting, and as I continued to try to negotiate verbally, he would repeat everything I said in an opera voice.







Or something like that. If I complained to my parents, they'd say, "It's hard to have a little brother," as if this behavior was inherent to later-born males and nothing could be done. So, usually he continued teasing until I hit him or started bellowing at the top of my lungs, at which point *I* would get a timeout.







This was a gap in our family's discipline and (I hope) doesn't apply to everyone; I'm just explaining it in case it sheds any light on how some behaviors might be prevented!


----------



## MsMoMpls (Oct 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
So, usually he continued teasing until I hit him or started bellowing at the top of my lungs, at which point *I* would get a timeout.







This was a gap in our family's discipline and (I hope) doesn't apply to everyone; I'm just explaining it in case it sheds any light on how some behaviors might be prevented!









Becca- Have you read "Mom, Jason's Breathing on Me!" ? Your parents were doing almost what he recommends except that they needed to ignore your behavior as well as his. I loved the book but will have to see if I can make it work with mine. My youngest is a monster at teasing his big brother who is a kinder, gentler soul. And the baby is only 18 months old, wait until he can really tease. No time outs for me but I can see I am in for some challenges.


----------



## Gwen2 (Jul 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee*
People not wanting to be around you might be a natural consequence, but being sent away, or being forced to sit in a corner aren't natural consequences. Someone has to tell you to do something - it doesn't happen automatically with no interference.

Since other kids can't necessarily accomplish this (especially younger ones), i see nothing un-natural about asking the child who is really acting in a negative way to go to their room.

it does not have to be backed up by force. in our house, my 2.5 yo has to go to his room to 'cool down' if he is hitting, chasing the dog (not when playing but in a harassing way- because the dog has rights too) or otherwise harming others. when he comes out, he can try using his words and/or apologizing if necessary. going to his room, where he usually calms down within less than a minute and starts playing with toys, teaches him to get out of situations of conflict. Similarly, when the dog has his toy and won't give it back, i teach him to let go and not to get in a power struggle. within moments, the dog will drop it and the problem is solved without much interference. But i don't think it is right to let the natural consequence of might is right rule the day.

i think time out will teach him that he is responsible for his behavior, for the way he deals with his anger, and that it is not acceptable to resort to violence. he is a pretty happy and mellow kid most of the time and so i feel this works for him. time out may not work for the second one- we'll see.


----------



## octobermom (Aug 31, 2005)

Being seperated from others by force (gently or not) is a logical conquence its not a natural one.
A natural conquence is just that one that occurs with out intervention from "man" a logical conquence is one that is fitting to the situation but is enforced by another.. So
Running wild through the kitchen and slipping on the tile is a natural conquence ..touching a hot stove is a natural conquence standing out in the rain and getting sick a natural conquence...

As a parent I choose to decide if my child is mature and able to experience these natural conquences and block the ones I feel shes not ready for. So the logical conquence for a 14 month old running through the kitchen might be to put up a gate because at 14 months her impluse controll is too great and shes not ready to accept the natural conquence. However say its a 5 year old I'm willing to lay down the rules (not running) but let her experience the natural conquence (a fall) if needed. I wont set her up for one.

Being sent from a room can be a logical conquence. A result of not behaving in front of guests means a choice to spend some time alone, this can also be done respectivly and non punitivly. (not sending to a corner) the natural conquence to a child being desrespectfull to others is loosing the others respect.

Deanna


----------



## MsMoMpls (Oct 22, 2002)

Ok- so this seems to be getting into splitting hairs. If I get frustrated with my kids and lock myself in the bathroom... that is a natural consequence... right? Human reaction is a natural consequence. "I don't want to play with you if you are hitting me" is natural. I agree that putting your child in his room is imposing a consequence but not so sure that separation isn't natural although like the PP said, not all natural consequences are age appropriate.


----------



## octobermom (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:

Ok- so this seems to be getting into splitting hairs. If I get frustrated with my kids and lock myself in the bathroom... that is a natural consequence... right? Human reaction is a natural consequence. "I don't want to play with you if you are hitting me" is natural. I agree that putting your child in his room is imposing a consequence but not so sure that separation isn't natural although like the PP said, not all natural consequences are age appropriate.
Its might seem like splitting hairs but I think understanding the diffrence is important to making a complete shift from a punitve mind set..








The reason why seperating the child isn't natural (though appropiate) is that YOU had to remove them again a natural conquence occurs with no interaction. By sepperating an out of controll child your actually blocking the natural conquence of having others not wanting to play with your child.
Its the same with locking your self up your using a "logical" conquence to block the natural conquence of letting your anger get the best and lashing out.
Its hard to define human reaction some is logical ebecause we have controll, I can decide if my childs tantrum is going to get to me or am I going to not take it personally It can be difficult and sometimes a locked door is the best solution when our inner selfs battle that man over "feelings" senerio. Hman reaction thats natural.. Having an unpleasent feeling when touching a hot surface shivvering when out in the cold feeling wet when in the rains.
Does this make any sense?

deanna


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I agree with what deanna is saying because I think that so much of GD really IS the mindset you have going into it.

Some mamas here have described children who do well when given some alone time when things get "out of hand". There are many ways to do this, but I think the attitude of the parent will go a long way towards making the situation one of helpfulness and guidance (i.e. parent and child working together) as opposed to a punitive situation (i.e. parent forces child, child has no input to the situation).

To the mama with the spirited child: I think it's wrong to suggest that if a child doesn't need time out then he isn't spirited enough. I don't think of punitive responses as something that rests on the "extreme" of an "effective GD tools" spectrum, something that needs to be brought out only when the situation becomes hard enough, or the child is "spirited enough". Instead, I consider punishment to the be last resort of a parent who is plain and simple out of ideas. But the limits of our own ignorance does not represent some absolute Truth that non-coercive parenting "doesn't work for all children". When we don't know what else to do, we fall back on what is comfortable. For many of us, that means getting punitive (especially if you were raised that way yourself).

I often find myself in a situation where my usual bag of GD tricks isn't working. Redirection, talking, etc - none of these are having the desired effect. And I do get tempted sometimes to "get harsher" and be punitive. But I have "disallowed" myself that option. So instead, I have to look harder for a solution. I come to this forum and ask for advice, or read some threads where parents are dealing with similar situations. I may go back and read some of my GD books for inspiration, or get some new book from the library. If you rule out punishment completely, you aren't left "empty handed". On the contrary, it forces you to go out and LEARN MORE to find the answers you are looking for. My philosophy is that there is ALWAYS a gentle and supportive way to help the child; it's just that sometimes I don't know what that is!









There are kids who need their own space to calm down. To me, the difference is whether the parent is IMPOSING that on the child by using their power as a bigger, psychologically more powerful, human being or is the parent acting as an "emotion coach" to the child, helping the child to find that quiet space, asking the child how they would like to spend that time (within limits, perhaps) such as reading a book or drawing. Maybe the child needs to be held, or maybe the child needs to be left to tantrum and get it out of their system with the parent making themselves available to the child when/if the child asks for them. Timeout can just be so many things.

Like deanna said, it is hairsplitting, but I agree that the attitude going into it can make all the difference.


----------

