# Punishment: is it ever necessary?



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

There are those who strive to never use punishment (and I consider imposed consequences to be punishment), and those who think sometimes it is necessary.

I myself honestly believe that there is never a need for punishment. And I think this applies to everybody. And while I, too, am suspicious of any sweeping generalizations in parenting, the reason I hold to this one is b/c there are simply so many ways to acheive a solution that it covers all children and families, regardless of situation or temperament, etc.

I believe that choosing to never use punishment can be compared to choosing to be vegetarian. When you start out you don't have many recipe ideas but you don't run out and buy a Big Mac whenever the going gets tough (and if you do you pick yourself back up, hopefully are kind to yourself, and try again). You look harder, seek out new ideas and recipes. Similar with non-punitive parenting. When you are in a tough situation and punishment would be a quick fix and you cannot see any way else to handle it...well, you do the best you can in that moment and then you try to find a better way that doesn't involve punishment.

If some people DO believe that it's possible to never use punishment, but choose to do so anyway and are aware of the consequences (ha! a pun!), that is not what I'm wishing to discuss. I'm wishing to be a bit philosophical and argue whether it's possible, and if so what it looks like. Is it being permissive, too child-focused, etc? In other words, can YOU (whoever you are) stay true to your values as a mother, as a family, as a person and still eschew punishment completely?

Let's discuss!


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

I cannot stay true to my values as a person or mother and eschew punishment completely. Sometimes, unfortuneately, I do need that quick fix. I strive to rarely use it and in the bigger scheme of things we totally problem solve together.

My ultimate goals as a parent are to raise my kids to be accountable, to be able to handle consequences, to think critically (and of course to be ahppy and loved and attached and all that jazz







). I don't feel I can instill the first three I listed without imposing limits and consequences for certain behaviours. But these are not just arbitrarily applied without discussion of the 'bigger picture' and a chance for group problem solving if we have some kind of ongoing issue.

I would rather my kids experience fabricated (sort of) consequences at home in a safe environment than out in the big world.

I know too many deadbeat dads to raise sons without accountability. I know too many people living within the justice system too. I don't agree with the justice system but it *is* there and it *does* destroy lives.


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

Need to sleep on this more - but something about "no punishment never" bothers me, because I am a practicing Jew and punishment is mentioned in the Torah. On the other hand, the Oral Tradition tells that things like stoning were never needed, because the people understood what the consequence would be and did not do these things. But I know for many the idea of a "threat of punishment" is problematic. On the other hand, the threat of punishment is useful to me to this day - I don't speed because I don't want a ticket. Some might say they would want me to not speed because I don't want to hurt others - and I don't, but... it's easy to think it's not likely to hurt anybody if I went 5 miles over the speed limit. The threat of the punishment works on me, and I am grateful for it.


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

I haven't yet come across a situation with my ds that I think would be helped by punishment. He is not an easy compliant child, lest anyone thinks I haven't because of his temperament. I have removed things that he is misusing when he gets out of control, just until he is in control again. I have removed him physically from situations when he has gotten out of control, as well. He isn't upset after I've done that and it is usually due to being tired or hungry. I don't view that as punishment, just helping an overstimulated kid get his needs met. My ds is a reasonable kid when he isn't completely unreasonable







.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

I've been thinking more. This is an interesting topic. I think it's sort of idealistic to think that punishment is never necessary. Of course, this depends how we define punishment and since, in the OP it is being described as imposed consequences, I will go along with that. I 'punish' politicians by not voting for them and by lecturing them in the form of letters







. I get 'punished' at school with poor grades if I don't study.

I also think that kids are, by nature, very self-centered for a long time. I think it is my duty, as their guide, to teach them that others must be considered. If that means I must impose some limits to their behaviour because it infringes upon the rights of others in the family (myself included!) from enjoying my life in peace and tranquility, then the payoff is worth the sacrifice. I always offer solutions or space for them to think sme up for their mistakes. I do not place 'blame' and shame upon them. But I have faith in their ability to live up to a high standard of accountability.

Just some thoughts...


----------



## hempmama (Dec 16, 2004)

Can you clarify "imposed consequences?"









Do you mean the "physically forced into the carseat" thing? Or the count to 3(after many appropriate warnings, on a problem area), you haven't chosen, so I choose for you thing? Does it count if the kids came up with it? (ie. what should we do if you hit your brother with the tennis racket? "Put up the tennis racket." Put up the tennis racket, kid seems to feel punished, wants it back out.)

Because no, in my family, for my kids, for our goals as parents, time outs, illogical consequences and punishments (which I think of as arbitrary negative consequences) are not necessary. But definitely I move consequences along (put them in the carseat, count to 3 in a GD way) on occasion, and I do find it necessary for our family. Without that it would not be possible for us to be respectful to each family member as they needed it, given our relative developmental levels and hopes for the things we wish to teach our children.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
In other words, can YOU (whoever you are) stay true to your values as a mother, as a family, as a person and still eschew punishment completely?

in short, yes I can.

I am wondering what you consider imposed consequences. I think in some situations there is a very fine line.
I'm thinking about situations like this- Say we're in a store, and ds is running around. (this is hypothetical btw). I discuss, express my expectations, etc etc. He keeps running, and I'm worried that he's going to go out of my sight, and that is unsafe.
So I offer some solutions, and ds doesn't choose either. I end up picking him up, and carrying him. I try to make it as agreeable as I can (we can "chug chug" like a train).
Would that be an *imposed consequence* or what?
And to make it even more confusing, I can think of a very similar response that I would consider punishment. Like, if someone were yelling at their dc about "come here RIGHT NOW or I will CARRY YOU!" and is kinda harsh with their words or action.
I think it's pretty dependent on the tone of voice, and the intent of the parent (ie, if I'm doing it to "teach a lesson" it might feel more like punishment, but if I'm doing it because it's the only way I can see to keep ds safe, it feels like its not punishment)

I don't really know how to say it, or exactly what counts as what. lol.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *4evermom* 
I haven't yet come across a situation with my ds that I think would be helped by punishment. He is not an easy compliant child, lest anyone thinks I haven't because of his temperament. I have removed things that he is misusing when he gets out of control, just until he is in control again. I have removed him physically from situations when he has gotten out of control, as well. He isn't upset after I've done that and it is usually due to being tired or hungry. I don't view that as punishment, just helping an overstimulated kid get his needs met. My ds is a reasonable kid when he isn't completely unreasonable







.

That describes me pretty much too but the OP has defined punishment to include imposed consequences and I think what we do would fall under that category (?).


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama* 
That describes me pretty much too but the OP has defined punishment to include imposed consequences and I think what we do would fall under that category (?).

Would that mean feeding him is an imposed consequence







? Because I do that, give him candy when he's acting crazy when he has run out of food.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Punishment. Imposed consequences? Time out? Putting a child in a stroller if they won't put on footwear? Removing a cat from the child's grasp if they won't stop harassing it? Pulling your baby off the breast if they bite you?

All those things are imposed consequences. If that is punishment, then yes, I think it's necessary.

These things that get villainized here are such slippery slopes, kwim?

eta - I was veg for 15 years. Got lots of recipes, but in the end it wasn't healthy for my body. Now I'm trying to eat meat again.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

I'd say this is the way dp and I work at parenting. It hasn't meant that sometimes when they were babies we didn't say, "Oh man, it seems like you are toasted. Let's quit doing this activity and go chill somewhere." It hasn't meant no tantrums: why just this week, dd2 awoke from a nap to discover that dd1 and I had left to go to the doctor to get dd1's hand x-rayed. She completely flipped her lid and screamed so loudly our neighbor-friends came over to see if everyone was alright. Dp was holding her and reassuring her, but she was pretty much inconsolable. Our neighbor-friends were shocked because she is generally very zen, but hey, we all have bad days. (They hung around to share their love and distraction.)

It doesn't mean no conflict. For example, dd1 wants me to read her Magic Tree House books before bed. They have been becoming progressively scarier. So tonight during the California 1906 Earthquake, I said, "Look, I'm not going to read these at night. They freak you out. (Note you are now jumping on the bed because it's scary.) I will read them in the morning or when I get home from work. But it's not working to read them at night.

You want me to read the end of that Enki Nature Story I started?"

She had earlier been clear she wanted me to read them right before bed, but was okay that I had reached my limit with freaking her out when she is tired.

I admit that I find the stay calm and distant when you are upset about something discipline approaches completely not my style. I'd *rather* say, That ear shattering noise is driving me nuts. Could you please take it outside?
I'd rather do that then say, that ear shattering noise is driving me nuts. Sit in the corner for 3 minutes. or that ear shattering noise is unacceptable, that's 1.

My entire parenting philosopy is contained in the words, "Parent the kid in front of you." I don't just love my kids, I like them. They're quirky and smart and funny. Cheap entertainment and a personal trainer all rolled into one.

Sometimes they piss me off. Rarely, so does dp. Sometimes I piss them off. I'm not always calm; I'm not always patient; I'm not always nice. But they're all very forgiving. We all try really hard to see things from the other person's perspective (okay, the 2 year old currently sucks at this, but she's been sick for 2 weeks). We try hard to meet each other's needs. We try hard not to battle over things that don't matter. We try hard not to back down on things that do. We sleep and eat and learn and play together. And we mostly get along really well.

There is nothing to compare to being known and loved.

The more I think about it, the more I think that what makes my relationships work with my kids is the same thing that has made my relationship with dp so good in our years together. Even the struggle to understand makes the relationship stronger when you *don't* pull out the ultimatums.

So I'm grateful I got the "strong-willed" "sensory sensitive" "persistent" "high-needs" kids. They've led me down the path to where I am now. Assertive about my needs or sucking up my needs depending on where we all are at the moment. Now I have what I need and what I want in my life.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *4evermom* 
Would that mean feeding him is an imposed consequence







? Because I do that, give him candy when he's acting crazy when he has run out of food.










I also impose the consequence of my kids getting extra cuddles and love if they feel blue.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Short answer is no, I don't believe punishment is ever necessary. I also don't believe "punishment" is a respectful act. I know I would feel very disrespected if my husband decided to "punish" me one way or another.

Plus I do not see a point in "making" somebody do/not do something in order to avoid punishment.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *irinam* 
Short answer is no, I don't believe punishment is ever necessary. I also don't believe "punishment" is a respectful act. I know I would feel very disrespected if my husband decided to "punish" me one way or another.

Plus I do not see a point in "making" somebody do/not do something in order to avoid punishment.


Do you ever think, "well I won't do that because it would upset my dh"?
I guess I'm just a little hazy on the 'imposed consequences" idea. I am also leery of treating little kids like mini-adults yk? Because they aren't. They're kids with different needs and abilities than adults.

I'm sure there are some things my kids do because if they didn't I'd be annoyed or upset--like swearing or yelling at me or something yk? I try to stay away from extrinsic motivation as much as possible for sure! But sometimes it's just necessary for us, I think.


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama* 








I also impose the consequence of my kids getting extra cuddles and love if they feel blue.

I guess it depends on the child's view of the situation. Does the child feel punished when hugged and cuddled and fed candy? He might. My mom once rolled my big brother up in a rug to keep him from beating up on the younger kids. But she fed him chocolate because she figured he was acting like that because he was out of fuel. He hated being confined so that was more of a punishment than a reward (my grandmother hypothesized he would do it again to get chocolate). But that is pretty much what I do with ds, more protecting others and ending a situation than a punishment, IMO though. Like the unconditional parenting stuff, the important thing is that the child feels loved unconditionally, not whether the parent loves their child unconditionally.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

The main punishment I do right now is giving my child time out if she won't put on her shoes and it's time to leave.

When I say that around here I feel compelled to put the







: on my head. But honestly, it's the fastest thing. I always do everything else first, and about half the time we don't get to time out. But when she is sitting on her feet and ignoring me, I pull out the time out and she immediately untucks the toes, shoes go on, and we are on our way.









I find as mama I have to have some solutions up my sleeve where I know I'm going to be able to get what I need, done. When I was trying to do no parent imposed consequences entirely, I found I very quickly began to feel powerless, and angry. It's no fun to have your agenda controlled by the whims of a 3 year old who doesn't have a sense of time or responsibility. Negotiating with a small person to get myself to school on time just didn't work for me.

An angry, feeling powerless mama is not a good mama.

Now what I am doing is trying to hone my life so we get to the mama imposed consequence as rarely as possible. But I do still use them, I don't have a way to get rid of them without ending up in the situation we were in before, which didn't involve time out but was a hell of a lot less pleasant than our life together now.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *4evermom* 
the important thing is that the child feels loved unconditionally, not whether the parent loves their child unconditionally.

I agree completely.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Wow! Great replies thus far. To clarify:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *4evermom*
I have removed things that he is misusing when he gets out of control, just until he is in control again. I have removed him physically from situations when he has gotten out of control, as well. He isn't upset after I've done that and it is usually due to being tired or hungry. I don't view that as punishment, just helping an overstimulated kid get his needs met.

ITA. Deva and others had similar examples.

Unfortunately it's not always easy to draw the line b/c I think the distinction comes with tone and intent. Some argue this is nit-picky but I absolutely believe that kids know the difference. So:

Mama: "I see you are having trouble leaving the playground today and we can't seem to come up with a solution that works for both of us so I'm going to help you by carrying you to the car" [and while child protests and tantrums mama offers sympathy "it's hard isn't it? I totally know how you feel"]. *not punishment*

VERSUS

Mama: "We need to leave. Either you come with me now or I will make you leave. Okay that's it, we're leaving!" [angrily totes off child and berates child for tantruming]. *punishment*

Another example:

"If you don't clean up this mess I'm putting it away for a while and you won't be able to play with these toys!" *punishment*

VERSUS

"I see you are having a hard time using this toy safely. I think we'll put it away until I can sit with you and help you use it safely." *not punishment*

I think what most of you are describing is not punishment. But hey, I'm not the decider so let's discuss that too if you like!


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama* 
I agree completely.









Me too. That's an Alfie Kohn quote isn't it? It really resonates. But I think there are multiple roads to that end, kwim?


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Honestly piglet I tend toward the method of communication you are labelling as punishment. But it's more that I'm a direct communicator. (And so is my dd.







) I mean, it's *true* that if they don't clean up I'm putting away the toys, kwim?

I honestly would feel that I was being deceptive if I tried to cozy it up in pretty language. Not to say that others are necessarily doing that, because you are not if that's your natural communication style. But it's not mine, so it would be for me, and my kid would know and probably feel manipulated.

I like direct, respectful, and loving interaction.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I find as mama I have to have some solutions up my sleeve where I know I'm going to be able to get what I need, done.

So what if someone told you that you could have such tools up your sleeve that didn't involve punishment (and I think timeout is a punishment, wouldn't you agree?) would you want to try it?

Quote:

When I was trying to do no parent imposed consequences entirely, I found I very quickly began to feel powerless, and angry. It's no fun to have your agenda controlled by the whims of a 3 year old who doesn't have a sense of time or responsibility. Negotiating with a small person to get myself to school on time just didn't work for me.
But it doesn't have to be either/or. Either you use punishment OR your agenda is being controlled by the whims of a 3 year old (which I think we can all agree would get you nowhere!)...what if you could have limits and structure and NOT feel powerless and angry, all without using punishment? (I'm being philosophical here, btw) Would you be willing to consider it, or do you think it really isn't possible?


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Me too. That's an Alfie Kohn quote isn't it? It really resonates. But I think there are multiple roads to that end, kwim?

Yes, I do think there are multiple roads to that end for sure. Once in a while, one of my kids will tell me they worry that I don't love them when I'm angry. I tell them that I love them no matter what because I'm their mom and my love goes on for ever and ever through the moon and all the planets and across the universe and back into our house and bounces between my heart and theirs for ever and ever and ever...(or something similar







).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *piglet68*
Mama: "I see you are having trouble leaving the playground today and we can't seem to come up with a solution that works for both of us so I'm going to help you by carrying you to the car" [and while child protests and tantrums mama offers sympathy "it's hard isn't it? I totally know how you feel"]. not punishment

I think there are times that it would feel patronising to do that. Sometimes I just *don't* feel all sorry for them when they act completely selfish and irrational. I just don't. And for me to say otherwise would be fake. I don't tell them they're being "selfish and irrational" but I tell them it's ok to be upset and we're still leaving. I don't think that necessarily, in all cricumstances, being overly wordy works. The kids block it out and I get tired of the sound of my own voice. I HATE it when people act nice when they're actually pissed and I can hear it below the surface.
ETA: Plus, I think that teaches kids that anger is scary and not ok and needs to be kept hidden which is very unhealthy and can lead to all sorts of problems down the road.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama* 
Do you ever think, "well I won't do that because it would upset my dh"?

Oh, absolutely. But I don't think his being upset is a "punishment". It is an honest emotion.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama* 
I am also leery of treating little kids like mini-adults yk? Because they aren't. They're kids with different needs and abilities than adults.

Yes, of course they are different and I am not advocating treating them as mini-adults. I am saying they are worthy of the same level of respect as adults. I understand that I can not make a straight comparisment, but when it comes to the basic human values, I believe they are the same for kids and adults alike.
So, sometimes "putting myself in their shoes" helps me realize that just because I am bigger, more experienced and other "mores" that come with age does not entitle me to exibit disrespect.

I'm sure there are some things my kids do because if they didn't I'd be annoyed or upset--like swearing or yelling at me or something yk? I try to stay away from extrinsic motivation as much as possible for sure! But sometimes it's just necessary for us, I think.[/QUOTE]


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
So what if someone told you that you could have such tools up your sleeve that didn't involve punishment (and I think timeout is a punishment, wouldn't you agree?) would you want to try it?

Sure! As long as they don't involve martyrdom on my part or giving up things I feel are important. And honestly, I've asked and asked around here so I feel I know the lay of the land where tools up your sleeve are concerned.

I've gotten a lot of great idea - for example, we were having drama with getting dressed in the morning. So now I get the little bugger dressed before bed, conflict solved. Easier for me, she thinks it's hilarious. Amazing advice.

But there are a few things where the solutions suggested are just too out there for me. On the shoes, I've gotten "why don't you blow bubbles on the way out to the car" - no. "Carry her!" - no. "Well, do you have to really go out, anyway?" - yes.

I really am in a place where I am comfortable with the places I set firm limits and do parent imposed consequences - unless there is something else DOABLE that would be more gentle.

Doable is a big one. I have extra energy in my life for strategizing better solutions, but not for significantly more labour intensive practices, if that makes sense. I'm tired, kwim? I'm maxxed out. I am right now putting out the maximum output of energy I can with my child without feeling used up and resentful. I don't feel those things, but I have in the past, and I know what I need to do to keep the balance so I can keep the peaceful loving mama feeling, which really is such an important thing in our relationship, more important than whether I said, "okay, then that will be timeout" this morning over the shoes.

So yeah, if in any given situation there is something else doable, for ME, not for what other people think I should be able to perk it up to do, I'm in.

eta - Wow, did I say "doable" enough?


----------



## hempmama (Dec 16, 2004)

I see what you mean. Then, no, actually, I guess we don't punish. DH and I are both lawyers, and so I guess are into language. I am all about the "You're not using that safely. I'm putting that away until we can come up with a better way for us to use it."

I do think my child is not a "little adult" as someone said. I have a greater understanding of some areas, and as such end up getting the "final say" on some things, such as when we leave the park. I especially think this is true with regard to things involving time- time matters in the world we inhabit, in a different way than it does to my children(and they are not yet able to grasp that at a later time they will be hungrier, more tired, miss activities, etc.). I am trying to respect their needs to both be children and learn to inhabit our world at the same time, which definitely results in situations where there are no MAS's.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Punishment. Imposed consequences? Time out? Putting a child in a stroller if they won't put on footwear? Removing a cat from the child's grasp if they won't stop harassing it? Pulling your baby off the breast if they bite you?

All those things are imposed consequences. If that is punishment, then yes, I think it's necessary.

It seems to me that the only one in that list that I could blanketly call a punishment, would be time out. (if it's not a "time in" lol)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *irinam* 
Plus I do not see a point in "making" somebody do/not do something in order to avoid punishment.

Are you talking about using the threat of punishment, or are you talking about something else? (just curious







)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I honestly would feel that I was being deceptive if I tried to cozy it up in pretty language. Not to say that others are necessarily doing that, because you are not if that's your natural communication style. But it's not mine, so it would be for me, and my kid would know and probably feel manipulated.

I like direct, respectful, and loving interaction.

I see what you're saying, and to me it IS more honest to tell my ds "It seems really tempting to you to hit people with that hammer. Let's put it away to take away the temptation."
It's not making it sound prettier. It's exactly what I mean (I'm obsessively honest with ds), and it's exactly what I do. Though most often, ds agrees to have the temptation taken away.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

thanks, thismama. I have to say that while we seem to be butting heads lately I enjoy your style and your upfront honesty.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

nak

necessary? no.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

It seems that so far on this thread everyone shares the same fundamental values of honesty and respect when it comes to 'discipline'. So the rest is a matter of personal communication style together with our children's temperments and our life circumstances. It's all about balance in the end, isn't it?


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I totally agree with what Piglet said about punishment vs. not punishment.
In that case, we do not punish.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama* 

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by piglet68
Mama: "I see you are having trouble leaving the playground today and we can't seem to come up with a solution that works for both of us so I'm going to help you by carrying you to the car" [and while child protests and tantrums mama offers sympathy "it's hard isn't it? I totally know how you feel"]. not punishment

I think there are times that it would feel patronising to do that. Sometimes I just *don't* feel all sorry for them when they act completely selfish and irrational. I just don't. And for me to say otherwise would be fake. I don't tell them they're being "selfish and irrational" but I tell them it's ok to be upset and we're still leaving. I don't think that necessarily, in all cricumstances, being overly wordy works. The kids block it out and I get tired of the sound of my own voice.

For me, I can stay honest while empathizing by saying "It does suck to have to leave when you're not ready." or even just "it sucks, I know." I know it sucks. I'd be mad if someone carried me out of a store before I was ready. I don't have to tell him I'm sorry that we're leaving. And I could even add later that it's frustrating for me, and I don't really feel like going to the park again, when its so hard to leave.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Only for those who believe it is necessary.

Pat


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
thanks, thismama. I have to say that while we seem to be butting heads lately I enjoy your style and your upfront honesty.









Thank you.







I really appreciate that.


----------



## gr8fulmom (Jun 27, 2002)

we do not punish... but I would like to point out that in my goal to work with and negotiate with my kids I do not give up MY needs... or social conetxt needs etc... In every situation it is my goal to work with my kids to come up with solutions that address all our needs whenever and as much as possible... I would never want to model matyrdom because I do not want my children to expect it or do it themselves... I want them to learn to respect and consider the needs of everyone in the situation... I must admit that for my middle son who hates to "talk" it can be like a punishment to worl things out! and sometimes we have to work around that


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
Are you talking about using the threat of punishment, or are you talking about something else? (just curious







)

Threat of punishment as well as the actual punishment in attempt to "make them learn a lesson".


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
Mama: "I see you are having trouble leaving the playground today and we can't seem to come up with a solution that works for both of us so I'm going to help you by carrying you to the car" [and while child protests and tantrums mama offers sympathy "it's hard isn't it? I totally know how you feel"]. *not punishment*

I don't think intention or compassion are enough to distinguish punishment from non-punishment.

A parent could honestly say, with compassion and loving intent, "I see you are having trouble leaving the playground today and we can't seem to come up with a solution that works for both of us so I'm going to spank you so you see how important this is" [and while child protests and tantrums mama offers sympathy "it's hard isn't it? I totally know how you feel."]

We still need to look at the consequences to the child, from the child's point of view, not the parent's. If the child is protesting and tantrumming its probably an indication that this is aversive experience for the child.

I don't believe that a parent can eliminate all aversive experiences, nor would that be a good idea, but deliberately administering an aversive experience is something we should look very closely at, being careful not to dismiss the child's experience of it by thinking that because we didn't mean for it to be punishment, it isn't.


----------



## melissel (Jun 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
I don't believe that a parent can eliminate all aversive experiences, nor would that be a good idea, but deliberately administering an aversive experience is something we should look very closely at, being careful not to dismiss the child's experience of it by thinking that because we didn't mean for it to be punishment, it isn't.

See, here is where I get lost in the woods.

I noticed you (Piglet) used my example of boxing up left-out toys as a punishment for not cleaning up (which, by the way, wasn't initially intended as a punishment, it was intended as some sort of natural consequence; I realized after the fact that it really was not). So when the situation arose again (newspapers intentionally scattered all over the floor and refusal to clean them up despite earlier agreement to do so), I calmly explained that I would be willing to do the cleanup myself, but that would set dinnertime back, which would set bedtime back, which would leave no time for books, which she loves--a natural consequence, yet my DD clearly found it aversive, and I clearly used my power as an adult and the one who can read the books to her to "force" her to clean up.

So, does that automatically make it a punishment? If so, how does a parent gain compliance in such a situation without exerting some force of will? I'm truly at a loss. I aspire to more CL ideals, but in practice, I just can't see my way clear to making it work. I'd like to say I don't use punishment, but if any aversive experience for a child is considered punishment, whether it's administered in the name of the good of the family as a whole or even the child herself, then I guess I actually do.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

I haven't read the replies, but my first response was: depends on what you consider punishment. Have I ever said to ds "You hit your brother, so no dessert?" No, and I don't think I will because it just doesn't make sense to me.

But, I have definitely had "grey area" moments: They are watching tv, ds1 does something mean to ds2, and I turn off the tv to deal with it. Ds1 would probably consider this a punishment, and some others may as well. From my perspective, if ds2 is now screaming, the tv needs to go off so I can handle the situation because with it on ds1 isn't able to focus on what I'm saying.

And I will admit that sometimes I feel a bit stumped with not using punishment. Like when ds1 does something so completely wrong, and he doesn't seem to care in the slightest what I have to say about it. Sure, maybe he's tired, or upset about something, but that doesn't make it okay for him to push ds2 over. So the times that he does something like this, and then just walks away like I don't even exist, I feel at a loss.

Hmm, there's a trend here. I feel most at a loss when he does something to someone else - hurts ds2 or one of us, or is really rude. Those are the moments I feel most compelled to "punish" him, although I don't, and am often left feeling like he "got away with it." I never feel the need to punish him for other things he might do that don't involve anyone else.

Another thought that came to my mind is that I think it's a bit different than the vegetarian vs. Big Mac comparison. It's more like a natural foods vs. french fries. Yes, on a day when I am tired and burnt out I just may go through that drive through and order french fries, because I just don't have the energy to prepare a healthy dinner. And that's how I feel about discipline with my kids: On good days I handle things with patience and empathy, and on bad days there is a lot more yelling and what I consider less overt forms of punishment - me being mad, speaking in harsh tones, saying immature things, etc. So I don't think that it's necessarily black and white - I think that you can be a non punishing parent in general but slip up sometimes.


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

Slept on it - I decided that there are times when a parent needs to send a clear message that a certain action will not be tolerated. Pulling from a recent thread, I'm not going to let my cat be sent down the laundry shoot 3 or 4 times, while I try different strategies for working the problem out. 1 warning on those kind of things - after that, consequences will be imposed. We do not hurt people or animals. If the talking works - great. If the cat takes care of the consequences for me - great. But if not, I will not be afraid to curb and correct distructive behavior (and that doesn't mean getting rid of my cats or creating escape routes for my cats, redirection, etc.).

I also don't think punishment is always about anger. Consequences can be imposed without being angry. And imposing consequences does not mean that you get out of teaching either. A frequent scenario in our house growing up was a heartfelt discussion about why an action was immoral, apologies, and a discussion about what the consequence was going to be. Like my driving example, there are times in life when having natural and imposed consequences are helpful.

I really don't villanize punishment - I don't think punishment is "right" or "wrong". I think the negative consequences of punishment that we hear about are the result of abuse and over use of the concept. So no, for me never ever using punishment is not even a reasonable goal. If I choose to use punishment, I'm not going to call it a "slip up". I will call it a choice, and I will evaluate the effectiveness of my choice.


----------



## Spanish Rose (Jan 29, 2007)

I don't think that punishment is ever necessary....but coercion is, kwim?

Like, with my children and putting on shoes. Now, I go barefoot all the time, so I really don't care if they wear shoes. But if I did, I would see nothing wrong with putting them on myself, or putting a barefoot kiddo in the stroller.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Punishment. Imposed consequences? Time out? Putting a child in a stroller if they won't put on footwear? Removing a cat from the child's grasp if they won't stop harassing it? Pulling your baby off the breast if they bite you?

To me, punishment is something aversive that you do after a behavior occurs that makes that behavior less likely to occur in the future. So pulling the baby off the breast is clearly a punishment (though not one I find inappropriate.) To a certain extent, I think it matters whether you are doing the aversive thing primarily to reduce the behavior, or for some other reason (to protect the cat, say.) But in general, I think the effect on the kid is more important than your intent in deciding whether or not to call it a punishment. Another thread a while back helped me realize that this way of looking at it seems strange and counterintuitive to some (maybe most) people.

So, given MY definition of punishment, I don't think it's actually possible never to punish. Just getting angry or annoyed when your kid does something is a punishment, and if you're human you can't avoid doing that. (And if you wouldn't want to anyway, if you want your kid to learn how to live with other humans.)

But I DO think it's possible never to do the things that are more commonly seen as punishments - time outs, taking away privileges, "If you do X, I'll impose consequence Y." I don't do those things, and don't plan to.

Of course, my oldest is only 4, and she's an unusually compliant kid, so maybe I just haven't yet run into the situation where I would find punishment necessary. I can't imagine her just refusing to let me put on her shoes if I insisted we had to leave right away, for instance. But I also can imagine non-punishment solutions that might work for us if she did refuse. Maybe we could have a pair of rubber boots she could just step into on the way out the door if she didn't want to go barefoot, and then I'd put her shoes and socks on her before getting her out of her carseat when we got to our destination. Maybe I'd just sit on her legs to hold her in place while I put her shoes on. (For some reason, that actually seems preferable to punishing with a time out. Maybe just because it puts the focus on the practical matter of getting the shoes on, instead of on the the issue of obedience.)


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spanish Rose* 
I don't think that punishment is ever necessary....but coercion is, kwim?

Like, with my children and putting on shoes. Now, I go barefoot all the time, so I really don't care if they wear shoes. But if I did, I would see nothing wrong with putting them on myself, or putting a barefoot kiddo in the stroller.

Yep, that's part of what I was trying to say, only put more succintly.


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 

I myself honestly believe that there is never a need for punishment. And I think this applies to everybody.

Never a need for punishment, ever...for *everybody*? I so strongly disagree.
What do you expect we do with murderers, child molesters, rapists, thieves, child abusers...the whole lot of people that are in our jails and prisons...and those on their way? Reason with them and let them know what they did was wrong, then send them on their way?
I know people who have had their license taken away from having too many speeding tickets....that is wreckless driving behavior that can cost the life of another. That punishment is certainly warranted!!
My step dad lost hi driver's license for about 3 years, and spent a year in jail because of repeated DUIs. The last straw was him running a red light through a residential area at 65 MPH, hitting 2 cars and THANKFULLY nobody was killed. Do you not believe punishment was warranted in that situation?
There are rules in our society that are set for the greater good. When those rules are broken, there SHOULD be a consequence, and it SHOULD be a punishment! It should be something that will deter one from doing it again. It doesn't always work, which is why we have repeat offenders...on the other hand it DOES work for many. People abide by laws out of fear of the punishment....and I'm perfectly OK with that! The fact is, not everybody has the same morals and values....yet fear of punishment will stop them from doing something that can hurt themself or another.
Perfect example....the helmet law. I know MANY people who are against the helmet law, yet they abide by the law so they won't get in trouble. My brother is one of those people, and he got in a horrible motorcycle accident that nearly cost him his life. Of course now he's greatful that he was wearing a helmet...and does so without griping.
I do use punishment on occasion, and it is effective with my son.
ETA: I'm assuming we're not *just* talking about children here.
I also want to add that the things I do are considered punishment *here* among GDers...not so much in the mainstream. For example, my son wants to play with his train set...I take it out for him, but I let him ahead of time, that he is to clean it up when he's done. I let him know that if he doesn't clean it up, and *I* have to clean it up, he will be restricted from playing with it for XX days. I started doing this because of his vehement refusal to pick up his messes. Now, he knows I mean business, and will pick up his mess when he KNOWS ahead of time that it's his job to do so. I tried other avenues, and realised that my son just didn't take me seriously until I put my foot down. Call it punishment, I call it "what works". *thismama* I keep nodding my head in agreement when I read your posts in this thread.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

That's a really good point, frenchie. I wonder if the people who are advocating for no punishment are against it for everyone, or just children? If those who advocate for no rules mean no rules for everyone, or just children?

It seems a bit absurd to me that children should have no rules and no consequences, when they are necessary in the culture to maintain order among adults.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

frenchie, i was actually just referring to parents punishing children, not adults punishing adults. but good questions.

In an ideal world yes i would say no punishment. have you heard of Restorative Justice? I think it's a wonderful idea. I also like the idea of treating criminals as people with deep wounds in them. I could go on but it's a whole different subject. Suffice it to say I don't have a parent/child dynamic with a crook, and an adult crook is not at the early stage of development that my children are that I can attempt to mold behaviours (those pathways are set and i'm not sure they can ever be repaired) and I think sometimes the best we can do for society is put those people where they can't harm others. But I actually don't believe in using punishment as a tool for justice.

Then there is the classic argument that punishment exists in society so our kids should "get used to it". Well I want my kids to act admirably b/c they want to.

- it's true that if i screw up at work i'll get fired, but i wouldn't screw up on purpose even if i couldn't get fired b/c it would mess up stuff for my workmates or a customer or somebody else would suffer for it and that would not be right

- it's true that if I speed I get a ticket but i don't speed excessively b/c I think it's unsafe. i do speed a bit if i think it's safe (everybody does) even though we know we could get caught

- it's true that if I stole from you i could get punished but that isn't why i do it, it's b/c i think stealing is just wrong

I want my child to be internally motivated and I think punishment interferes with that. It creates a victim mentality in the mind of the punished person, rather than letting them think about what they did and what the effect was.


----------



## bec (Dec 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Punishment. Imposed consequences? Time out? Putting a child in a stroller if they won't put on footwear? Removing a cat from the child's grasp if they won't stop harassing it? Pulling your baby off the breast if they bite you?

All those things are imposed consequences. If that is punishment, then yes, I think it's necessary.

These things that get villainized here are such slippery slopes, kwim?

eta - I was veg for 15 years. Got lots of recipes, but in the end it wasn't healthy for my body. Now I'm trying to eat meat again.

















:


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

I think my definition of "punishment" is different.

To me, a punishment is an unrelated punitive consequence to an action.

I don't think it is a punishment to be angry at your children when you can't get them to leave the park and you have to go - I think it is just being authentic. It is always my desire to be empathetic and understanding and I can be that way 95% of the time, but I don't believe that showing my daughter that I can get angry is punitive unless I am punitive with my anger (i.e., telling her she is "bad"). I never shame or demoralize with my anger.

Quote:

People abide by laws out of fear of the punishment....and I'm perfectly OK with that!
I don't really see that. I believe people abide by laws because they know it's the right thing to do, that they have intrinsic motivation. Obviously people break laws all the time and we have to ask ourselves why? It is not fear of punishment, it is because they lack intrinsic motivation. Perhaps if these people had been brought up without a system of rewards and punishments then they would have gained the intrinsic motivation.

The bottom line is that I want my children to live within the rules of society out of a sense of cooperation and not fear.


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
- it's true that if I speed I get a ticket but i don't speed excessively b/c I think it's unsafe. i do speed a bit if i think it's safe (everybody does) even though we know we could get caught.

This is where you are wrong. *I* do not speed even a little bit, because I do not want a ticket. I cannot afford to get tickets. It would be very bad for our family to waste precious resources on something silly like taking a chance to speed a little bit. The punishment is obviously not enough to be an effective deterent for you and alot of people, but there are people like myself who do take the threat seriously. Don't think just because something doesn't work for you - it doesn't work for anybody.

I also wouldn't think I'm a "victim" if I got pulled over for a speeding ticket (Which I wouldn't cause I don't speed, but if I did...), because the consequence was outlined ahead of time and I made the choice to disregard. I would be a victim if I got pulled over a ticketed because my truck is red and the cop hates red trucks.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
I don't think intention or compassion are enough to distinguish punishment from non-punishment...We still need to look at the consequences to the child, from the child's point of view, not the parent's. If the child is protesting and tantrumming its probably an indication that this is aversive experience for the child.

I don't believe that a parent can eliminate all aversive experiences, nor would that be a good idea, but deliberately administering an aversive experience is something we should look very closely at, being careful not to dismiss the child's experience of it by thinking that because we didn't mean for it to be punishment, it isn't.

Wow, this gave me so much to think about. great post!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *melissel* 
...how does a parent gain compliance in such a situation without exerting some force of will? I'm truly at a loss. I aspire to more CL ideals, but in practice, I just can't see my way clear to making it work. I'd like to say I don't use punishment, but if any aversive experience for a child is considered punishment, whether it's administered in the name of the good of the family as a whole or even the child herself, then I guess I actually do.

Another excellent point. Is an aversive experience for the child perceived as punishment? I'm going to have to mull this over.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oceanbaby* 
I have definitely had "grey area" moments: They are watching tv, ds1 does something mean to ds2, and I turn off the tv to deal with it. Ds1 would probably consider this a punishment, and some others may as well. From my perspective, if ds2 is now screaming, the tv needs to go off so I can handle the situation because with it on ds1 isn't able to focus on what I'm saying.

Okay but do you turn it back on as soon as you can? Then I think the child recognizes it wasn't used as punishment.

Quote:

Yes, on a day when I am tired and burnt out I just may go through that drive through and order french fries, because I just don't have the energy to prepare a healthy dinner. And that's how I feel about discipline with my kids: On good days I handle things with patience and empathy, and on bad days there is a lot more yelling and what I consider less overt forms of punishment - me being mad, speaking in harsh tones, saying immature things, etc. So I don't think that it's necessarily black and white - I think that you can be a non punishing parent in general but slip up sometimes.
Yes. Yes. Yes! THAT IS ME 100%.

I made sure to emphasize the word "possible" to never use punishment, b/c in reality and can and do slip up and i know that will always happen occasionally and i need to give myself permission to do so. I tell myself that so long as the punitive moments are few and far between they will be okay and not internalize those as models for dealing with conflict.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

I really question the value of punishment for adults. I'm not sure it's an effective deterrent for the most horrific crimes. I mean, how many people actually avoid committing murder just because of the potential punishment? I think generally you either have other reasons for not wanting to kill people, or you're so disturbed that you don't stop to think rationally about your odds of getting caught and punished.

I do think we need to do what we can to ensure that rapists and murderers don't get the chance to claim more victims - but I'm not sure there's any good reason to _punish_ them. Lock them up, sure, if that's the only way to protect ourselves from them. But if they could be locked up in a place that was actually pleasant to live in (at a cost that was affordable to taxpayers), I'd be all for that. Punishment for the sake of retribution seems pointless to me.

Is punishment the best way to ensure people do the smaller things that benefit society - pay taxes, refrain from shoplifting or speeding, comply with environmental regulations? I'm not sure. The threat of punishment clearly doesn't work for everyone all the time. I suspect other techniques that work to change public opinion or reward compliance might be at least as effective.

I also question whether so many things ought to be punishable offenses. Perhaps people should be free to decide for themselves whether or not to wear a motorcycle helmet or smoke marijuana.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:

I wonder if the people who are advocating for no punishment are against it for everyone, or just children? If those who advocate for no rules mean no rules for everyone, or just children?
Is anyone advocating for "no rules"? I didn't read that--maybe I missed something.

We don't do punishments in our family. From my experience, it is not the most effective tool for teaching, and possibly even shuts one down to learning, so we don't do it. I think that discipline is a learned skill, like reading or math. Punishment wouldn't be something I would do to help my child learn math, for example. I don't think it's any more effective when trying to help your child learn to be gentle with a pet.

I really like this quote from the Gentle Discipline forum guidlines:
_Effective discipline is based on loving guidance. It is based on the belief that children are born innately good and that our role as parents is to nurture their spirits as they learn about limits and boundaries, rather than to curb their tendencies toward wrongdoing. Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems._

With society as a whole our goals are a bit different. We are not trying to teach, we are trying to maintain order and keep people safe. Personally, I don't think punishments really work all that well even for society at large. Frenchie's example illustrates this perfectly. Her step father continued to drink and drive despite the dui's and loosing his driver's license--maybe they should have tried treatment for his drinking problem.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spanish Rose* 
I don't think that punishment is ever necessary....but coercion is, kwim?
Like, with my children and putting on shoes. Now, I go barefoot all the time, so I really don't care if they wear shoes. But if I did, I would see nothing wrong with putting them on myself, or putting a barefoot kiddo in the stroller.

Yes, I see the logic of this. There are plenty of things that we feel we have to do that are unpleasant for ds (and for us!) without saying "I'm punishing you." The hustling the kid out the door thing is a really good example.

I believe in interrupting certain kinds of behavior--anything dangerous, for example. You just have to stop that behavior, right there. Up until now, we haven't used punishment on top of that because--hey, it's already a pain to say "you aren't being safe with the scissors so I'm taking them away." It feels like a punishment to him so why also impose a punishment?

Don't know how this is going to go for us as he gets older. I don't see any positive effect of time outs or loss of privileges with most of the children we know.

I admit that sometimes if my son is about to do something I think will have bad consequences, I will say "If you do this and such and such happens, I will reproach you." He really doesn't like reproach. But I'm not sure I like how this is working for me, and I might stop.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
To me, punishment is something aversive that you do after a behavior occurs that makes that behavior less likely to occur in the future. So pulling the baby off the breast is clearly a punishment (though not one I find inappropriate.) To a certain extent, I think it matters whether you are doing the aversive thing primarily to reduce the behavior, or for some other reason (to protect the cat, say.)

It would never occur to me that pulling the biting baby off the breast is punishment. I consider that self protection and being a person with reasonable personal boundaries. To me this is no more punishment than it would be to move out of the way of a person about to step on you. If you were say pulling a baby who was nursing in a way that didn't hurt you off the breast in order to teach them a lesson about how they weren't nice to the cat earlier, yes, that would be punishment.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie* 
Never a need for punishment, ever...for *everybody*? I so strongly disagree.
What do you expect we do with murderers, child molesters, rapists, thieves, child abusers...the whole lot of people that are in our jails and prisons...and those on their way? Reason with them and let them know what they did was wrong, then send them on their way?

Do you feel like as long as these folks are punished, then they will no longer commit crimes and you will be safe? It reminds me of the parent who says I spank my kid so they won't run in the street. I wonder would they feel safe leaving their child unsupervised by the street after they'd been spanked because punishment works that well to deter misbehavior? If punishment worked so well we wouldn't have people committing crimes after they'd already served time.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
To me, punishment is something aversive that you do after a behavior occurs that makes that behavior less likely to occur in the future.

I was thinking last night about this. It seems to me that the intent of the parent does have something to do with whether I consider something punishment or not. (I realize that is not what you were saying exactly, but hear me out...)
So if I pick up my ds when he runs away from me in the store, and my *intention* is to teach him to not run away next time by making the consequence of running away negative for him, it's not likely that I would be willing to work with him to make being held agreeable to him. That would seem more likely to be a punishment to me, and I would *assume* for my ds as well.
If I pick him up, and my SOLE intention is to keep him close to me to keep him safe, I have no desire for this interaction to "teach him a lesson" so that he'll be less likely to run away next time, I'm really likely to do everything I can to make the situation as positive for him as possible. That would not seem like punishment to me, and I would hope that ds doesn't experience it as punishment, even if it does suck for him.
I know that's not what psychologist refer to as "punishment" (because that definition depends on the actual outcome, right?).
I don't want ds to "learn a lesson" from those negative experiences. He'll learn what he learns, of course. And that's why I only resort to those types of actions when it really is necessary for the safety of someone or their property (well, I guess my toys r us example in the other thread wasn't for someone's safety. hmmm...).

I think punishment teaches the totally wrong things. It hinders learning of the real reasons, and it reinforces kids to act for self centered reasons.

But I still think that I can consider myself a "non punisher" even though I would carry ds against his will, if I can't find another way to keep him close to me.

Quote:

But I DO think it's possible never to do the things that are more commonly seen as punishments - time outs, taking away privileges, "If you do X, I'll impose consequence Y." I don't do those things, and don't plan to.
I think that's the "easiest" way to use the term punishment. And its the use that most people probably mean when they say "we don't punish." Because, really, its evident from this conversation that a lot of us can't get to the point where we don't do anything negative to our dc ever.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2bluefish* 
We do not hurt people or animals.

That is a strict rule here. Actually the only real rule that stays true all the time. Not only do we not hurt people or animals, I go even further and don't allow ds to do things that annoy our dogs. He can't pet their fur backwards if it bothers them. He can't pet them (even gently) when they want to be left alone. I take their rights very seriously, and I am the one who needs to defend their rights.
I've never had any situation that called for punishment. I give him information and acceptable ways to express his particular impulse, and he uses the better way in the future.
I don't think punishment would teach him to be respectful to the dogs, or to even care what they like or don't like him to do. It might teach him that he better not hit, because he doesn't want a time out or whatever.
I've "punished" him for hitting me before (by leaving the room, etc). None of it did a dang bit of good. As soon as I realized the answer was to honor his impulse, and give him an acceptable way to express it, it only took a couple times, and the hitting stopped completely- he used the acceptable ways to express those impulses.

So for me, not only is punishment NOT necessary, but it is counter productive.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
That's a really good point, frenchie. I wonder if the people who are advocating for no punishment are against it for everyone, or just children? If those who advocate for no rules mean no rules for everyone, or just children?

Wait, who advocated no rules? I see people advocating no punishments, but I don't see anywhere people advocating no rules.

Children are children. They are born innately social. They want to behave in a socially acceptable manner, if they are able.
Sometimes, that gets screwed up along the way (by parents, by peers, whatever), which is why there are some adults who are NOT social (in the sense that they do the right things for the right reasons).
Adults are adults, and kids are kids. Kids are still learning about the world, about what is socially acceptable, and how to control their impulses. They need to be taught and gently guided to be able to gain that knowledge and those skills. (and imo, punishing does not equal teaching).


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Holy moly, Sunnysideup. I was typing while you posted. Are you in my head or something? lol
If I had waited a few minutes, I could have saved myself all the typing and just said







:


----------



## Mpenny1001 (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
Mama: "I see you are having trouble leaving the playground today and we can't seem to come up with a solution that works for both of us so I'm going to help you by carrying you to the car" [and while child protests and tantrums mama offers sympathy "it's hard isn't it? I totally know how you feel"]. *not punishment*

I don't see how this isn't an example of an imposed consequence. Just because you are using gentle words and explanations, the child is being physically removed from a situation he doesn't want to be physically removed from. You are imposing your desire to leave on your child.

I have no problem with this, by the way, and it's the way I parent in situations like that. However, if you are going to include imposed consequences under the punishment label, I don't see how this example supports the claim that this wouldn't be punishment.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mpenny1001* 
I don't see how this isn't an example of an imposed consequence. Just because you are using gentle words and explanations, the child is being physically removed from a situation he doesn't want to be physically removed from. You are imposing your desire to leave on your child.

I have no problem with this, by the way, and it's the way I parent in situations like that. However, if you are going to include imposed consequences under the punishment label, I don't see how this example supports the claim that this wouldn't be punishment.

I'm really interested in this type of thinking. I still don't see that as a punishment. I do see what people are saying, but it still doesn't set in my head as "carrying child out of the park" = punishment.
And I do agree that using pretty words isn't what makes or breaks it. But the words do tend to convey the intention, and how exactly it is carried out, and the parent's meaning behind it. And yes, I do think that does affect how dc perceive it. Not that they hear the nice words and are like "oh, ok, this is GREAT" or anything. But it seems quite likely that they would hear those words and the tone, and NOT have the thought "I did something bad, and now mom is doing a mean thing because of it."
Punishment for what offense exactly? And what is it trying to teach?
When I do something like that, there's no offense that resulted in the carrying away. Yeah, he wouldn't leave willingly, but even if he had willingly walked away, he could still well have been UPSET at having to leave the park.
And I'm not trying to teach him anything. All I'm trying to do is leave the park. My intention isn't "ok, my carrying him is going to suck so much, that next time he'll leave willingly because he'll want to avoid being carried at all costs." What about "being carried" is inherently negative? kwim?

(I'm not arguing with you, I'm just trying to expand on this thought)

eta- if we go by the definition of punishment "1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation"
then for a person to feel they were being "punished" they'd have to know that there was an *offense* that they were being punished for.
If running away in the store, or wanting to stay at the park, isn't treated as an *offense* then the resulting action can't be a punishment, can it? (honestly asking that question- it was a thought that just now occured to me, so I haven't thought much on it)


----------



## delicious (Jun 16, 2003)

punishment puts too much focus on the child. i don't use it because i would rather they think of other people.

also i think it's silly to say that no punishment = no rules. we have rules, just because we dont use punishments doesn't mean we don't have rules.


----------



## MtBikeLover (Jun 30, 2005)

We don't punish in terms of using timeouts, spankings, etc. But we do use imposed consequences. I have taken my daughter off my breast for biting me and hitting me, I have put toys up that were used to hurt someone, and I have had to physically put my child in a car seat while she was screaming because she wouldn't get in it herself (and after standing outside in zero degree weather for 60 seconds waiting for her to do it herself, my patience had worn to nothing).

All of those actions I am sure seemed like punishment to them (as I think people within 5 miles could hear them screaming) but to me, they are a consequence of their actions.

I do use a lot of communication, but I find that sometimes, the more I talk, the worse it gets. It also gives my DS an idea that if he keeps trying to negotiate with me and I keep talking that he has a chance of getting his way. So sometimes I say "I understand how you feel, and I have heard you, but I am not discussing this anymore."

So for me, I do think that "punishment" is sometimes necessary. And I put it in quotes because I don't really think of it as punishment, but on MDC I know that consequences can seem like punishment to some.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

How do you enforce rules without *some* form of punishment?
I mean, in my house, we use the word 'consequences' but in another household they might use the word 'punishment' for the same stuff.

I really don't have many rules at all in my house because I want home to be a place where everyone feels free to be themselves. But I do have to enforce rules about invading eachother's personal space. That's basically it. And also 'rules' about taking everyone's needs into account (like for example if we have to go grocery shopping or something, everyone needs to get their shoes on and come to the car..stuff like that).


----------



## MtBikeLover (Jun 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense

Using this definition, then I guess I have to say I absolutely punish. My daughter bites me while breastfeeding (fault), then I stop breastfeeding (penalty). If they use a toy to throw it at someone (fault), then they lose the toy (penalty).

It seems to be a very fine line between imposed consequences and punishment. But reading that definition of punishment makes me believe that they are one and the same.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama* 
How do you enforce rules without *some* form of punishment?

I think this comes down to different ways of viewing children. If you view kids as innately social beings that want do the socially acceptable thing if they are able to, then you see "breaking a rule" as something that needs guidance and help.

"Children need to see that they are assumed to be well-intentioned, naturally social people who are trying to do the right thing and who want reliable reactions from their elders to guide them." TCC Intro xv

I do assume ds is well intentioned. IF it happens that he hits the dogs, there is a reason. If he was hitting because she was too close to him, then that is a valid reason. His action is what is not acceptable. So I find him a different way to solve the problem of the dog being too close to him.

Like I said earlier (or maybe in the other thread) the rule about "no harming others" is definitely "enforced" here, and it is very rare that ds does something that is disrespectful to the dogs or to people.
But punishment is not a good way of enforcing it. It's counter productive, ime.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
eta- if we go by the definition of punishment "1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation"
then for a person to feel they were being "punished" they'd have to know that there was an *offense* that they were being punished for.
If running away in the store, or wanting to stay at the park, isn't treated as an *offense* then the resulting action can't be a punishment, can it? (honestly asking that question- it was a thought that just now occured to me, so I haven't thought much on it)

I guess to me, it really only counts as a punishment if you are doing it as a penalty for doing something wrong. There are still going to be plenty of times when you impose your will on a child. Let's say you never ever did that gratuitously, and always took the child's wishes and needs into account. There are still times when the child's behavior threatens his own safety or the safety of others, is anti-social, or otherwise harmful. You can't just let your child be in danger. As a parent, you are going to be in situations in which you impose your will on the child's, and make him do something he doesn't want to do--or stop him from doing something he does--for his good or for someone else's.

which is one of the things that really sucks about being a parent, I think!

I think there is a good analogy to be made with how we deal with adults who break the law. We have to stop people from doing things that are dangerous to themselves or to others. Punishment might not work to do that.

Sometimes it seems like teaching people a lesson that they were wrong is the goal. It's not the goal. The goal is to stop bad behavior. That's why it makes sense to reassess which behaviors are deterred by the threat of punishment (say, speeding in your car) and which behaviors seem to increase, or not decrease, with the imposition of punishment (rates of recidivism to prison.) Let's study it and see if it really works with adults, but keeping in mind that we are not punishing adults for its own sake, even if it works to punish (which it might not!)

I look at a friend of mine whose daughter, also just turned four, sometimes manifests some really difficult behavior. When she does, her mom gives her a time out, and it looks really ineffective! I think we get into this bag of "do you understand what you did wrong" when really the point is to say "no, you aren't hitting me, that is stopping right now." The time out with the lecture might look more humane, but I don't want my kid having to decide not to hit me because if he does he'll get punished.

There are some behaviors that we have to interrupt and it can't be contingent on a deterrent.


----------



## delicious (Jun 16, 2003)

......


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
I think this comes down to different ways of viewing children. If you view kids as innately social beings that want do the socially acceptable thing if they are able to, then you see "breaking a rule" as something that needs guidance and help.

"Children need to see that they are assumed to be well-intentioned, naturally social people who are trying to do the right thing and who want reliable reactions from their elders to guide them." TCC Intro xv

I do assume ds is well intentioned. IF it happens that he hits the dogs, there is a reason. If he was hitting because she was too close to him, then that is a valid reason. His action is what is not acceptable. So I find him a different way to solve the problem of the dog being too close to him.

Like I said earlier (or maybe in the other thread) the rule about "no harming others" is definitely "enforced" here, and it is very rare that ds does something that is disrespectful to the dogs or to people.
But punishment is not a good way of enforcing it. It's counter productive, ime.


I'm still confused.







I'll try to think of an example from my end.

Ummm, ok. Say my kids are in bed for the night. They share a room. One is acting goofy which is keeping the other up. It's not fair to the other kid to have to be kept up when he's tired so I will say "goofy child, if you do not settle down, I will have to bring tired child into my room so he can get some sleep". Goofy chld sees this as a punishment (in that he will have to remain in his room alone while the other gets the 'treat' of sleeping in Mama's bed. This is, to me, a logical consequence being imposed by me, but is viewed probabl as a sort of punishment by some (including goofy child, I would think).

Also, the kids acting awful towards eachother and me when we are planning a day of fun somewhere where they need to be somewhat in control (like, say, the museum). they really want to go to the museum but I cannot take two crazy, hyper, fighting kids to the museum with me because that would be a living hell. So I tell them that they need to mellow out a little bit or we can't goto the museum. Threat? Bribe? Punishment if they can't calm themselves and we don't end up going?

In all cases, I do not doubt the innate goodness of my children, nor do I doubt their desire to be social etc. Not for a second. But in my opinion, teaching them by enforcing certain codes of behaviour (or rules, if you will) is helping then to express their inate goodness and have a happy social life.


----------



## Spanish Rose (Jan 29, 2007)

I think we mean different things by Punishment".....

I see punishment and coercion as two different things. Coercion is me putting a kid in a stroller even though they'd rather walk. Punishment is me taking away their toys for a week because I didn't pick them up.

Just because something is an aversive experience doesn't mean it is a punishment, not does it make it undesirable.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama* 
How do you enforce rules without *some* form of punishment?

I don't "enforce" rules just as DC don't "enforce" rules.

We actually don't call them "rules", we call them "things that make sense". We come up with them together and if one of us forgets or slips or what-have-you, others remind him/her.

So it's not like I am the "rule maker" in the family. I am the one who starts the dicussion/introduction/modeling of principles.

One rule we have for the rules - they HAVE to make sense. And if it makes sense, then why not do it?

If some society rules don't make sense to DC - it's my responsibility to explain it in the way that they do.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *delicious* 
i just don't see why i'd need to punish them for breaking the rules. like-your example-ds doesn't get his shoes on and come to the car, ok, i'll help him and explain why it would make it a lot easier on me if next time he'd just put his shoes on when i asked him to, because i'm really in a rush today. or, ds getting into his sister's space. i would encourage dd to go somewhere else (ie, the other side of the couch, or her room, wherever she could keep doing whatever it was she wanted to do.) while i tried to get the boy involved in something else while i'm telling him hey, sissy needs space man. give her a break and we'll play with her later. (he totally idolizes her so this IS something we deal with.)

i have to admit i only skimmed this thread but i *think* i did see alfie kohn mentioned by the same people who use time out and that's kind of funny to me. he calls time out "love withdrawl."

I don't use time out but I think it's ok to reference and appreciate some of Alfie Kohn's work without needing to subscribe to the whole package.









Question from an almost insane mother (!): What if they simply flat out freaking refuse to go along with gentle, intelligent, logical suggestions. My 4yr old is nuts, I tell you. He is always one step ahead in order to get his way. He tricks me! He flat out refuses to do as I say. He will be uncompliant simply for the sheer joy of being non-compliant. Of course, this only really happens if he needs to go poo (sounds weird, I know, but I've noticed it to be true) or is tired or has some other basic needs like huger or attention fueling him. I understand that. But then I am required to somewhat forcefully intervene because although we all have needs that are sometimes not immediately met, that does not give us leave to walk around destroying people's lego creations and otherwise causing a ruccus. So I will have to remove little guy from the situation. He is not happy about being removed--in fact he is kicking and screaming and I need to take him to his room so I can figure out what's going on for him. So it seems like I'm punishing him. It would be viewed even that I am giving hima t ime out. But really, I'm just dealing with things. I don't know what happened to the question







but it's implied in the above rampage.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *irinam* 
I don't "enforce" rules just as DC don't "enforce" rules.

We actually don't call them "rules", we call them "things that make sense". We come up with them together and if one of us forgets or slips or what-have-you, others remind him/her.

So it's not like I am the "rule maker" in the family. I am the one who starts the dicussion/introduction/modeling of principles.

One rule we have for the rules - the HAVE to make sense. And if it makes sense, then why not do it?

If some society rules don't make sense to DC - it's my responsibility to explain it in the way that they do.

That makes total sense and is basically how we run as well. But my kids are still pretty young. What would you do if you set a time for your child to come home and they just simply blew it off and stayed out an extra few hours?
Or if they drove your car after having a few drinks?


----------



## amyb15 (Jan 10, 2007)

Good points, but I think there is a need for punishment. If our children were always kept that liberal and free, they would run amok! They must understand that there are consequences for poor actions and decisions.


----------



## delicious (Jun 16, 2003)

..


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama* 
What would you do if you set a time for your child to come home and they just simply blew it off and stayed out an extra few hours?

I would get upset I guess. In 19 years (that's how old my oldest is) he "blew it off" once, and as he explained later - he just forgot. Dancing, girls, friends - he did not think about calling mom (I can relate, lol)
He basically started crying (don't tell him I told you!) when he came home and realized that DH and I were worried sick and started to call local police because we did not know his whereabouts.

Punishment would not do much good in such situation...

Oh, and I don't set a time. They do. I ask "what time are you going to be home? Call me if there is a delay or you need a ride". End of story.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama* 
Or if they drove your car after having a few drinks?

Again, there is not much *I* can do is there? If they are h*ll bend on putting themselves in dangerous situation (remember, I am talking about OLDER kids!), they will, not matter how much I "punish" them. Plus, I can not even conceive of a punishment I can impose on a 5'11" male who has been stronger and in many cases smarter than me for quite some time.

The reality here is - *he* would be the one telling us to call him if DH and I go out and have a drink, so *he* can come and pick us up. That's what has been modeled to him since the get-go.

So basically, what I am after is *self-control*, not *parent-imposed control*. Judging by my youth and Dh's youth and many stories from our friends - parent imposed control isn't worth much. We honestly did way more "wrong stuff" behind our parent backs than I see DS doing.

And I also remember, that no matter what - there is no iron-clad guarantee. We (the parents) can only try to do our best.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

I'm bopping in and out of this thread because my life is picking up speed, but here's my thought on rules. My kids are waaaay too creative thinking up crazy stuff to do for rules to work in my house. Although, don't sit on your sister's head is happening often enough with the 2 year old sitting on the six year old's head anytime she lays down that it might be tantamount to a rule.

We work together to make our nutty days go. As much as the consequence folks can't imagine how our days work, I can't get my mind around the kinds of conflicts other people have to contend with. When somebody has an obstructing kind of day at our house, it usually means that that person is feeling bad in some way. (That person is as likely to be me as the 2 year old.) We work to make contact and connect. We use verses and songs to ease transitions and try to arrange scheduling to minimize strain. If I notice that a transition is causing trouble in some kind of consistent way, I work to find a way to ease the trouble.

I'm reminded of how I found MDC in the first place. I was back at work after my 3 month maternity leave. dd1 had always had some trouble with nursing. She wasn't thrilled with the bottle, so just began reverse cycling. If I'd had cio in my "toolbox" you bet your bippy she'd have been wailing in another room for a good long time. As it was, I haunted kellymom and the LLL site looking for answers...I found MDC on a google search on increasing supply when pumping during the day. All the advice I could get boiled down to: Quit your job or get used to it. I couldn't quit my job, so I did get used to it. But I didn't cio. And now, I wouldn't trade 1 little minute of those quiet, close times in the middle of the night playing with my incredible infant.

I want to feel that way about now when she's 12. I know it was worth my sacrifices then. I'll betcha taking the road I'm taking now will leave me with incredible memories of when she was only 6. And if it doesn't, at least our family has had a lot of fun together.


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

I really think the child's perception is the key to whether something is punishment. For some reason, the way I interact with ds works fine and he rarely is angry or resentful. But when my dh apparently does things in a similar way, ds gets angry as if he were punished.

A child knows when you enforce personal boundaries that you aren't being punitive. He knows when you tell him he needs to come now because you have to stop at the store on the way home to pick up supplies for dinner that you aren't being punitive. The child might not be happy but that doesn't equal punished.


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama* 
My 4yr old is nuts, I tell you. He is always one step ahead in order to get his way. He tricks me! He flat out refuses to do as I say. He will be uncompliant simply for the sheer joy of being non-compliant. Of course, this only really happens if he needs to go poo (sounds weird, I know, but I've noticed it to be true) or is tired or has some other basic needs like huger or attention fueling him. I understand that.









I don't think age 4 counts. That year is merely about survival with the least amount of damage. I am so glad ds is not 4.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
I also question whether so many things ought to be punishable offenses. Perhaps people should be free to decide for themselves whether or not to wear a motorcycle helmet or smoke marijuana.

You're free to not wear a motorcycle helmet as long as you have the resources to pay for your medical treatment in case of an accident. And I mean PAY. Out of pocket. Because your not wearing a motorcycle helmet has the definite possibilty of creating major medical bills and costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I don't mean insurance, because if you have medical insurance and are in a horrific accident and need months of rehabilitation, then you make my insurance rates go up. Why should your freedom of decision impinge upon my ability to provide medical care for my family? (Because it will!)

While I agree that punishment doesn't seem to be that effective for some adults, I DO think the greater good is served because enough people WILL take this seriously to do what the law says. Is it the most effective solution. Certainly not. But is it one I'm willing to live with.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
We work together to make our nutty days go. As much as the consequence folks can't imagine how our days work, I can't get my mind around the kinds of conflicts other people have to contend with. When somebody has an obstructing kind of day at our house, it usually means that that person is feeling bad in some way. (That person is as likely to be me as the 2 year old.) We work to make contact and connect. We use verses and songs to ease transitions and try to arrange scheduling to minimize strain. If I notice that a transition is causing trouble in some kind of consistent way, I work to find a way to ease the trouble.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
I do assume ds is well intentioned. IF it happens that he hits the dogs, there is a reason. If he was hitting because she was too close to him, then that is a valid reason. His action is what is not acceptable. So I find him a different way to solve the problem of the dog being too close to him.

I get that. But what if he hits the dogs not because they are too close to him, but because he is mad at YOU for telling him that we are eating dinner in 5 minutes and thus there is not enough time to play firefighter or whatever before dinner. (Substitute younger sister for the dog, and that's what you have in our house.)

Yes, I realize the underlying problem is that (a) he's hungry (and probably tired) and (b) he's angry at me and that he needs to learn more acceptable ways of expressing his anger.

HOWEVER, when he's busy walloping his sister is NOT a teachable moment. I also need to separate him from his sister to prevent her from getting hurt.

So, I take him up to his room. And he FREAKS out. Doesn't matter if I stay there or leave him. If I try to hold him, he freaks out even more and acts like I'm torturing him (it probably feels that way to him).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
We still need to look at the consequences to the child, from the child's point of view, not the parent's. If the child is protesting and tantrumming its probably an indication that this is aversive experience for the child.

I'm sure that our taking our son to his room when he hits is aversive to him. I've quit calling it 'time in' because to him it's clearly a 'time out'. I stand in the doorway until he calms down. Sometimes I shut the door to keep him in his room. (if he goes out in a fury, he'll return to the behavior, so we do need to wait until he's mellowed a bit.) Sound like a timeout? Sure does for me. And I also know that on rare occasions, it's the ONLY thing that works to break the cycle. We only do it for hitting, and that doesn't happen that often.

I'm actually OK with it. Is it ideal? It is a relatively logical consequence. If you hurt someone, you can't be around them until you can control yourself. Is it punishment? According to some definitions, yes. I am removing him from somewhere he wants to be to prevent him from doing something that's not acceptable.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
You're free to not wear a motorcycle helmet as long as you have the resources to pay for your medical treatment in case of an accident. And I mean PAY. Out of pocket. Because your not wearing a motorcycle helmet has the definite possibilty of creating major medical bills and costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I don't mean insurance, because if you have medical insurance and are in a horrific accident and need months of rehabilitation, then you make my insurance rates go up. Why should your freedom of decision impinge upon my ability to provide medical care for my family? (Because it will!)

Maybe we should just make motorcycles illegal. And private cars, for that matter, or at least severely restrict their use. That should save us all a lot of money. And maybe the government should come up with a way to regulate everyone's diet, so society doesn't have to pay for all the health problems caused by some people's poor eating habits. And maybe it should be illegal for teenagers and women over 40 to get pregnant, because their pregnancies are more likely to result in costly medical complications.

I'm just not sure financial considerations should be primary when we're deciding to restrict people's freedom. (I'm also not sure I would say helmet laws are a bad idea. And I do actually think severe restrictions on car use might be a good idea.)


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I guess I shouldn't make a blanket statement like "all punishment is counter productive" when I can see how *sometimes* a logical consequence might be the best thing that one can do in a particular situation.

I still don't think punishment is necessary, though.

Quote:

I get that. But what if he hits the dogs not because they are too close to him, but because he is mad at YOU for telling him that we are eating dinner in 5 minutes and thus there is not enough time to play firefighter or whatever before dinner. (Substitute younger sister for the dog, and that's what you have in our house.)
I'd physically stop the hitting. I'd tell him that if he's angry at me to tell ME.
In our house, ds doesn't have to come to the table and eat (though I do want him to sit if he is eating), so if he wants to keep playing and not eat, that is fine. I DO tell him that *I* am going to eat. No one is going to keep playing with him. It has never happened that he is still playing after the food has been on the table for 1 minute. He decides to come eat.

So if I pretend that coming to eat as soon as dinner is ready, is important to me...what would I do? hmmm...I don't know!
IF it came down to the point that he kept going back to hitting her, and I could see that he wasn't going to stop unless something changed, I'd try a time-in type thing. Ds would most likely agree if I phrased it in a positive type way. If not, I really can't say what I'd do.

I have to say though, that a time out with a seriously unhappy child sounds like it would be more disruptive to my dinnertime enjoyment than allowing him to continue playing, then coming when he's ready.


----------



## CalebsMama05 (Nov 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *irinam* 
I would get upset I guess. In 19 years (that's how old my oldest is) he "blew it off" once, and as he explained later - he just forgot. Dancing, girls, friends - he did not think about calling mom (I can relate, lol)
He basically started crying (don't tell him I told you!) when he came home and realized that DH and I were worried sick and started to call local police because we did not know his whereabouts.

Punishment would not do much good in such situation...

Oh, and I don't set a time. They do. I ask "what time are you going to be home? Call me if there is a delay or you need a ride". End of story.

Again, there is not much *I* can do is there? If they are h*ll bend on putting themselves in dangerous situation (remember, I am talking about OLDER kids!), they will, not matter how much I "punish" them. Plus, I can not even conceive of a punishment I can impose on a 5'11" male who has been stronger and in many cases smarter than me for quite some time.

The reality here is - *he* would be the one telling us to call him if DH and I go out and have a drink, so *he* can come and pick us up. That's what has been modeled to him since the get-go.

So basically, what I am after is *self-control*, not *parent-imposed control*. Judging by my youth and Dh's youth and many stories from our friends - parent imposed control isn't worth much. We honestly did way more "wrong stuff" behind our parent backs than I see DS doing.

And I also remember, that no matter what - there is no iron-clad guarantee. We (the parents) can only try to do our best.

my mother has always been like this also! we were always required to ask permission if she was around (if she had anything else planned we were not allowed to go otherwise it was mostly so she knew where we were) tell her where we were and leave a phone number. also what time we'd be home and if we weren't able to be home then we had to call BEFORE that time.

i blew her off one time and returned to find her so worried she was bawling. I never felt so bad in my life


----------



## warriorprincess (Nov 19, 2001)

I think with our life, our family, our personalities, we need some imposed consequences.
For example, my 10 yo DS delights in causing his sister mental anguish. I usually give him three warnings and if he continues to taunt her he gets one of her chores for a day. Punishment? Yes. But I KNOW from experience with this kid, talking about why we don't taunt others won't work. He's trying to upset her- he wants to hurt her- yes, he will admit to that. I did have him in very GD freindly play therapy for a year and even the therapist ( who is generally anti-punsihment) felt this was reasonable.
There are also many more examples of the "simply insisting/coercion type things, like simply putting shoes on a child, putting him into the carseat, saying, "I will be happy to let you do X _as soon as X is done_" etc.


----------



## Mpenny1001 (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
I'm really interested in this type of thinking. I still don't see that as a punishment. I do see what people are saying, but it still doesn't set in my head as "carrying child out of the park" = punishment.

That is part of what is confusing me about including imposed consequences as punishment. You need to leave the park so you gently take the child with you out of the park. That is a consequence for the child not leaving on his own, but I don't equate that with punishment at all. It is an imposed consequence. It is not punishment.

Also, I don't know if the definition even matters. What do I care if someone thinks I am punishing my kid? At the end of the day, how my family feels and works together is the most important thing, not what label we use to define ourselves.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MtBikeLover* 
Using this definition, then I guess I have to say I absolutely punish. My daughter bites me while breastfeeding (fault), then I stop breastfeeding (penalty). If they use a toy to throw it at someone (fault), then they lose the toy (penalty).

It seems to be a very fine line between imposed consequences and punishment. But reading that definition of punishment makes me believe that they are one and the same.

If someone punches you and you move away so the next blow doesn't hit you, would you consider that punishment? I sure wouldn't and I don't see how that it is different than taking a biting baby off the breast for a bit.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
If someone punches you and you move away so the next blow doesn't hit you, would you consider that punishment? I sure wouldn't and I don't see how that it is different than taking a biting baby off the breast for a bit.

The difference is that the baby is probably a lot more unhappy about being taken off the breast than the puncher is about you moving away. The baby may well be so unhappy about being taken off the breast that he stops biting so it won't happen again. Moving away from the punching guy isn't likely to bother him so much that he avoids punching you again.

But discussing what is or isn't technically a punishment probably isn't as useful as discussing what is or isn't a good discipline strategy, and why. It seems like everyone agrees taking the biting baby off the breast is fine, whether or not they think it's a punishment, so it may not matter whether it is.


----------



## ACsMom (Apr 21, 2006)

I haven't read the entire thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating something somebody already said. (Hey, that rhymed.







)

The behavioral definition of punishment is applying an unpleasant stimulus in response to a behavior you want to extinguish. When it comes to most children, I think that in most situations punishment is not only unnecessary, but often backfires. Plus, most punishments are carried out when the parent is angry. I've never seen this work to solve a behavior problem. That said, I'm basing my opinion on my observations of other families over the ten years I was a family therapist. Now I have my own child but she's only a year old, so discipline issues are pretty irrelevant right now! My main goals in raising her are that she grows up with a strong sense of self-respect and of empathy for others. So, punishment doesn't really fit in with that. Hopefully I'll be successful with other ways of shaping her behavior - praise, reward, modeling, etc. But again, I might be singing a different tune a few years from now! Speaking of behavior issues, little sprite is having a meltdown - gotta go....


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama* 
I don't use time out but I think it's ok to reference and appreciate some of Alfie Kohn's work without needing to subscribe to the whole package.

















Yep, that's me. I think it was me delicious was referring to.

The whole "love withdrawal" thing: I read it, I found it interesting, I contemplated it. As it relates to my life, there are certainly ways I could do time out where my child would feel it as love withdrawal, and ways I can do it where this is not the vibe. I choose to use time out in the second way. I think we can get too fussy with our children, too worried about walking on eggshells, and I feel that Kohn while he has some great ideas is guilty of that.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ACsMom* 
The behavioral definition of punishment is applying an unpleasant stimulus in response to a behavior you want to extinguish.

That is the best definition of punishment I've heard








It seems like the most helpful definition in deciding if something is or isn't punishment.
The definition does matter to me. Because I am anti-punishment. That's a part of me just like "I'm a mom" or "I'm unmarried and in a long term committed relationship" and "I'm crunchy" lol. I dunno. I like the labels I give myself. lol (I don't really care much what labels other people give me. Um, unless they are good. lol)
But I also agree that it is more useful to talk about if something is a useful discipline strategy or not.


----------



## 3lilmonsters (Feb 24, 2007)

I think that punishment, consequences, discipline...and any other terms like that are just slightly different shades of gray for the most part. (I'm not getting into abuse and that sort of thing). Personally I think that the most important thing to consider no matter what you do is whether your child feels respected.

I believe myself to be a nonpunisher (for the most part) because, to me, the term punishment relays a sort of randomness to it. For example - you didn't clean your room, so I'm going to spank you. Or you're yelling so you need to sit in a time out chair. Or since you didn't come when I called you to leave the park there is no desert tonight.

We use time outs in our family, but I don't view them as really artificial punishment. If you're two and you're having a major tantrum, screaming and thrashing around in the middle of a board game your siblings are playing, I think it's time for you to take some time out and go cool down in another room. That can be with or without me. That can be 15 seconds or a half hour - whatever is appropriate. I don't arbitrarily assign a time to it...sometimes the second we leave the room the tantrum starts. Sometimes they just want to cuddle on my bed for a while. Sometimes they seriously want to be left alone for a while. My oldest gets frustrated easily. While I would like to talk to him about the way he's behaving, sometimes it just isn't feasable at a certain point in time. Sometimes I have to ask him if he needs to 'take some time'. He'll either tell me he does, and he goes up to his room (again, sometimes with me, sometimes not) and lays in his bed or plays or whatever until he's ready to deal with the situation. Sometimes the two oldest are just AT each other and I cannot deal with it and I ask that we all have some time. They separate, I get a few minutes peace to gather my thoughts and calm down.

Geez, it sounds like we do this all the time. But really, there is usually some reason behind the behavior and we get to the bottom of it. Hungry? Thirsty? Tired? Overstimulated? Annoyed cause your little sister won't leave you alone cause she's hungry? We just can't always get there right away with emotions flying.

I also use other consequences, lest you think that is the only thing in my parenting toolbox. But again, they aren't arbitrary; they aren't me thinking up ways to make my kids miserable when they misbehave to deter them from it. If there are toys all over the living room and we're expecting company and the kids won't pick them up they know that I will. However, because I usually have alot of other things that I need to do I probably won't have time to put them where they should be. Chances are I'll just grab a bag or a box, toss them all in and stick them away in a closet to be dealt with when I have time. If bedtime is dragging on and on and on (we have tried doing away with it and it just didn't work for us for reasons I won't get into here) and dd is not getting there until a half hour after it hits, she knows that I will be asking her to get ready a half hour earlier because there's only so many nights I can deal with a desperatly tired five year old who just can't stop crying (she gets VERY emotional when she's tired. Takes after me







)

Anyways, I do think it is possible in an ideal world (one where moms are never sleep deprived, stressed out, or having to deal with evil reletives) to raise a child without punishment - based on what I view as punishment.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
The definition does matter to me. Because I am anti-punishment.

That's interesting - it almost sounds like you're saying you first decided you were going to be anti-punishment, and now you're figuring out exactly what punishment is so you can avoid doing it.

I'm interested in the definition mostly because it's hard to talk about this stuff with other people if we're all using the same word to mean different things. Unfortunately, I've realized I can't get everyone to use my definition, even though it's the correct one







(basically the same one ACsMom gave.)

To go back to an older post (this thread is moving too fast for me!):

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
I was thinking last night about this. It seems to me that the intent of the parent does have something to do with whether I consider something punishment or not. (I realize that is not what you were saying exactly, but hear me out...)
So if I pick up my ds when he runs away from me in the store, and my *intention* is to teach him to not run away next time by making the consequence of running away negative for him, it's not likely that I would be willing to work with him to make being held agreeable to him. That would seem more likely to be a punishment to me, and I would *assume* for my ds as well.
If I pick him up, and my SOLE intention is to keep him close to me to keep him safe, I have no desire for this interaction to "teach him a lesson" so that he'll be less likely to run away next time, I'm really likely to do everything I can to make the situation as positive for him as possible. That would not seem like punishment to me, and I would hope that ds doesn't experience it as punishment, even if it does suck for him.

Yeah, I agree that in these two examples the different intent makes one example a punishment and the other not - but it's because the different intent leads to slightly different actions. If you did and said exactly the same things in two different situations, but one time your intent was to punish and the other time your intent was only to keep him safe, it probably wouldn't make sense to say that the only time it was a punishment was the time you meant for it to be. But I'm sure most of the time different intent does lead to different actions (or tone of voice, or words.)


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
To me, punishment is something aversive that you do after a behavior occurs that makes that behavior less likely to occur in the future.

I think this is the perfect definition. Its very close to the behavioral definition, but it allows that behavior can change as the result of receiving information and that this is not punishment, while strictly following the behavioral definition doesn't allow for that (a stimulus immediately following a behavior that makes the behavior less likely to occur in the future).

Quote:

The behavioral definition of punishment is applying an unpleasant stimulus in response to a behavior you want to extinguish.
This is pretty good, too, but the word "extinguish" means something different from "eliminate" (it means to remove the reinforcer following a behavior so that the behavior goes away - you can't both punish and extinguish a behavior - they are different things).


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
That's interesting - it almost sounds like you're saying you first decided you were going to be anti-punishment, and now you're figuring out exactly what punishment is so you can avoid doing it.

No, I mean, I KNOW what *I* consider to be punishment, and I don't do it, because I think it undermines a child's innate sociality. I'm totally anti-punitive time outs- That one is super easy for me to avoid. I never do unrelated punishments. And I don't impose consequences that are intended to be a "penalty for an offense" or that are intended to reduce the incidence of a certain behavior.
I'm just arguing that certain things aren't punishment, because I do them and they don't feel like they are.

Quote:

I'm interested in the definition mostly because it's hard to talk about this stuff with other people if we're all using the same word to mean different things. Unfortunately, I've realized I can't get everyone to use my definition, even though it's the correct one







(basically the same one ACsMom gave.)
ok, sorry. lol. I can't keep anything straight!

Quote:

Yeah, I agree that in these two examples the different intent makes one example a punishment and the other not - but it's because the different intent leads to slightly different actions.
I think that's a good point- the intent causes the interaction to go
a little bit differently.

Quote:

To me, punishment is something aversive that you do after a behavior occurs that makes that behavior less likely to occur in the future.
I think the reason the other definition made more sense to me, was that it said something about a behavior you *want* to eliminate.
I guess the only reason that definition doesn't seem to totally apply, is that the few times I DID punish ds (by leaving the room, or whatever) it didn't make the behavior less likely to occur in the future. But he definitely took it as a punishment!
So I think that some things that are punishments, wouldn't be considered as such if you are going by the technical definition of them.

eta- I get all bungled up when we have these particular discussions. I can't quite make everything in my mind mesh right. I'm going to take a break so I can think about this and try to fit it all together.


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

If you want the functional defs here is a great link:

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/chapters/rf.htm

Excerpt:
PRINCIPLES OF REINFORCEMENT
There are three basic principles of this theory. These are the Rules of Consequences. The three Rules describe the logical outcomes which typically occur after consequences.

Consequences which give Rewards increase a behavior.
Consequences which give Punishments decrease a behavior.
Consequences which give neither Rewards nor Punishments extinguish a behavior.
These Rules provide an excellent blueprint for influence. If you want to increase a behavior (make it more frequent, more intense, more likely), then when the behavior is shown, provide a Consequence of Reward. If you want to decrease a behavior (make it less frequent, less intense, less likely), then when the behavior is shown, provide a Consequence of Punishment. Finally, if you want a behavior to extinguish (disappear, fall out of the behavioral repertoire), then when the behavior is shown, then provide no Consequence (ignore the behavior).
Now, the Big Question becomes, "What is a reward?" or "What is a punishment?" The answer is easy.

What is a reward? Anything that increases the behavior.

What is a punisher? Anything that decreases the behavior.

It seems to me that what is being objected to is not so much "punishment", but reinforcement theory. I personally cannot see parenting without reinforcement - it seems impossible.


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

But this bit about ignoring behavior making it go away does not sound right to me... it's too simplistic.


----------



## 3lilmonsters (Feb 24, 2007)

Ignoring some behaviors makes them go away - but I think it's more likely to be the case with behaviors that have the specific purpose of getting a reaction. I've known of people who refuse to respond to their baby's cries during nighttime hours and soon the baby learns that there is no sense in crying. My oldest went through a phase where he tried tantruming to get his way on certain things that weren't negotiable. I'd offer my attention and if he didn't want it (and he usually didn't - he just wanted me to cave) I'd say "I'm sorry you're upset. Let me know if you'd like some cuddles" or something along those lines. And then I'd busy myself elsewhere. Ignoring the tantrum stopped it quite fast. He'd still be upset, but in a more quiet and less violent way (he was like 2ish). But I think that most behaviors need to be addressed by talking about why it isn't ok and what options are available.


----------



## lanamommyphd07 (Feb 14, 2007)

I think it's important to realize the strength of "punishment" in learning. Many things we learn in life are through punishment (in the scientific sense) or vicarious punishment. Take this as an example: Today I was punished a lot. A whole lot. My body is changing in size and balance and I have a lot to learn (stress learn). I bent over my desk and landed on my newly protruding belly. It didn't feel good (punishment). I now will be more tender in my movements regarding bending over desks. I will be negatively reinforced (relief from painful or unwanted experiences) by being more mindful. The negative reinforcement locks in my learning. I also tripped over some toys in my office (didn't see them--didn't look) (punishment) I will now be more mindful of the toys there. All of these can also be seen as "natural consequences" or some such newby term out there as well. For any of us to say we never impose a punishment on another human being or never allow a punishment to occur would be saying that we aren't learning a darned thing. Punishment gets a bad rap--mostly because it is the most ineffective form of child discipline, but negative reinforcement (avoiding that impending doom) IS, in fact, highly effective. Lucky kids will find their own punishments all day to curb and shape their behaviors, and have a loving parent there to kiss the booboos. But with no booboos comes no learning. Imposing some structure and limits on children is very important. We're helping them learn. We're guiding them. Structuring grocery time is not a punishment, simply because a kid would rather mess around in a toy aisle. They get the 5 minutes there and we move on. Am I mean because I make the kid leave? Absolutely not. I'm helping this young person learn to share time with a family, and learn to be helpful, etc., etc. I'm guiding. But all guidance is not going to be met by a child with a happy face. (I see that you would really like to stay here all day, maybe for a whole year, but the five minutes are done now and we must finish getting the milk). Some things in life really suck while you learn them (walking) but we keep on with it and eventually it will make sense. We have to trust those who guide us to know better than we do so that the painful experience isn't quite so bad. It's that trust that really founds good parenting. Letting a child take command in the effort to be loving is really setting someone up for future disaster. Using harsh, senseless, parentcontrol-dominated punishments that damage the psyche is a bad idea. Having limits is a fantastic one, even when kiddo is sometimes disappointed.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

question- those that are using the technical definition of punishment- is there a specific term you use to mean time-outs and illogical consequences, etc? The things that the general public would think of when they heard the word "punishment". "No desert, since you didn't pick up your toys" that type of thing.
Is there one term that is used?

eta- that was a bad example. I was just trying to illustrate that I meant something negative and unrelated that was to serve as a *penalty* for something.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
question- those that are using the technical definition of punishment- is there a specific term you use to mean time-outs and illogical consequences, etc? The things that the general public would think of when they heard the word "punishment". "No desert, since you didn't pick up your toys" that type of thing.
Is there one term that is used?

I don't think so.

The term "reward" is used in kind of the opposite the way you mean, "reward" referring to any consequence meant to be pleasing (regardless of its affect on behavior) -

Maybe the word "penalty" would work in the same way.


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
Do you feel like as long as these folks are punished, then they will no longer commit crimes and you will be safe? It reminds me of the parent who says I spank my kid so they won't run in the street. I wonder would they feel safe leaving their child unsupervised by the street after they'd been spanked because punishment works that well to deter misbehavior? If punishment worked so well we wouldn't have people committing crimes after they'd already served time.

Actually, I did make a point in my pp to recognise that punishment doesn't work for everybody...which is the reason why there are repeat offenders. However, it can not be denied that punishment does work for a fair amount of people. We'll say, for the sake of discussion, that it's a 50/50 shot. I feel most (not all) disciplinary methods have a 50/50 shot of working.

I stole $20 from my mom's roomate when I was 8 years old. Not only was I grounded from every priveledge I had (and it was summer time!!!) for 2 weeks, but I had to write 500 times "I will not lie or steal". I had to face the man I stole the money from and appologize for what I did. Being grounded gave me plenty of time to think of my actions, and how they affected my mom's roomate. Nobody trusted me anymore, and that was very humiliating.
I can think of a more gentle way that my mom could have approached this issue with me, and it might have been just as effective. However, my point is that I was punished, and I learned a lesson from my punishment. I never stole again. Not only out of fear of the consequences, but becuase I realised that I hurt others around me. In doing what I did, I lost trust from people I cared about.
I can honestly say I'd do things a bit differently than my mom did with me, as there was a lot of screaming, yelling, hitting and severe humiliation involved...but none the less, I *would* impose a resonable punishment in this case.
FTR...I don't believe in spanking a child for running in the street. I simply didn't give my son the opportunity to run in the street. He'd try and dart, but I'd use a very firm grip with him, and a firm voice...it didn't take him long to understand that running from me was totally unacceptable. Now that he's older, and we can verbalize with eachother, he knows why I don't want him running in the street.

I have to say I'm really enjoying this thread...and I wish I could've sat here all day reading the posts as they came in. I'm a little overwhelmed at the moment, as there is SOOO much to read. I'm hoping I can get back into the discussion, but I'm afraid I might just lurk the rest of the way


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

In your example we want to *increase* picking up toys - so not getting desert is the reward for not picking up toys. Desert is the reward for picking up toys. Confusing, right?

Penalty might work.


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

I can tell you this: As a child that grew up with no punishments, no groundings , no time outs,no consequences I believe this to be detrimetal to a child. I grew up in an upper midle class family, well educated family. My mother took this aproach and we all became drug users, all the girls got preggo at a young age and have noooo respect for my mom. We didnt feel loved either. I hated being put on the same level as her and we learned nothing, no matter how much she talked to us!!! Children need consequences early on in life that will stand out(not abusive) so that they dont feel they are invinsible like we did, and learn to respect people. Our mothers emotions stood out to us, not any punishment so we began to think we were responsible for her emotions. I can tell you out of all my friends growing up it wasnt the ones that were spanked or punished that got into trouble , it was me. I still have problems with boundaries cause I never learned them. YOu cannot reason with a 4 year old, boundaries NEED to clear!! THere are consequences in life and we had a big shocker when it came to the real world. We have a hard time saying yes, saying no, and I lost my brother to a very poor decision.I really had to learn the hard way and am still learning and its hard everyday, Im anxious about making decisions and dont know how to make good ones, I never learned how to make good ones based on right and wrong and I sooo want to, Had to leasrn discipline the hard way from being such a young single mom( natural consequences bah ha) . It hard to teach an older person new tricks. we also learned to make excuses for our behavour, like Oh I was just feeling tired, so I did some drugs. My mom always tried to find the underlying reason but in the real world if you shoot someone you cant use that excuse (except for mabe if your crazy)Being tired or erational does not excuse the bahavour. It is about RIGHT and WRONG.But it also doesnt mean that you dont need the sleep as well.The natural consequences of drugs are death, and Id rather impose consequences and be the bad guy if it will prevent my kids from experiencing that


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie* 
I stole $20 from my mom's roomate when I was 8 years old. Not only was I grounded from every priveledge I had (and it was summer time!!!) for 2 weeks, but I had to write 500 times "I will not lie or steal". I had to face the man I stole the money from and appologize for what I did.

I think this is a great example of punishment done badly - the time did not fit the crime. It was unjust. Punishment is hard to do well, because you have to have a good sense of justice.

When I was 8 my best friend, handed me some money she found at her house. When we got home and my mom found it, we discussed that we don't take things from other people's houses without asking. I explained that my friend gave it to me. She explained that my friend did not have the right, and that I need to ask the parents. I had to take the money back and apologize. And got a hug from that mom. That was it - I learned the lesson. There was no need for punishment. I was a little ashamed at first, but after the reconciliation, I felt good about myself. Grounding an 8 year old is absurd in my opinion. I was spanked, but I always felt my friends had it way worse with their groundings. A grounding is a slow humilating frustrating punishment - far more likely to bring up feelings of victimization IMHO.

Gosh, I'm really sorry you had to go through that!


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I have to admit, that this is frustrating for me. Not at anyone here, but geez.
I can't be the only one who sees "punishment" as being timeouts, spankings, groundings, taking away priveledges, etc.
I would never have thought that a punishment would be anything that anyone could do that someone didn't like, and cause that person to change their behavior (I know I'm being extreme there).

The merriam webster definition is definitely how I see "punishment" and how I assume most people do as well. "to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation "

Even if the technical definition might be right in psychology speak, I don't think that's the common usage of the term. Is it?


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

Its interesting to me that most people are here cause they didnt enjoy being punished, but I think it kept you out of alot of trouble.Parents #1 job is not to be your friend. The people that I was friends with that also had the same kinda upbringing as me are either incarserated, dead, or are just spoiled rotten grownup that think the world revolved around them


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
I can tell you this: As a child that grew up with no punishments, no groundings , no time outs,no consequences I believe this to be detrimetal to a child. I grew up in an upper midle class family, well educated family. My mother took this aproach and we all became drug users, all the girls got preggo at a young age and have noooo respect for my mom. We didnt feel loved either. I hated being put on the same level as her and we learned nothing, no matter how much she talked to us!!! Children need consequences early on in life that will stand out(not abusive) so that they dont feel they are invinsible like we did, and learn to respect people. Our mothers emotions stood out to us, not any punishment so we began to think we were responsible for her emotions. I can tell you out of all my friends growing up it wasnt the ones that were spanked or punished that got into trouble , it was me. I still have problems with boundaries cause I never learned them. YOu cannot reason with a 4 year old, boundaries NEED to clear!! THere are consequences in life and we had a big shocker when it came to the real world. We have a hard time saying yes, saying no, and I lost my brother to a very poor decision.I really had to learn the hard way and am still learning and its hard everyday, Im anxious about making decisions and dont know how to make good ones, I never learned. It hard to teach an older person new tricks

I had friends like you as a teen, that always encouraged me to disobey my mom. When I said "No way, my mom will kick my a$$" their response was always the same "What is she going to do, ground you? Just tell her to f*** off" Uh...yeah, and get my face knocked sideways!!!! Heck no!!!
Now, my mom beat me as a child, so I had that in the back of my head. I certainly don't agree with the abuse she put me through. I DO agree with the boundaries, limits and some of the punishments she imposed on me.


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
Our mothers emotions stood out to us, not any punishment so we began to think we were responsible for her emotions. ... . My mom always tried to find the underlying reason but in the real world if you shoot someone you cant use that excuse (except for mabe if your crazy)Being tired or erational does not excuse the bahavour. It is about RIGHT and WRONG.

I really appreciate what you are sharing - it is very interesting and illuminating! My parents did some things in ways I would not, but I cannot in good conscious criticize their parenting overall. I believe they did right by me - and I feel really good about the person I've become. I was not punished often, but when I was I most often felt the consequences were fair. Only one issue got to me - and that was that I sometimes paid the consequences for conflicts that I felt were my sister's fault. But that's real life too - happens all the time...


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2bluefish* 
I think this is a great example of punishment done badly - the time did not fit the crime. It was unjust. Punishment is hard to do well, because you have to have a good sense of justice.

When I was 8 my best friend, handed me some money she found at her house. When we got home and my mom found it, we discussed that we don't take things from other people's houses without asking. I explained that my friend gave it to me. She explained that my friend did not have the right, and that I need to ask the parents. I had to take the money back and apologize. And got a hug from that mom. That was it - I learned the lesson. There was no need for punishment. I was a little ashamed at first, but after the reconciliation, I felt good about myself. Grounding an 8 year old is absurd in my opinion. I was spanked, but I always felt my friends had it way worse with their groundings. A grounding is a slow humilating frustrating punishment - far more likely to bring up feelings of victimization IMHO.

Gosh, I'm really sorry you had to go through that!

I'm not a big fan of grounding either...because I got grounded for EVERYTHING!!!! Sometimes, a grounding replaced a beating though...and it came as a relief to me. I really had a screwed upbringing, and somehow, I turned out "normal". This is why I spend so much time lurking in the GD forum. I want SO bad to change the cycle (my mom was abused even worse than me). What I did take away from my upbringing though, is that there is a balance....and I know I can meet it. I don't want to resort to one extreme or the other...I just want to do what works best for my children. There were some (few) moments as a child/teen that my mom was harsh, but looking back, it was what I needed at that moment. If one method doesn't work, I move on to the next. I have set limits for myself, as to how far I will take any certain method, and then there are the methods that are totally off limits (abusive methods) My ultimate goal, is that my son (and baby on the way) feels loved, respected and trusted.


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

i can tell you this though..i cry all the time for what I did., I wish i had of just paid the consequences and moved on, but I didnt and cant forgive myself. I lnged for discipline, I would push buttons to try to get her to do so,and by the time she realized that what she had done by the way she parented,it was too late. Although she agrees now that we needed consequences, she still uses excuses for us and herself. We turned that way cause my brother died..its soooo not true, we were like that all along she just chose not to see. I was a very emotionally intelligent young child and I actually equated her not giving consequenses as not loving us. i believe in balance as a mom. I love my kids unconditionally and they know it, have an awsome relationship (so far,Im realistic) with my kids(oldest one being 11) but set very clear boundaries and that i hope will guide them in life when Im not there. Consequences do not have to equate fear.


----------



## 3lilmonsters (Feb 24, 2007)

I think it's important to note that no punishment does not necessarily mean no boundries. My kids have plenty of boundries, and most of the time they function within them, but when they don't I generally don't punish them. For example, except for special occasions, food stays in the kitchen or dining room. If they come out to the living room with it a simple reminder will get them back in bounds. They are not to hurt one another. If they were to get into a physical fight I would separate them - not to punish them, but because as their mother it is my duty to make sure that they are safe. Another boundry is that all outside doors are not to be opened for any reason (except in an emergency) when I'm in the shower. I truly believe this to be a safety issue. There is a consequence for it, and it is an imposed one - if they broke this rule they would have to come to the bathroom with me so that I could keep an eye on them. We also have boundries when it comes to telling...if they come tell on one another to me I do not punish them, I ask them if they've talked to the other one about it and what their purpose was in telling me.

As for the emotions...I am hesitant to use those as a means to control. Yes, I could say "it makes me happy when you..." or "it make me sad when you...", but I'm not trying to teach them to behave based on how I'll feel about it. I may say something like "it hurts me when you...", or "I don't like it when you yell to me from another room" or "I really appreciated your help...". And though I do expose my kids to my emotions and often let them know when I'm excited or frustrated or what have you, I do tend to mute them just a bit. I might let them know that I'm frustrated with them and need a few minutes to myself, but they certainly aren't privy to whatever meltdown that may follow.


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

Frenchie-o.t My sons middle name is Kai- good name. Is is after the Hawaiian name or Danish?


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

My mother didnt mean to use her emotions to control us, it was just the thing that stood out the most. I was also a very well behaved straight A student, had a dancing and Art scholarship, was excepted into Emily Carr on the youth program, danced with Ballet BC. But one day i just changed my mind and there was no reason not too.And although there were rules and boundaries in the house, we didnt understand them emotionally and didnt take them seriously. My sister was an uncontrollable brat the whole way through , by the time she realizes she really had no control of us we were doing drugs and getting preggo.We really didnt understand verbal boundaries............And although my way of parenting may not always fall under the term gentle discipine,which in saying that the definition has definatly changed over the last 70+ years. I still consider myself a gentle and respectful discipliner and my kids are monkeys as boy will be, But I cant wait till they hit their teenage years,cause I know I dont have much to worry about. They will be equiped with everything they NEED,and although I dont believe that being in being primarily friends with your kids, it can and should come second and I am very good friends with my kids.Please remeberer that you are parenting from a childs point of view.....well I was once a child(I think) and this was my point of view.


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
Frenchie-o.t My sons middle name is Kai- good name. Is is after the Hawaiian name or Danish?

Hawaiian....it's also Afrikan for ocean, but spelled Kaai.


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

His is Danish, Im Half Danish and Half British, I wanted to use names from both countries, So its Jonah Kai Ainsley.


----------



## *LoveBugMama* (Aug 2, 2003)

Answering before reading thread... So my answer is mine, not colored by what I have read.









Without punishment? Yes. I define punishment as "if you do x, I will do y to you, because it will teach you a lesson/make sure you don`t do x again/to hurt you."

Without consequenses? No, absolutlely not.
The consequenses I use are not meant to hurt, not meant to teach a lesson, not meant to ensure my son never does x again. I use consequenses when he hurts others (I will gently take him away from the situation if he has problems controlling himself). When his health is suffering, and he still doesn`t want to get dressed (I will help him get dressed if he let me, or I will say that we can`t go out without clothes when sick.)

So, in my life I can`t be the mamma or person I wan`t to be without some consequenses. But I strive to never use them as punishment. Boundaries, yes. Punishment, no.


----------



## 3lilmonsters (Feb 24, 2007)

Kids naturally want to please their parents (though it doesn't always seem that way!) and so I think it's easy for parents to fall into using that to their advantage, whether they mean to or not. And that, in the end, can be harmful. I have known of people who were like you...but then I've known of people that were well behaved and straight A because they were in a very puntitive environment...and when those restraints were no longer in place, the changed because there was nothing stopping them.

I come from a sizeable family...one that was big in the use of punishment. We were complemented all the time in our behavior. Six kids in a small apartment and everything was always clean. We all excelled in school, we were unbelievably polite...everyone thought that my parents had done an excelent job. I got pregnant when I was 20 and ended up a single mom, another one of my sisters ended up having lots of sex and partying pretty hard. The other kids all went a little crazy too. It was going from having very definite punishment for our 'negative' actions to having it be hit or miss...because really that's what it is in the real world. People speed all the time...but they don't always get a ticket. People have casual sex quite often...but the don't always end up pregnant. I think that is one of the dangers, if you will, of punishment. A child learns to react in response to the imposed artificial consequences, rather than out or respect for what is right.

I'm not saying that every child that is raised with punishment will turn out that way. I'm just say that imho, helping your kids with understanding the fundamental reasons why some actions are better - or more socially acceptable - than others seems to be a much better route than just punishing them.

It looks like both our parents missed out on this point...though God knows their parenting styles were at opposite ends of the spectrum









As for the friends thing...that's something that I've thought alot about. And yes, I want to be my children's friend. I think that for some people, the thought of that signifies that the parent will be weak...be unwilling to set boundries and allow their child to expirience consequences because they're afraid they'll hurt the friendship. In my case though, I really expect that for quite some time this friendship is going to be one sided. I will be their friend, I will listen to their problems, all of that...but I don't expect them to be my friend in return, if that makes any sense. I'll listen to my 7 yo talk about the problems he's having with some of his friends, or his 'financial problems' (whether he should spend that $5 he got on a cheap toy or save it for a game boy...or just blow it all on candy), but I'm not going to share the burden of my problems with them. I'm not going to tell them if I'm having boyfriend problems or one of my friends and I get into a spat. I'm not going to tell them if I haven't gotten my childsupport in a few weeks and I'm sweating whether I should pay the electric bill and risk eviction or pay the rent and risk disconnection (not that that's been a problem yet, tg).

But anyways, I'm just rambling...and putting off my homework


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
I can tell you this: As a child that grew up with no punishments, no groundings , no time outs,no consequences I believe this to be detrimetal to a child. I grew up in an upper midle class family, well educated family. My mother took this aproach and we all became drug users, all the girls got preggo at a young age and have noooo respect for my mom. We didnt feel loved either. I hated being put on the same level as her and we learned nothing, no matter how much she talked to us!!! Children need consequences early on in life that will stand out(not abusive) so that they dont feel they are invinsible like we did, and learn to respect people. Our mothers emotions stood out to us, not any punishment so we began to think we were responsible for her emotions. I can tell you out of all my friends growing up it wasnt the ones that were spanked or punished that got into trouble , it was me. I still have problems with boundaries cause I never learned them. YOu cannot reason with a 4 year old, boundaries NEED to clear!! THere are consequences in life and we had a big shocker when it came to the real world. We have a hard time saying yes, saying no, and I lost my brother to a very poor decision.I really had to learn the hard way and am still learning and its hard everyday, Im anxious about making decisions and dont know how to make good ones, I never learned how to make good ones based on right and wrong and I sooo want to, Had to leasrn discipline the hard way from being such a young single mom( natural consequences bah ha) . It hard to teach an older person new tricks. we also learned to make excuses for our behavour, like Oh I was just feeling tired, so I did some drugs. My mom always tried to find the underlying reason but in the real world if you shoot someone you cant use that excuse (except for mabe if your crazy)Being tired or erational does not excuse the bahavour. It is about RIGHT and WRONG.But it also doesnt mean that you dont need the sleep as well.The natural consequences of drugs are death, and Id rather impose consequences and be the bad guy if it will prevent my kids from experiencing that

I am very sorry you went through this.

However, it is antedotal. How a kid (or kids) "turn out" have so many factors that we cannot take one case and pin all of the problems on discipline. I also grew up in a home with no punishment. I had boundaries, but they were always respectfully up for negotiation. I was never grounded, time-outed, logically consequenced, etc....... I did not have any problems as a result of this. At least I do not think so. I did not get in trouble with the law. I got good grades. Went to college. Yadda yadda yadda...... How a kid "turns out" involves personality of child and parent, friends, location, diet, influences, etc etc etc, and (maybe) discipline. I know plenty of people that grew up in horrible, punitive, abusive homes that also turned out to be great and productive people. I am certainly not going to take that an indicator that I should also be punitive and abusive.

I also believe people need boundaries. Punishment is not the only way to create boundaries. People do not need an imposed consequence to learn to live respectful of others and themselves. In fact, I believe imposed consequnces can actually hamper that.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lanamommyphd07* 
I think it's important to realize the strength of "punishment" in learning. Many things we learn in life are through punishment (in the scientific sense) or vicarious punishment. Take this as an example: Today I was punished a lot. A whole lot. My body is changing in size and balance and I have a lot to learn (stress learn). I bent over my desk and landed on my newly protruding belly. It didn't feel good (punishment). I now will be more tender in my movements regarding bending over desks. I will be negatively reinforced (relief from painful or unwanted experiences) by being more mindful. The negative reinforcement locks in my learning. I also tripped over some toys in my office (didn't see them--didn't look) (punishment) I will now be more mindful of the toys there. All of these can also be seen as "natural consequences" or some such newby term out there as well. For any of us to say we never impose a punishment on another human being or never allow a punishment to occur would be saying that we aren't learning a darned thing. Punishment gets a bad rap--mostly because it is the most ineffective form of child discipline, but negative reinforcement (avoiding that impending doom) IS, in fact, highly effective. Lucky kids will find their own punishments all day to curb and shape their behaviors, and have a loving parent there to kiss the booboos. But with no booboos comes no learning. Imposing some structure and limits on children is very important. We're helping them learn. We're guiding them. Structuring grocery time is not a punishment, simply because a kid would rather mess around in a toy aisle. They get the 5 minutes there and we move on. Am I mean because I make the kid leave? Absolutely not. I'm helping this young person learn to share time with a family, and learn to be helpful, etc., etc. I'm guiding. But all guidance is not going to be met by a child with a happy face. (I see that you would really like to stay here all day, maybe for a whole year, but the five minutes are done now and we must finish getting the milk). Some things in life really suck while you learn them (walking) but we keep on with it and eventually it will make sense. We have to trust those who guide us to know better than we do so that the painful experience isn't quite so bad. It's that trust that really founds good parenting. Letting a child take command in the effort to be loving is really setting someone up for future disaster. Using harsh, senseless, parentcontrol-dominated punishments that damage the psyche is a bad idea. Having limits is a fantastic one, even when kiddo is sometimes disappointed.

Kids get plenty of "boo-boos" without me artificially imposing them. I do not think I should protect my child from all natural consequnces. Nor do I think it is even remotely possible. We do not use punishments (maybe....depending on how the definition shakes out) but my 3.5 yo has no trouble understanding that we cannot spend all day in the toy aisle.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *3lilmonsters* 
I think it's important to note that no punishment does not necessarily mean no boundries. My kids have plenty of boundries, and most of the time they function within them, but when they don't I generally don't punish them.

Same here

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CrunchyTamara* 
Without punishment? Yes. I define punishment as "if you do x, I will do y to you, because it will teach you a lesson/make sure you don`t do x again/to hurt you."

Without consequenses? No, absolutlely not.
*The consequenses I use are not meant to hurt, not meant to teach a lesson, not meant to ensure my son never does x again.* I use consequenses when he hurts others (I will gently take him away from the situation if he has problems controlling himself). When his health is suffering, and he still doesn`t want to get dressed (I will help him get dressed if he let me, or I will say that we can`t go out without clothes when sick.)

I love your post. I especially agree with the bolded part.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
We do not use punishments (maybe....depending on how the definition shakes out)









That's funny. lol


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Ok, I think I kinda got it now. (I'm obsessive compulsive. lol. I was not the kid in school that could just learn random facts for tests- I had to understand WHY those were the right answers.)

And I realized that the reason it's important to me, is that, deep down in my soul, I believe that punishments are not only not necessary, but are often counterproductive (what I think of as punishments, anyways). It's not that I want to categorize everything I do as non-punitive, because I'm not perfect. I'll freely admit that I yell sometimes, and that's punitive.

So
yelling=punishment, because it is aversive and it generally does reduce the behavior, and in the moment I do intend it to do so. and it acts as a penalty for whatever (in the moment).

carrying in the store, does not seem to be punishment the way I do it, because it's not a penalty for a fault. It's not intended to reduce the behavior, and it doesn't.
I mean, it's hard to tell for sure, but the last time this happened, ds wanted to ride in the cart at the store. The carts were all outside, it was raining, I didn't know how to work the quarter deposit thing, and I was only getting a few things. And I didn't know it would be a big deal to him. So he cried through the store, and I carried him during the times he wouldn't come with me. I guarantee that the same thing would have happened the next time we went to the store, if I hadn't gotten a cart (ds kept reminding me that he wanted a cart). kwim?

And carrying in and of itself is not aversive. It would seem more punitive if I were harsh with it, or tried to use words, or some other thing that would serve to "teach him" or to make him feel bad about what he was doing. But I don't.

But I wonder, what about things that are generally thought of as punishments, that don't change behavior? Like, when I yell as ds for whining, it certainly doesn't reduce the whining. But I'd still consider the yelling punishment (I don't like yell and go crazy. But I definitely get snappy). I'm sure HE takes it as such. But the whining goes on and on and on. lol. (I'm starting to learn to live with it.







)


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CrunchyTamara* 
Answering before reading thread... So my answer is mine, not colored by what I have read.









Without punishment? Yes. I define punishment as "if you do x, I will do y to you, because it will teach you a lesson/make sure you don`t do x again/to hurt you."

Without consequenses? No, absolutlely not.
*The consequenses I use are not meant to hurt, not meant to teach a lesson, not meant to ensure my son never does x again.* I use consequenses when he hurts others (I will gently take him away from the situation if he has problems controlling himself). When his health is suffering, and he still doesn`t want to get dressed (I will help him get dressed if he let me, or I will say that we can`t go out without clothes when sick.)

So, in my life I can`t be the mamma or person I wan`t to be without some consequenses. But I strive to never use them as punishment. Boundaries, yes. Punishment, no.









Yes, yes, yes to the bolded part. And Deva33mommy, I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you, for the most part, about what is and is not punishment. I think it's silly to say that anything that makes a child unhappy is punishment. (Although, since we all know that we don't MAKE anybody feel anything, and we are all responsible for our own emotions, we can't technically punish a child, right? Cause if they're unhappy, that's under their own control, thus they are punishing themselves, right? [I'm being entirely sarcastic, of course, just trying to illustrate the ridiculousness of this all.])

To answer the OP, no I don't think punishment is neccessary and using punishment goes against my personal morals. People who use punishment have very different parenting goals than I do.


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

Oh, another really quick thought. I also yell sometimes when I'm frustrated and recognize this as something I need to change. There's a difference between doing something because you slip up and make mistakes and doing something because you think it is right.

Nobody's perfect.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
I can tell you this: As a child that grew up with no punishments, no groundings , no time outs,no consequences I believe this to be detrimetal to a child. I grew up in an upper midle class family, well educated family. My mother took this aproach and we all became drug users, all the girls got preggo at a young age and have noooo respect for my mom. We didnt feel loved either. I hated being put on the same level as her and we learned nothing, no matter how much she talked to us!!!

I'm sorry that you had that experience. I'm interested in learning about it, if you want to share.
I'm wondering, did you guys have clear boundaries? Did your mom tell you how your actions would affect others? I guess what I'm wondering is, how many ways was your mom's discipline style different from many of the non-punitive gd styles here.
You talk about being on the same level as your mom, and I don't think that all non-punishing parents do that. I do think that kids are kids, and parents are parents. But I don't think that parents have to punish in order to be the authority figure in the household.
I agree with you on making excuses for behaviors. I do think there are underlying reasons that need to be addressed with toddler behavior, but it doesn't mean that the behavior ought to be excused, simply because there was a reason for it. kwim?

We grew up with some punishment. More so in my teen years. But all the things I was grounded for as a teen, I had learned my lesson before the punishment. I turned out great (imho lol)
My brother did not, unfortunately. He's racist, he drinks all the time and is a jerk when he's drunk, he does drugs, he was selling drugs on my mom's property, he sold coke to an informant within 500 feet of a school, he has no concern for others, he steals money from family and friends, he thinks the world is against him, and NONE of it is his fault.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I'm finding through this discussion that a simple definition of punishment may be difficult to pin down. And that my original examples of what I consider punishment were not good examples!

Just last night I had to pick up my DD and carry her into the bedroom. She was having a total meltdown because her brother was reading a book and she wanted to take it in to the bedroom for story time and I said no, she had to pick a different book. The poor kid was so tired and obviously not able to control her emotions. I felt sympathy for her. And I knew it was not her fault that she was reacting this way and also that it is unsettling for her and even frightening sometimes when she loses control of herself. So there was no scolding or demanding. I just gently said "hey, S is reading that book right now so we're going to have to go pick another one". And she started yelling and I could see she was not able to just go with me so I said "hey kiddo, let's go pick another story" and I picked her up and carried her to the bedroom.

She screamed "No! Put me down! I don't want to go!" but I carried her anyways and when we got in there I soon found ways to soothe her and within a minute or two of us arriving in the bedrom she was happily climbing in bed with another book. (yes, I pat myself on the back in moments like this because I have many moments where i screw it all up, lol!).

I thought about this example all night and how it WAS coercion on my part to carry her in there. But why wasn't it punishment? I know, but find it hard to write out.

Like deva, it just seems obvious to me when it is and isn't punishment. Yes, I used my bigger size and strength last night, but I did it to HELP her. I know that she was out of control and needing an "emotion coach" in that moment, and...and I think this might be the key....there was no expectation on my part that she DO or NOT DO or CEASE TO DO something in order to prevent me from carrying her out, and my carrying her was not framed in a "you can stop me from doing this if you do X" sort of manner. I just said "hey, it's time to go do this".

So, where does this fit in to our discussion?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

I think consequences are necessary to have any meaningful understanding of natural living. Whether those consequences constitute punishment would be difficult to agree upon. And too, the world doesn't follow a neat pattern of consequences-terrible things happen which are completely unavoidable, and then there are those who get away with extremely dangerous behavior. In addition humans have an ability to learn *some* information (not all) second hand, without direct experience.

I have a tendency to feel that the simpler one is living and the closer to nature, the more likely that environment will provide natural consequences for behavior, and reinforce whatever learning the parent is trying to impart for survival. The more one moves away from that into a climate controlled artificial environment, the less one's choices and behaviors tend to "matter", and the opportunity for extremes in terms of excessive or insufficient awareness of learning self disciplined behavior is a greater issue.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

So, where does this fit in to our discussion? 
Could one have sat with her where she was, instead of carrying her away when she screamed to put her down? Could one have asked the other child to take the book elsewhere? Could one have found a book that everyone could read together? Could the other child have an interest in an alternate book? Could one find a movie, snack, bath, walk outside, sung a song, discussed, talked, validated, asked the other child for possible solutions, ask her for possible solutions, any other options...?

Scott Noelle's Daily Groove had a line in it that sums it up, imo: "Their must be a way we can all be satisfied; I just don't see it yet." http://www.enjoyparenting.com/dailygroove

When we believe there are unlimited possibilities, we can create satisfying alternatives which meet everyone's needs.

Pat


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
My brother did not, unfortunately. He's racist, he drinks all the time and is a jerk when he's drunk, he does drugs, he was selling drugs on my mom's property, he sold coke to an informant within 500 feet of a school, he has no concern for others, he steals money from family and friends, he thinks the world is against him, and NONE of it is his fault.

Then who is at fault? Who is making his choices for him?


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Could you have sat with her where she was, instead of carrying her away when she told you to put her down? Could you have asked the other child to take the book elsewhere? Could you have found a book that you could all read together? Could the other child have an interest in an alternative book? Could you find a movie, snack, bath, walk outside, sung a song, discussed, talked, validated, asked the other child for possible solutions, ask her for possible solutions, any other options...?

In my experience with situations like that, the child remains fixated on trying to grab the book so unless the other child is willing to hand it over so the first child calms down, nothing can be done in the presence of that book. So you either have two children pulling on the same book, a unpossessive child who hands over the book, or you haul the child who is attempting to book-jack away to calm down and protect the rights of the other. After the child calms down or if the child never got worked up in the first place, all those other options may work.


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

I just wanted to thank everyone who shared about their upbringing. It was really useful for me to reflect on the way I was brought up - the things I think my parents did that were excellent and the things I disagree with. And to realize how thankful I am for my upbringing and the wonderful childhood I was blessed to have. But it also made me see how one generation effects the next, and to realize that my job as a SAHM is very important (something I struggle with remembering sometimes). My work will have an impact on generations to come, and that is humbling and inspiring. Thanks so much for the discussion!


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie* 
Then who is at fault? Who is making his choices for him?

Wait, you got that I was saying "none of it is his fault" because that's how HE thinks, not what I think. right? I think he's an adult and is responsible for his own choices. He obviously does not.

For example, he used to steal money from me when I worked as a waitress at Waffle House. As far as he was concerned, it was justified. I had money, and he "needed" it.

He got caught with drug paraphernalia (well, he's gotten caught with drugs more than once). As far as he was concerned, it wasn't his fault though. If the guy behind him hadn't rear-ended him, the cops never would have looked through his car and found it. That's honestly truly how he feels.

When he got caught for drinking and driving, he thought it was my mom's fault, because she refused to drive him to his girlfriends house. This isn't an issue of being drunk and needing to go home (though imo that's not even an excuse for drunk driving). He was home. And he wanted to see his girlfriend.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
Wow! Great replies thus far. To clarify:

ITA. Deva and others had similar examples.

Unfortunately it's not always easy to draw the line b/c I think the distinction comes with tone and intent. Some argue this is nit-picky but I absolutely believe that kids know the difference. So:

Mama: "I see you are having trouble leaving the playground today and we can't seem to come up with a solution that works for both of us so I'm going to help you by carrying you to the car" [and while child protests and tantrums mama offers sympathy "it's hard isn't it? I totally know how you feel"]. *not punishment*

VERSUS

Mama: "We need to leave. Either you come with me now or I will make you leave. Okay that's it, we're leaving!" [angrily totes off child and berates child for tantruming]. *punishment*

Another example:

"If you don't clean up this mess I'm putting it away for a while and you won't be able to play with these toys!" *punishment*

VERSUS

"I see you are having a hard time using this toy safely. I think we'll put it away until I can sit with you and help you use it safely." *not punishment*

I think what most of you are describing is not punishment. But hey, I'm not the decider so let's discuss that too if you like!









I haven't read the last 5 pages, so this discussion may be on a totally different tangent by now, but I respectfully disagree with the above. Sugarcoating it doesn't change anything. Sure, it's a nicer way to behave, and is more respectful of the child (and it illustrates the difference between a bad mommy day and a good mommy day), but either way the parent is imposing an external consequence by taking something away (playground time, a toy) because the child wasn't behaving in an appropriate way. Didn't a lot of people on here agree that a punishment is a punishment if the child sees it as such, regardless of the parent's intention? Then taking the block away that they are hurling at your head is a punishment regardless of how nice you are about it. It doesn't mean you shouldn't take the block away, but there is no away around the fact that it is an externally imposed consequence, which many on here have argued is just another way of saying punishment.

I think this is why there is so much confusion about punishment/consequences. It really is a grey area, and the reaction you get from the GD forum is all dependent on how you phrase things.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
I'm finding through this discussion that a simple definition of punishment may be difficult to pin down. And that my original examples of what I consider punishment were not good examples!

Just last night I had to pick up my DD and carry her into the bedroom. She was having a total meltdown because her brother was reading a book and she wanted to take it in to the bedroom for story time and I said no, she had to pick a different book. The poor kid was so tired and obviously not able to control her emotions. I felt sympathy for her. And I knew it was not her fault that she was reacting this way and also that it is unsettling for her and even frightening sometimes when she loses control of herself. So there was no scolding or demanding. I just gently said "hey, S is reading that book right now so we're going to have to go pick another one". And she started yelling and I could see she was not able to just go with me so I said "hey kiddo, let's go pick another story" and I picked her up and carried her to the bedroom.

She screamed "No! Put me down! I don't want to go!" but I carried her anyways and when we got in there I soon found ways to soothe her and within a minute or two of us arriving in the bedrom she was happily climbing in bed with another book. (yes, I pat myself on the back in moments like this because I have many moments where i screw it all up, lol!).

I thought about this example all night and how it WAS coercion on my part to carry her in there. But why wasn't it punishment? I know, but find it hard to write out.

Like deva, it just seems obvious to me when it is and isn't punishment. Yes, I used my bigger size and strength last night, but I did it to HELP her. I know that she was out of control and needing an "emotion coach" in that moment, and...and I think this might be the key....*there was no expectation on my part that she DO or NOT DO or CEASE TO DO something in order to prevent me from carrying her out,* and my carrying her was not framed in a "you can stop me from doing this if you do X" sort of manner. I just said "hey, it's time to go do this".

So, where does this fit in to our discussion? 

Heh, see, I knew I shouldn't have quoted and disagreed with you in my last post, because you already came back and said what I was thinking!

I bolded the above part because I think that this is where it gets tough - in essence, there was an expectation. If she had stopped trying to grab her brother's book, then she would not have needed to be carried out of the room. And that's okay. I think it's totally fine to have expectations about how we all behave towards one another. It doesn't mean that you are a punitive parent.

I have often had to carry an upset child away from another child because they just get too obsessed with what they want from that child to be rational any longer.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

just to clarify, sh wasn't trying to grab th book. sh was just standing thr upst that sh couldn't hav it. and th 2 of us wr supposd to b going to th bdroom anyways. i saw sh was too upst to go, so i carrid hr.

dos that chang what you wr saying, "c-baby"?









[gt it? ha ha, i can't spll ocan right now, lol]


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
She screamed "No! Put me down! I don't want to go!" but I carried her anyways and when we got in there I soon found ways to soothe her and within a minute or two of us arriving in the bedrom she was happily climbing in bed with another book. (yes, I pat myself on the back in moments like this because I have many moments where i screw it all up, lol!).

I thought about this example all night and how it WAS coercion on my part to carry her in there. But why wasn't it punishment? I know, but find it hard to write out.

Its funny, but as I read your account of last night, I thought the opposite: It WAS punishment, but it was NOT coersion









I think its punishment because:

1. It appeared to be unpleasant for her.
2. Even though you said it wasn't a kind of threat ("If you stop screaming I won't carry you out") the truth probably is that if she HAD settled down on her own and chosen a different book, you probably WOULDN'T have carried her out.
3. Her problematic behavior ceased after the "punishment."

I also think you did the best thing for everyone involved, including your son, who probably was being "punished" by her behavior as he couldn't read his book in peace.

I think its probably theoretically possible to parent without punishment. I think it would take a great deal of planning in advance, knowing what the triggers are, having only one child (because frequently one child's behavior "punishes" another child's) and no pets. I don't think its realistic, though, and I'm not certain its in the child's best interests, as shown by your example, and many other examples on this forum.

I DO think its possible to parent without coersion (saying, "If you don't stop X, I will do Y" or "If you do X, I will not do Y," meant as a warning or threat).


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

Most people that think they had no punishment have actually been spanked as young children and will not remeber. And thats the truth. I think leaving the child with no consequences is leaving your children to the wolves, and my mom tried lots of GD with us to no avail.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
just to clarify, sh wasn't trying to grab th book. sh was just standing thr upst that sh couldn't hav it. and th 2 of us wr supposd to b going to th bdroom anyways. i saw sh was too upst to go, so i carrid hr.

dos that chang what you wr saying, "c-baby"?









[gt it? ha ha, i can't spll ocan right now, lol]

Someone has taken over your keyboard! I'm calling the Keyboard Police.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
Most people that think they had no punishment have actually been spanked as young children and will not remeber. And thats the truth. I think leaving the child with no consequences is leaving your children to the wolves, and my mom tried lots of GD with us to no avail.

huh?

I actually was spanked a few times as a very young child. I do remember it. Actually I only remember 2-3 times, all safety related, although it is possible there were more times. I also remember my mother decided spanking was not right and sat me down to explain that what she had done was wrong and she would never do it again. And she did not. I was around 5 yo. However, my sister, who is 7 years younger than me (and also now a well adjusted adult) never did get spanked and I KNOW I would have remembered if she had even if she could not remember.

There is no such thing as "no consequences". Life is full of them. I choose not to use parent imposed consequences. That is all.

I guess I am wondering what your point is. Are you saying that all children who come from punishment-free homes will become problem teens and maladjusted adults (are those the "wolves" we are talking about)? Are you saying that punishment is the only answer to boundaries and discipline? And that anyone who claims to have been raised in a punishment-free home is (intentionally or not) lying? I am pretty sure we can find whacked out people that have been raised in every concievable manner. I in no way think that the way I parent is a guarentee of how my child is going to "turn out". If it were that easy, we would have nothing to discuss, eh?


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

I have not met many children with teens or adults that could say that they had sucsess with no consequences. Most people here have very young children. In my house I have rueles set up and if they disobey those rules they have a consequence. What that consequence is I decide at the time. My oldest is 11 and I have an awsome relationship with him and he is not intimidated if i give him a consequences. He understands and respects me. What I did learn from my childhood was to have a relationship with my kids and Im thankful for it. Since there were only natural consequences and we didnt care much for those. I just chose not to let natural consequences kill my child, before teaching them about choices and consequences. Thats how I parent they have a choices and with each choice there is either a good consequence or a bad consequence, and most of the time they chose the good. Its not every child that will end up a hellion, but the chances are too big for me to take.


----------



## gr8fulmom (Jun 27, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
I think leaving the child with no consequences is leaving your children to the wolves,


I find this statement VERY judgemental in the context of this discussion... is that really necessary?


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

im not judging people, Im just not in agreement with it. And alot of people have made comments about what I have said in a negative tone, I am not scrare by a conversation.


----------



## gr8fulmom (Jun 27, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
I wish i had of just paid the consequences and moved on, but I didnt and cant forgive myself. I lnged for discipline, I would push buttons to try to get her to do so,and by the time she realized that what she had done by the way she parented,it was too late.

I do NOT want my children to HAVE to have consequences or punishments in order to move on... It really scares me how this might manifest in an adult (and has in someone I know)... they would need to self impose or seek out punishments if they make a mistake in order to "move on"... I want my kids to accept their mistakes and forgive themselves, know that I am on their side to guide them and then take responsibility for their mistake in the context of the situation...

And FWIW I actually know two people who were raised with this sort of no punishment dicsipline and they both came out great and are in healthy commited relationship based on trust and love. On the other hand I know several people who were punished and have no discipline and used tons of drugs and got pregnant in their teens... (I know of family of fur who were spanked and all four girls were pregnant before they were 18...) so I guess I could say it was because they had no self esteem because they were spanked which IMO may be part of it... but clearly there were other factors as well... Personally I look to larger case studies and psycological research as well as watching my own kids and how they react to (and model) what I do... I won't judge an entire parenting philosophy based on one family's case which I am not even sure directly applies to the situtaion as it seems like there were other issues...


----------



## gr8fulmom (Jun 27, 2002)

I am not "scared" either I am just asking that you be polite! I don't think that because you felt "other" have done this it makes it right! I AM offended by that statement and if you are offended by other people's tones I suggest you address it...

The point of this forum is to have respectful discussion so that we may learn from each other and fine tune our viewpoints... if we don't do this a mod will shut down the thread... so I am only asking in the interest of keeping the thread open so we can learn from each other...


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

i am the youngest child and by nature I am not a rebellious person .I was a very respectful child. I just saw my brother and my sister get away with everything without consequences (didnt care about natural ones) so I tested it too. And although my mom really begged us not to do these things, it didnt work, because I didnt have an idea of what the consequences are so I dont want to leave it to the outside world to teach them


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

Im sorry if you feel offended you that was not the reason it was said. I chose not to adress other people cause I dont get easily offended and respect peoples point of view,but really dont agree with it. Its nothing personal, but sorry that it might have offended, however if someone tends to disagree, they are jumped on, but thats the nature of ths forrum


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

For me, just like the child that was beaten, it hurts to see others go through what I had to go through to learn. I really dont want my kids learning the way I had to cause it hurt unnecessarily.(in my heart)And I love my mom, but long to respect her and see her as such, so much that it hurts. But for us its too late to see that way, especially my brother who is no longer with us


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
I have to admit, that this is frustrating for me. Not at anyone here, but geez.
I can't be the only one who sees "punishment" as being timeouts, spankings, groundings, taking away priveledges, etc.
I would never have thought that a punishment would be anything that anyone could do that someone didn't like, and cause that person to change their behavior (I know I'm being extreme there).

The merriam webster definition is definitely how I see "punishment" and how I assume most people do as well. "to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation "

Even if the technical definition might be right in psychology speak, I don't think that's the common usage of the term. Is it?

I'm in agreement with you here. If we extend punishment to be anything that someone doesn't like, where are we then??

But I have to add that there are actually two kinds of punishment, if you're going with the behavioralist definitions:

*Positive punishment* (an oxymoron, I know, blame the behaviorists) -- ADDS an aversive stimulus to prevent a behavior the future. So, this would be something like the shock collars on dogs with invisible fences. Or spanking.

*Negative punishment* -- REMOVES a positive stimulus to affect future behavior. So, removing TV time as a consequence of not picking up. Time outs in sense most parents use them (not as a time in or a cooling off period) -- so time out for refusing to put your socks on.

I don't think we're debating positive punishment here (after all it's GENTLE discipline, which eschews spanking, etc.), but negative punishment. In other words - how linked to the behavior do the consequences have to be? Is it OK to remove something positive as a consequence for doing something negative?

I guess I'm in the camp that says negative consequences that are directly (either natural consequences or logical ones) tied to your behavior are OK, and perhaps even valuable. So, if you're being anti social, then being separated from the rest of the family while we calm down is OK. If you don't pick up your toys and I have to spend my time doing it, then I have no time to read you a story. Is that punishment? Yes, it is, because book reading is something very positive for my kids, and I'm removing it as a consequence of their behavior. What I won't do is consequences that aren't logically tied to the behavior. Time out for refusing to take a bath? No.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
I think its punishment because:

1. It appeared to be unpleasant for her.
2. Even though you said it wasn't a kind of threat ("If you stop screaming I won't carry you out") the truth probably is that if she HAD settled down on her own and chosen a different book, you probably WOULDN'T have carried her out.
3. Her problematic behavior ceased after the "punishment."

Number 1 is definitely true.

Number 2 is not b/c even if she had settled down we were still going to the bedroom, but she would have walked on her own. Oh wait, maybe that is what you meant, lol!

Number 3 is not entirely true (and I know I'm nitpicking here) b/c she was still tantruming, and in fact got much louder and more vehement when we got to the bedroom. But away from the distracting book she desired, I was able to calm her down by talking in soothing tones with her for a minute. Once she calmed a bit I was able to find a solution with her.

I'm only belabouring the issue b/c I, too, am struggling with definitions. I still say what I did wasn't punishment, but I think it could be successfully argued that I used force and power. I don't think I did, but I can see how it's a gray area!


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
my mom tried lots of GD with us to no avail.

Given your other descriptions, I find this hard to believe -- was yuour mom TEACHING you? Did you talk about the effects of your actions on others? If not, then it wasn't really discipline. Discipline has teaching at its core.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 

I think its probably theoretically possible to parent without punishment. I think it would take a great deal of planning in advance, knowing what the triggers are, having only one child (because frequently one child's behavior "punishes" another child's) and no pets. I don't think its realistic, though, and I'm not certain its in the child's best interests, as shown by your example, and many other examples on this forum.

I DO think its possible to parent without coersion (saying, "If you don't stop X, I will do Y" or "If you do X, I will not do Y," meant as a warning or threat).























Ummm...there are over 1000 families on the AlwaysUnschooled list parenting without punishments and most have more than one child and pets. And we have over 400 families on the Consensual Living list parenting without coercion or punishments and most have more than one child and pets.









Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
Most people that think they had no punishment have actually been spanked as young children and will not remember. And thats the truth. I think leaving the child with no consequences is leaving your children to the wolves, and my mom tried lots of GD with us to no avail.

I doubt anyone would find our child "left to the wolves"; and we impose no punishments or consequences, and never spanked. And our son experiences full autonomy, with engagement and information facilitated to diminish any unpleasant consequences. It really isn't black and white: GD does not equate to non-engagement and "left to the wolves".

Quote:

Effective discipline is based on loving guidance. It is based on the belief that children are born innately good and that our role as parents is to nurture their spirits as they learn about limits and boundaries, rather than to curb their tendencies toward wrongdoing. Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems.
See? None of that means "left to the wolves".

I am sad that you felt lack of engagement and facilitation as a child. That sounds scary and lonely. I certainly agree, that I wouldn't want that for our child either.

Pat


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 





















Ummm...there are over 1000 families on the AlwaysUnschooled list parenting without punishments and most have more than one child and pets. And we have over 400 families on the Consensual Living list parenting without coercion or punishments and most have more than one child and pets.









Pat

I believe you. I believe that by certain definitions of punishment, 1000s of families raise children without punishment. And definitely it is possible to raise children without coersion.

But by the definition of punishment I am using (an unpleasant stimulus that follows a behavior that causes the behavior to be less likely to occur in the future) I think its very, very difficult, and probably impossible, to raise children without punishment. Even showing your natural feelings: a frown, or a raised voice, averting eye contact... all of these things can influence behavior. Any of them could be punishment. Its impossible to control all the variations of human experience to avoid all punishment.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
Even showing your natural feelings: a frown, or a raised voice, averting eye contact... all of these things can influence behavior.

Sharing authentic feelings without blame and shame certainly is part of our process of creating mutually agreeable solutions. However, my feelings and needs are not imposed upon another in our family. I guess, the difference is the agenda isn't to modify behavior, it is to communicate authentically in relationship *toward* addressing everyone's needs. Each has the autonomy to choose his own response without an imposed consequence. Autonomy seems very different than *punishment*, imo.

Wikipedia "punishment": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment
Wikipedia "autonomy": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy

Pat


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
But by the definition of punishment I am using (an unpleasant stimulus that follows a behavior that causes the behavior to be less likely to occur in the future) I think its very, very difficult, and probably impossible, to raise children without punishment. Even showing your natural feelings: a frown, or a raised voice, averting eye contact... all of these things can influence behavior. Any of them could be punishment. Its impossible to control all the variations of human experience to avoid all punishment.

Maybe we should say _intentional_ punishment?


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
Wait, you got that I was saying "none of it is his fault" because that's how HE thinks, not what I think. right? I think he's an adult and is responsible for his own choices. He obviously does not.

For example, he used to steal money from me when I worked as a waitress at Waffle House. As far as he was concerned, it was justified. I had money, and he "needed" it.

He got caught with drug paraphernalia (well, he's gotten caught with drugs more than once). As far as he was concerned, it wasn't his fault though. If the guy behind him hadn't rear-ended him, the cops never would have looked through his car and found it. That's honestly truly how he feels.

When he got caught for drinking and driving, he thought it was my mom's fault, because she refused to drive him to his girlfriends house. This isn't an issue of being drunk and needing to go home (though imo that's not even an excuse for drunk driving). He was home. And he wanted to see his girlfriend.

I *totally* misunderstood you!!! LOL ...and I read it like 5 times too!!!!Pregnancy brain gets the best of me


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup* 
Maybe we should say _intentional_ punishment?

Yes, that's tempting, but then (e.g. earlier in this thread) you run into situations that were clearly aversive to the child, but the parent did not _intend_ them to be punishment.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

..


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

I had a good example happen to us last night.









DS1(7) sneakily stole a sticky alien







from DS2 (4)







. I saw it happen but got distracted. Shortly after, DS2 asked where his alien was and DS1 denied any knowledge of its whereabouts.







. I watched this unfold and thought about our discussion in order to pay special mind to how I was responding.









I asked DS1 to return the alien. He bacame righteously indignant, denying having stolen it and proceeding to wax poetic about all the injustices of this world and how they are forever being heaped upon his innocent shoulders. I listened calmly and then informed him I had actually *seen* him take the damn thing. His defence grew louder and more emphatic. I told him I trust that he will choose to do the right thing. I pointed out that he didn't seem to be enjoying himself very much and probably wasn't feeling very good inside. He was adamant. I then saw him wiggling in his seat as he struggled to slip the stolen alien into his pocket.

We carried on the rest of our dinner in relative peace (aside from the pale and guilty face of DS1). Afterwards (a few minutes later, DS2 again asked for his alien and the whole cycle started again. *sigh*. I asked DS1 what he would do if he were in my position, as the parent. I said I didn't want to have to actually force my way into his pocket because I respect his space but that I'm left in a tricky position. He said "what're you gonna do, ground me?". I said that I still think he can figure out how to do the right thing. "FINE!!!" he burst and pulled the alien from his pocket. I then told him that he and I could figure out a way to make this right. He could maybe do something for his little brother to make up for it and apologise to me for lying. He was kinda upset but then, on his own, decided he would draw a carebear pic for DS2 because he knows that Carebears are DS2's favourite. !
I poured on my admiration for his ability to make things right and be responsible for his mistakes. He drew an awsome picture. All is once again well with the world.

I know that within the context of our interaction there was the hint of a threat of punishment. But it was not intentional on my part at all. That, in my opinion, is the best it gets for us and it doesn't always work out so neatly in the end. I thought that not only would I share this experience because I actually thought about this thread in the midst of it







but also to see what any 100% non-punishers would think of it. Or anyone else for that matter !


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

THE DAILY GROOVE ~ by Scott Noelle
www.enjoyparenting.com/dailygroove

*:: Why Kids Lie ::*

PARENT: "Did you eat the banana that I *told* you was for later?"

TODDLER: (with banana residue on face and peel in hand) "No."

If children are innately good-natured, why do they tell lies?

They lie *because* they're good-natured... and they're doing their best to navigate the treacherous waters of a "de-natured" culture.
The toddler is being good-natured when she honors her hunger. It's not in her nature to believe in scarcity, nor to override her Inner Guidance with arbitrary limitations.
She's being good-natured when she meets her parent's *expectation* of wanting the forbidden fruit.
She's being good-natured when she gives the answer she believes the parent wants to hear. It's not in her nature to invite disapproval and disconnection.

In other words, we inadvertently teach our kids to lie when we participate in the Big Lie of our culture: conditionality.

Next time your child lies to you, take it as a cue to brush up on the Art of Unconditionality... and appreciate your child's good nature. 

* See also: http://dailygroove.net/big-lie
Permalink: http://dailygroove.net/why-kids-lie

Feel free to forward this message to your friends!

Copyright (c) 2007 by Scott Noelle
"Inspiration & Coaching for Progressive Parents"
http://www.ScottNoelle.com
http://www.EnjoyParenting.com
1-360-344-3117, or toll-free in the US:
1-877-ALL-4-JOY (1-877-255-4569)


----------



## Spanish Rose (Jan 29, 2007)

Mamajama, that was excellent!

Especially when you remained calm while he was "...proceeding to wax poetic about all the injustices of this world and how they are forever being heaped upon his innocent shoulders." That's alwways one of my triggers.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I'm







imagining mamajama's son focusing on the abundance in the world while stealing the sticky alien.


----------



## 2bluefish (Apr 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I'm







imagining mamajama's son focusing on the abundance in the world while stealing the sticky alien.
















:

I guess I'm pretty comfortable with conditions - being Jewish and all.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
I'm only belabouring the issue b/c I, too, am struggling with definitions. I still say what I did wasn't punishment, but I think it could be successfully argued that I used force and power. I don't think I did, but I can see how it's a gray area!

I am sooo with you there. lol.
I'd have called it coersion, but not punishment (even with the definition that daffodil used)


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
But by the definition of punishment I am using (an unpleasant stimulus that follows a behavior that causes the behavior to be less likely to occur in the future) I think its very, very difficult, and probably impossible, to raise children without punishment. Even showing your natural feelings: a frown, or a raised voice, averting eye contact... all of these things can influence behavior. Any of them could be punishment. Its impossible to control all the variations of human experience to avoid all punishment.

Yep, this is exactly how I see it, too. I sometimes say I don't punish, but I don't believe it's literally true. I just try not to punish in ways I think are particularly harmful. (Which pretty much means in ways Alfie Kohn thinks are harmful.)

It seems like a lot of people want to separate out the kinds of punishing they think are bad and use the word "punishment" only for those. It's simpler to say punishment is always wrong, and if something is okay it must not be punishment. But I just can't see it that way.

It would be nice if there were some simple word or phrase we could use to describe "bad punishing," but I can't think of one. It's not necessarily helpful to distinguish intentional and unintentional punishment, because unintentional punishment can be just as harmful. I don't think there's always a clear separation between the two, anyway. You might say that simply expressing your feelings in a natural way is completely different from intentionally punishing. But what if you have the ability (as most of us do, most of the time) to hide or minimize your natural feelings, but you choose not to? Couldn't it be argued that by expressing your anger (or sadness, annoyance, etc.) when you don't absolutely have to, you're making a deliberate choice to punish?

Instead of asking whether a particular action is or is not punishment (interesting as it might be to debate the question), it's probably more useful to ask: Does it undermine intrinsic motivation? Does it cause undue shame, humiliation, or resentment? Does it make the child feel you love him less when he acts in certain ways?


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
Just last night I had to pick up my DD and carry her into the bedroom. She was having a total meltdown because her brother was reading a book and she wanted to take it in to the bedroom for story time and I said no, she had to pick a different book. The poor kid was so tired and obviously not able to control her emotions. I felt sympathy for her. And I knew it was not her fault that she was reacting this way and also that it is unsettling for her and even frightening sometimes when she loses control of herself. So there was no scolding or demanding. I just gently said "hey, S is reading that book right now so we're going to have to go pick another one". And she started yelling and I could see she was not able to just go with me so I said "hey kiddo, let's go pick another story" and I picked her up and carried her to the bedroom.

She screamed "No! Put me down! I don't want to go!" but I carried her anyways and when we got in there I soon found ways to soothe her and within a minute or two of us arriving in the bedrom she was happily climbing in bed with another book. (yes, I pat myself on the back in moments like this because I have many moments where i screw it all up, lol!).

I thought about this example all night and how it WAS coercion on my part to carry her in there. But why wasn't it punishment? I know, but find it hard to write out.

I think there are three different ways to look at the "was it punishment?" question.

One is to ask whether you _meant_ it to be a punishment. It seems clear to me that you didn't. You weren't trying to do anything to change her future behavior, and you didn't _want_ to give her an experience she would find aversive. You were just doing what you thought would get her happy again as quickly as possible.

You could also ask whether your actions actually _served_ as a punishment. I don't think so. I suppose it's possible that being carried kicking and screaming into another room might have been unpleasant enough that it would make her less likely to melt down and have to be carried the next time something like this comes up. But I doubt it.

And you could ask whether your daughter _perceived_ it as a punishment. Did she think you were upset about the way she was acting and deliberately trying to do something unpleasant to her as a punishment? I doubt it, from the way you described it.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
You might say that simply expressing your feelings in a natural way is completely different from intentionally punishing. But what if you have the ability (as most of us do, most of the time) to hide or minimize your natural feelings, but you choose not to? *Couldn't it be argued that by expressing your anger (or sadness, annoyance, etc.) when you don't absolutely have to, you're making a deliberate choice to punish?*

Very interesting discussion! Thanks everyone.

I find I'm a bit bothered by this question (bolded above). Can you explain a bit further what you mean? How is my expressing of *natural* emotions a *deliberate choice* to punish?


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Ok, so we can't really use the word "punishment" to say anything. lol

So I'm going to say it's definitely possible to parent without imposed penalties, which would include (punitive) time outs, groundings, and unrelated consequences. Iow, penalties (the way we are using them so far in this discussion lol) are not necessary.
It's probably possible to parent without using imposed consequences that are *intended* to change behavior. Iow, consequences that are intended to change behavior, are probably not necessary.
I don't think it's possible to parent totally without consequences that may or may not change behavior. Iow, consequences that actually change behavior (even though that wasn't the intention) probably are necessary, in that it seems that it would be near impossible to completely avoid them (though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a mama or two here that could!)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
It seems like a lot of people want to separate out the kinds of punishing they think are bad and use the word "punishment" only for those. It's simpler to say punishment is always wrong, and if something is okay it must not be punishment. But I just can't see it that way.

But I think of it as separate because that's how the word punishment is seen in the general public. People hear "that child needs to be punished" and think spanking, timeout, take away priviledges, etc. They don't think "mom needs to look at him in a disapproving way that causes him to change his behavior." lol (ok I suck at spur of the moment examples)

It's hard to separate the every day common usage of the word, and the technical usage that seems to be accepted by many here. Maybe that's the bottom line for me.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
I think there are three different ways to look at the "was it punishment?" question.

Makes sense to me.
And if I apply that to my toys r us fiasco, it would end up not a punishment, as far as I can tell.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I find I'm a bit bothered by this question (bolded above). Can you explain a bit further what you mean? How is my expressing of *natural* emotions a *deliberate choice* to punish?

If we are using the technical definition of punishment, which is anything that makes a behavior less likely to occur in the future (not the exact words), then any number of things could be a punishment (even if those things aren't considered punishment when using the merriam webster definition of the word, which is basically "a penalty imposed for an offense")

Which sort of begs the question- which definition really is more useful in discussions like this? the technical one, or the commonly used one? (I'm honestly wondering this, I'm totally not being snarky!)


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 

"If you don't clean up this mess I'm putting it away for a while and you won't be able to play with these toys!" *punishment*

VERSUS

"I see you are having a hard time using this toy safely. I think we'll put it away until I can sit with you and help you use it safely." *not punishment*


I'm totally confused by this example. Perhaps both scenarios aren't connected?
How would you resolve scenario number one? My son knows that it's his responsability to put his toys back when he's done. If he doesn't, said toy is confiscated for a few days. I'd like to find an alternative...but I just can't think of a better way to appraoch the situation.

For the second scenario, I'm assuming we're talking about a child throwing a toy. I've appraoched this sitaution with my son a little differently. Toy flies across the room. I pick it up and hand it back, letting him know that throwing toys is harmful to others, and that it's not acceptable in our house. Toy flies across the room again. I pick up the toy and before handing it back to Kai, I let him know that if he throws it once more, it will be taken away. I then show him how to play with the toy on the floor. Toy flies across the room again, toy is taken away. I then remind him that I told him what would happen, and that the toy is being taken away until he can play with it properly. This has worked for Kai.

Now, the above example is a far cry from what my mom would've done to me as a little one. I feel that I made a good choice, considering the example I had to go by. What would you have done differently in my example?

I am eager to learn other alternatives.


----------



## 3lilmonsters (Feb 24, 2007)

So I haven't been on for almost 24 hours and I'm trying to catch up...I'm still 12 hours behind, lol, but I found something I couldn't wait to comment on.

The making up excuses/looking for the reason behind the behavior. I do believe that all behaviors - positive, negative or neutral - have some reason behind them. It could be something as major as underlying emotional issues, or something as mundane as a mixture of boredom and curiousity. I believe this is true for infants right on up to adults.

Just because there is a reason for the behavior though, does not necessarily make the behavior ok. Finding the reason does, however, make it easier to curb unwanted behavior. If a 2yo is tantruming at the grocery store, it is because they have a need or desire that is not being met. It could be that they're hungry, tired or are just wanting to go home because they've been out too long. If a teenager drinks at a party it could be because they don't have a good relationship with their parents, or school is too stressful, or maybe just because they're curious about it. If you can find that underlying reason, imo it makes it much easier to work on the behavior.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I find I'm a bit bothered by this question (bolded above). Can you explain a bit further what you mean? How is my expressing of *natural* emotions a *deliberate choice* to punish?

Well, you have some control over whether (and to what extent) you actually express your emotions, right? Maybe not all the time, but a lot of the time. I know I sometimes feel angry, but try not to show it - especially if it's my 1 year old who's making me angry. It's not going to be helpful in any way to show him how I really feel when, for what seems like the hundredth time that day, he's screaming in frustration because I'm trying to stop him from damaging something.

So when I DO show my anger or annoyance or frustration or whatever, it's not as if it's something that just happens automatically whether I want it to or not. It's often something that happens because I've chosen to let it happen (or at least not made a deliberate choice to prevent it.) I know my daughter doesn't like it when I'm angry, and I know that if she sees that something she's done has made me angry there's a good chance she'll be less likely to do that thing again. So I know my anger can act as a punishment, and I know I can (usually) hide my anger if I feel I ought to. If I don't hide it, that's an awful lot like making a deliberate decision to punish, isn't it?


----------



## lanamommyphd07 (Feb 14, 2007)

I read about the dessert and toys thing and had a modification idea there--If the goal is to get the toys picked up eventually either on command or within a time frame, then dessert could be an okay thing, but only if used in a "time" context, such as "dessert will be ready in five minutes. If you have the toys picked up, you may have some then." If the kid doesn't get the toys up, then misses the time of dessert "oh, I see that the toys are put away, but it is too far past dessert time now. The next time we have a dessert opportunity I hope you might take it sooner", not the food itself. Food reinforcers aren't really good for kids anyway, as they set up conditions for behavior that involve too many rewards and treats. I like something more like this for special treats "I just noticed that you put your toys away exactly how I asked you to! We'll have enough time for a surprise now! Want to have some jello with me?" as opposed to setting it up as a hoped-for consequence. (like a dangling carrot--it's coercion--not too effective in the long run).


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Hey, everyone







At the top of the forum, there is a sticky called "Alternatives to Punishment' Here is the stickied list, as written by Peggy O'Mara, owner and publisher of Mothering Magazine:

Quote:

*Use positive reinforcement.

Create a positive environment.

Say yes as much as possible.

Save no for the important things.

Use natural consequences.

Use logical consequences.

Use restitution.

Leave it up to your child.

Compromise.

State your expectations, and get out of the way.

Give specific instructions.

Give a reason.

Offer help.

Give a choice.

Redirect your child.

Remove your child.

Make positive statements.

Give in occasionally.

Give your child time to agree.

Simply insist.

Make rules.

Ignore some behavior.

Avoid nagging and threats.

Distract your child.

Use humor.

Make it a game.

Be willing to admit your mistakes.

Stop and think before you act.

Don't make a big fuss over little things.

Stick to routines.

Don't hurry your children too much.

Get to the root of the problem.

Correct one behavior at a time.

Give yourselves time.

Use the golden rule.

Model appropriate behavior.

Think of your child as an equal.

Always keep your love for your child in mind.
*


----------



## 3lilmonsters (Feb 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie* 
I'm totally confused by this example. Perhaps both scenarios aren't connected?
How would you resolve scenario number one? My son knows that it's his responsability to put his toys back when he's done. If he doesn't, said toy is confiscated for a few days. I'd like to find an alternative...but I just can't think of a better way to appraoch the situation.

I'm not the person who gave the examples in question, but here's my take on it. I've realized that the majority of parents seem to expect their kids to behave better than adults. In all honesty, *I* don't always put my stuff back when I'm done with it. I've been trying to work on remembering that when I see that my kids have left their toys out. One thing that we do at our house is realize that part of being a family (or our family, anyways) is picking up after each other once in a while. If I've left my school books out on the table and ds and dd want to play a board game they'll usually put them away and mention something along the lines of "mom, your books were on the table so we put them in your bag". If I come across Rescue Heros in the middle of my living room floor I'll generally pick them up and say something similar. However, if the mess is sizable (we do not have limit on how many toys are allowed out), I do expect that they will be cleaning it up. If in the scenario with the board game they came to the table and it was covered in dishes and flour and a huge mess left over from me baking something they probably wouldn't be too eager to pick it up themselves, and I'd be fine with them coming to me and asking me to take care of it so that they could use the table.

Now, if the lego village that they've built for the above mentioned Rescue Heros is covering every surface in the living room and there is a reason that the living room has to be cleaned up asap (company or bedtime - none of us like getting up to a mess), and they are not cleaning it up themselves, then I will do it for them, but chances are I'll just take a big trash bag, dump it all in there and stick in in a closet to be dealt with when I have more time. I don't think that is punishment, however I do think it is a consequence. It seems to me to be quite logical. But someone has to deal with the mess in the trash bag. I'm fine with being that someone - if they're fine with it being on my timeline.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie* 
For the second scenario, I'm assuming we're talking about a child throwing a toy. I've appraoched this sitaution with my son a little differently. Toy flies across the room. I pick it up and hand it back, letting him know that throwing toys is harmful to others, and that it's not acceptable in our house. Toy flies across the room again. I pick up the toy and before handing it back to Kai, I let him know that if he throws it once more, it will be taken away. I then show him how to play with the toy on the floor. Toy flies across the room again, toy is taken away. I then remind him that I told him what would happen, and that the toy is being taken away until he can play with it properly. This has worked for Kai.

Now, the above example is a far cry from what my mom would've done to me as a little one. I feel that I made a good choice, considering the example I had to go by. What would you have done differently in my example?

I am eager to learn other alternatives.


I'm not even going to say what my mom would have done to me as a little one, lol. What I do here for my older two who are plenty old enough (based not on their chronological age, but their developmental level...just a disclaimer, I know all kids are different) to know that throwing toys is a no go there are a couple of ways I might handle it. It gets back to the underlying reason. If they're throwing the toy because they're just too wound up, then I strongly suggest that they head outside for a game of ball. It might go something like this :

me : Hey, how about some outside play? I'll get the kick balls...
ds :no, that's ok. I'll just stay in.
me : you sure? You seem to me like you're bursting with energy. I'm going to need for you to either burn it by throwing things outside, or find a way to control it inside. You know throwing things inside is totally not cool.

...and he either goes outside or moves on to another activity. If it's thrown in anger I'll suggest some cooling down time and say something like "dd, I know ds is teasing you, but it's still not ok to throw anything at him. I think you should go take some time and come back when you've got it under control". And she'll either get it together or go up to her room for however long (sometimes seconds, sometimes an hour) and come down when she's ready to deal with him.

There are also certain toys that they just can't seem to not throw. These are outside toys and are kept out of regular toys...for outside use only. Any toy that is perpetually thrown ends up in this container.

With my youngest...I know he understands about the throwing in the house thing, but he's still young and impulsive. I generally just remind him and/or redirect him and if it gets to be an issue the toy gets a time out worded something like "wow, that toy really wants to be thrown! Let's put it up until it can calm down" and depending on his reaction it may be followed by a "hey! Look! A chipmunk!"







:









Acutally, these things tend to work really well.

I'll be interested to see what other people would do...


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

*


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frenchie* 
How would you resolve scenario number one? My son knows that it's his responsability to put his toys back when he's done. If he doesn't, said toy is confiscated for a few days.

Well, I confess I wouldn't give a 4 year old that responsibility. I don't think they are mature enough, so I would predict that the only way I could get it to work would be to force the issue. So I don't have such a rule.









In our house the kids are allowed to make as much mess as they want in their room. What is happening lately (as they just got their own room this past Xmas) is that the mess gets to the point where they can't play or find things. DD will come out and tell me this, and then we'll talk about why that is and that when you tidy up it makes it easier to not lose things. Then I'll offer to help her clean up her room and she joins me with gusto. It's slowly sinking in but I just don't think she's going to get this _to the point of being proactive about it_ until she is much older.

As regards messes outside the bedroom, it's usually not a problem. Before they had a room the toys lived all around the house and when it got to be cleanup time we made a game of it. Or I'd wait until they wanted to move on to the next activity (one that required my assistance to initiate) and I'd say "okay, but we need to put this stuff away first" and it's done quite happily. I never force them to help. If they should refuse to help I might clean it up and tell them that I felt it was unfair that I had to clean up their mess all by myself. Or I might just continue with what I'm doing and say "I'd be happy to do X but first we need to clean up that puzzle". This is, I admit, a bit more controlling but fortunately it is rare that it gets to this. Hey, sometimes my house is a mess and I just don't feel like cleaning it at that moment. I would be pi$$ed if my DH tried to coerce me into doing it, lol!









Quote:

Toy flies across the room. I pick it up and hand it back, letting him know that throwing toys is harmful to others, and that it's not acceptable in our house. Toy flies across the room again. I pick up the toy and before handing it back to Kai, I let him know that if he throws it once more, it will be taken away.
Again my perspective is a bit different. I think that expecting him to stop just b/c you said so is setting him up to fail. I don't know a single 3 or 4 year old worth their salt who would stop something just b/c an adult told them to, lol.







I don't want obedience, I want them thinking of solutions...so what I would do is maybe go over to the child and say "hey, I'm concerned that someone is going to get hurt. would you like to throw [some soft toy somewhere safe]?" or ask I'd ask him for suggestions. If it's obvious he is having a really hard time letting go of whatever play he's immersed himself in, I would say "we need to find a solution here or we'll have to find something different for you to play with" and I may eventually indeed have to remove the toy. If I did that, I would try to immediately find something else for him to do, and later if he asked for the toy I would happily give it back. I strive to convey a kind attitude of "this sucks, I know, but it's just not safe otherwise".

However, if you caught me on a bad day I'd say "hey, this toy is not for throwing!!" and I'd shove it up on a shelf!


----------



## 3lilmonsters (Feb 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
However, if you caught me on a bad day I'd say "hey, this toy is not for throwing!!" and I'd shove it up on a shelf!









If we're going to start bringing up bad days I think I'll back out of this discussion right now


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *3lilmonsters* 
If we're going to start bringing up bad days I think I'll back out of this discussion right now


















no kidding


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
Which sort of begs the question- which definition really is more useful in discussions like this? the technical one, or the commonly used one? (I'm honestly wondering this, I'm totally not being snarky!)

I used to be firmly convinced that the technical definition was more useful. Now I'm not quite so sure. If it really doesn't correspond to the way most people think of punishment, maybe it's not helpful. If I want to talk about whether expressing natural emotions can be harmful in the same ways that time outs for disobedience can be harmful, maybe I should say just that, instead of saying I think expressing natural emotions can actually be considered a punishment. Maybe it's too confusing to apply the word "punishment" to something that just doesn't feel like a punishment to most people. (I used to think everyone would instantly recognize and agree that a particular thing _was_ really a punishment, once I pointed it out. But I eventually realized I was dead wrong about that.)


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
I used to be firmly convinced that the technical definition was more useful. Now I'm not quite so sure. If it really doesn't correspond to the way most people think of punishment, maybe it's not helpful. If I want to talk about whether expressing natural emotions can be harmful in the same ways that time outs for disobedience can be harmful, maybe I should say just that, instead of saying I think expressing natural emotions can actually be considered a punishment. Maybe it's too confusing to apply the word "punishment" to something that just doesn't feel like a punishment to most people. (I used to think everyone would instantly recognize and agree that a particular thing _was_ really a punishment, once I pointed it out. But I eventually realized I was dead wrong about that.)

This is exactly where I'm at, too, only I couldn't have written it so clearly and precisely.

But its still hard to find a definition of punishment that we all agree on. It seems that we all find the word "punishment" so aversive that we tend to keep redefining our own parenting behaviors so that we don't have to call our actions punishment.

Maybe it would make more sense to title this thread: "Negative consequences - are they ever necessary?"


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
But its still hard to find a definition of punishment that we all agree on. It seems that we all find the word "punishment" so aversive that we tend to keep redefining our own parenting behaviors so that we don't have to call our actions punishment.

But I think it's more than that. I think that the word punishment is so aversive, because most people think of it in terms of the MW definition, which many of us would say is not the ideal way to discipline.
If people heard "punishment" and thought of the technical term, it wouldn't be aversive, because we'd all know that it also referred to things that we think are good ways to discipline.

Did we agree on using the word "penalty" to refer to unrelated consequences that are intended to change behavior? I have no problem clarifying "I don't punish" with "punishments that are used as a penalty" or something like that.

And thanks to this discussion, I am thinking about the technical use of the term. And it does make sense, but it's a bit of a difficult transition, just because of how widely punishment=penalty is used.
But I do see how what REALLY matters is how the child perceives it.

Those of you who think of punishment in terms of the technical definition- do you have a background in psychology or something related?


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
Did we agree on using the word "penalty" to refer to unrelated consequences that are intended to change behavior? I have no problem clarifying "I don't punish" with "punishments that are used as a penalty" or something like that.

Penalty seems like a pretty good word. But the consequence doesn't have to be unrelated for it to be the kind of penalty most of us want to avoid, does it?

Quote:

Those of you who think of punishment in terms of the technical definition- do you have a background in psychology or something related?
I have a background in biology, and I've spent a lot of time reading and thinking about dog training. The operant conditioning way of thinking about punishment seems so natural to me, I was honestly surprised to find how unnatural it seems to a lot of other people.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
Penalty seems like a pretty good word. But the consequence doesn't have to be unrelated for it to be the kind of penalty most of us want to avoid, does it?

I agree.
Geez- my brain has been well excercised the last few days! lol


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:

Those of you who think of punishment in terms of the technical definition- do you have a background in psychology or something related?
Developmental psychology and psycholinguistics - so I've taught about behaviorism a lot. I can even get into positive and negative rewards and the differenes between operant and classical conditioning! (But I won't.)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68* 
However, if you caught me on a bad day I'd say "hey, this toy is not for throwing!!" and I'd shove it up on a shelf!









That's a bad day? Oh boy do I have a long way to go!

My bad days are "DON'T THROW THAT TOY!" (at full volume) or "If you throw that toy one more time, it's going out into the garage!" (complete and utter threat).







:

I think I'll back out now too...


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
Those of you who think of punishment in terms of the technical definition- do you have a background in psychology or something related?

Psych degree... plus I have 15 years of ABA hands-on experience with people with autism and other special needs - I can't stop myself from thinking of the technical definition for punishment and don't always realize that other people aren't using that same definition. Its like second nature to me, I guess.

But in spite of lots of experience with ABA, I don't use it (deliberately) with our own child.

Oh but I just wanted to add that I have learned way more from Mamaduck, Piglet68, WuWei, Sledg, MsMoMpls, and many others here on MDC about parenting than I ever learned from my psych degree


----------



## theirmomjayne (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mpenny1001* 
Also, I don't know if the definition even matters. What do I care if someone thinks I am punishing my kid? At the end of the day, how my family feels and works together is the most important thing, not what label we use to define ourselves.

I think you are right!


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

It was going from having very definite punishment for our 'negative' actions to having it be hit or miss...because really that's what it is in the real world. People speed all the time...but they don't always get a ticket. People have casual sex quite often...but the don't always end up pregnant. I think that is one of the dangers, if you will, of punishment. A child learns to react in response to the imposed artificial consequences, rather than out or respect for what is right.
I think this is an absolutely brilliant point, and it underlines why we have chosen not to use punishment. I really do think that most of what punishment teaches kids is that bad things happen IF you get caught.

Anyway, we use coercion occasionally as a last resort (eg, I will put her forcibly in the carseat if I really have to) and we will remove DD from a situation she can't handle or an object, animal, or person she cannot treat safely and respectfully. But we do not punish in the sense of using time-outs, removal of privileges, etc. I often forget how nonmainstream this is, because actually I think we're fairly strict parents.


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

I struggled to learn GD- coming from a very abusive background and I can remember the day that it dawned on me the difference between punishment and discipline - I had not been hitting the kids for a long time but felt I was very permissive and was not happy the older kids did not have as many good healthy limits or ways of interacting-- any how one day I had sent them into different rooms for - I don't even remember, what I do remember is that they were each laughing and having fun- doing something else - and I was mad about the fact that they were having fun- then I stopped and big light bulb came on-- ok what was my intent- to stop or change what they were doing before- why should I be upset that they are happily doing something else? and that was the key to defining punishment for me- I didn't need to punish- but I did need the kids to be responsive, responsible and aware/respectful of others--- If I were to endeavor to PUNISH it would actually be modeling the opposite of what I wanted from them. re-directing them or having them move to another room or area of the house to be away from each other as to not be hurting each other -some time and space to reflect and regroup, can teach them how to get what they really want and that is to be happy and enjoying themselves as well as how to approprately approach a conflict first with thought and not just physical action--- unfortunately any and many of the same things can be used to punish-- I know i have very clear limits in my mind about what feels like punishment - I think that kids can be raised without punishment but would have to basically agree and disagree with OP's statement "(and I consider imposed consequences to be punishment)" has to do with intent and what you think consequences are-- if say an adult were to hit me- I would call the police and want them jailed and first of all I would get away remove myself from the situation- If my child hits me or another child- it has to stop- it is not permissed or ignored and I will not be calling the police, sometimes words work and sometimes not- attention to the hurt child and ingnoring the offender can sometimes work- asking a hitting child to remove themselves to another room to cool down- and we will discuss it later-if it is a concerted effort all will leave the room or seperate themselves until they can stop being physically dangerous and or verbally attacking but almost any of my actions will be imposing to the child because it is not ok to hit and my view as a parent to not "allow" this kind of behavior in my household will prevail I do not have to live in an abusive or violent environment and it is my job as a parent to teach and define and example that --- but my view is being imposed on the children- and that can sound very scary- but it is how I view it - we are all either going to be allowing an angry side of ourselves and our children to impose it's will or another more thoughtful side-- sure we have to pay attention to unhappiness and unfairness and the daily struggle for understanding but there are different ways to do it-


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
I think this is an absolutely brilliant point, and it underlines why we have chosen not to use punishment. I really do think that most of what punishment teaches kids is that bad things happen IF you get caught.

That makes me think of that Tool song
"if consequences dictate your course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right. It's only wrong if you get caught."
And its so true. lol.


----------

