# Do you ever think punishment is appropriate?



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

So, punishment. 

We try to run with natural consequences here. But sometimes, there are things that happen that don't have any, but are also not acceptable behavior. 

And what is the difference between imposing a punishment and deciding what a natural consequence would be? Where's the line and what's the difference?


----------



## wanderinblues (Aug 14, 2011)

Can you give an example? We do some things that I'm sure seem like punishment, but I see as consequences. Example: DS won't stop trying to take DSD's toy away from her, despite me talking to him about it, and he's getting increasingly frustrated and violent. I tell him he has to go to his room (any physical seperation really) because he won't stop being rude and we don't grab from people. Consequence - if you're going to be mean, you can't be around. Either I go in shortly after, or he tells me he's ready to talk. I like "time ins" better, but this does work really well for DS to calm down by himself, and he ususally seems to realize he needs it because he goes to his room with few objections.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

A natural consequence is something that just happens because of what you did. For example, you get mad and throw and toy and the toy breaks. Your toy breaking was a natural consequence -- it happened naturally and no body did it to you to teach you a lesson. 


A logical consequence is imposed by an authority, but in some way relates to what you did. Ex - you throw a toy and the toy is taken away from you. There is a strong link between what you did and what happened, but another person decided what was a reasonable thing to have happen next and made it happen.


A punishment is something unpleasant that may not be linked in any way to what happened, but is imposed by an authority in hopes that you will refrain from the undesired behavior. You throw a toy and you can't play computer games for a week. 


A natural consequence isn't something that a parent decides, it is something that just happens. The other two are things that parents decide. The line between them can be fuzzy, and I think that people can get overly hung up on never punishing but really just mincing words. I've heard parents tell their kids things are "the logical consequence" when really it is just a punishment and the parent is only kidding themselves. 


I think that greater degree that we use natural consequences and gentle discipline the better, because I think they are more likely to help kids develop intrinsic motivation to do the right thing, but I don't think this is an all or nothing deal. I've occasionally taken privileges away from my kids for things. It's only happened a handful times and my oldest is 18, but I think that its OK to have this as a last resort. Doing this once in a blue moon really gets the point across that "this is a really, really big deal to mom." Sometimes, kids need that message.


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

I remember a discussion similar to this one some time back that discussed swatting a child on the behind for running out into the road in front of an oncoming car. The mom felt a strong punishment was necessary so that the child would never do it again biut there was quite a bit of disagreement expressed. Of course, allowing the natural consequence to occur would not have been appropriate. But was the swat appropriate?I think most who posted felt that physical punishment is never justified.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Okay. Logical consequence helps bridge that gap.

Example: 8yo slammed her bedroom door in 2yo's face, after being mean and telling 2yo to go away. 

There is no natural consequence there, but it is behavior I am not down with. 2yo wasn't doing anything other than knocking on 8yo's door, and asking to play. 

I'm not even sure what a logical consequence is there. Lol

Most of the time we discuss things, and no big deal. But this one sort of baffled me. 

The other one that gets me is when natural consequence make my life more difficult. Ex: 8yo's desk is a mess. She complains she can't use it, etc etc. Seems like the logical consequence is letting her get so annoyed that she cleans it (it's quite literally a pile right now). Except - her desk is in our living room. So I have to deal with stuff falling off of it, the cats playing with stuff on it, etc.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Adina wrote:


> The other one that gets me is when natural consequence make my life more difficult. Ex: 8yo's desk is a mess. She complains she can't use it, etc etc. Seems like the logical consequence is letting her get so annoyed that she cleans it (it's quite literally a pile right now). Except - her desk is in our living room. So I have to deal with stuff falling off of it, the cats playing with stuff on it, etc.


:cuss I am right there with you!!! Sometimes it seems that the natural consequences hurt the parent more than the kid. At that point, it's time to impose some consequences for the kid that are logically related to the effect of the kid's choices on the parent. When something on her desk becomes a problem for you, take that particular thing and deal with it: Throw it away, put it in the donation box, or put it away in a better place, whichever YOU decide is appropriate. Kid lost the opportunity to deal with that item by failing to attend to it before it became a problem for you. When a whole area has been a problem for some time, and kid has not responded to repeated pleas to clean up, set a deadline by which kid will clean it up or you will get it done--depending on your schedule, that might mean you clean it together and she can't do fun stuff until it's done, or you do it while she's asleep or out of the house. The natural consequence of your having to do it is that the kid will lose things she would have chosen to keep.

In the long run, the only way out of this kind of problem is insisting that the space get tidied up on a regular basis. I have a hard time with this, but when I truly do insist and keep insisting, it works!

Cynthia wrote:


> I remember a discussion similar to this one some time back that discussed swatting a child on the behind for running out into the road in front of an oncoming car. The mom felt a strong punishment was necessary so that the child would never do it again biut there was quite a bit of disagreement expressed. Of course, allowing the natural consequence to occur would not have been appropriate.


Sigh. I hear this one so often that I addressed it in my article on the role of fear in parenting:

_After rescuing your precious child from his brush with death, they say, you must spank him to teach him never to do that again. This is a classic example of showing fear in the wrong way. *The parent's fear for the child's safety is escalated into anger* ("I told you not to do that! How dare you disobey me? I'm your mother!") and the child learns not to fear cars but to fear the parent and the pain she inflicts.

__Well, one day Nicholas ran out into traffic: He jogged confidently into a crosswalk as soon as the light changed, not having noticed that the driver stopped on the cross-street was talking on a cell phone and signaling for a left turn. She also started moving as soon as the light changed, heading right for him. My reaction was to scream and grab him and drag him onto the sidewalk and point to the obliviously departing car as I shook wordlessly. Then I explained, "She wasn't looking. She almost hit you! Oh, I'm so glad you're safe!" After many hugs, I reminded him that even when we have the right of way, we have to beware of cars that might break the rules. Although Nicholas thought I was over-reacting ("The car didn't even touch me, Mama! I think she did see me."), he did understand my concern. I don't see how spanking him would have helped._

Yes, the natural consequence of allowing the child to be hit by a car is unacceptable, so the logical consequence you impose is that you suddenly grab your child and probably frighten him, and then you force his attention to the danger and to going over the safety rules. Your fear, and any fear or shock you induce in your child, are logical consequences of the danger. If the child is old enough that he's been allowed to walk around by himself, the logical consequence of his lapse in judgment is that he can't walk alone for a while until he demonstrates appropriate safety skills.

Hurting your child to teach him that he has to be more careful not to get hurt is not a logical consequence.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

adinal said:


> Okay. Logical consequence helps bridge that gap.
> 
> Example: 8yo slammed her bedroom door in 2yo's face, after being mean and telling 2yo to go away.


Did you try telling her, emphatically, that the younger sibling has feelings just like her, and getting to think through how she would feel is someone treated her that way?



> The other one that gets me is when natural consequence make my life more difficult. Ex: 8yo's desk is a mess. She complains she can't use it, etc etc. Seems like the logical consequence is letting her get so annoyed that she cleans it (it's quite literally a pile right now). Except - her desk is in our living room. So I have to deal with stuff falling off of it, the cats playing with stuff on it, etc.


Actually, I think that's the natural consequence. Is the stuff good stuff that needs a storage system? Stuff that has a storage system that she won't use? Some stuff that is really trash? A logical consequence is taking all the stuff and putting it in a box. When she's ready, she can sort through the things she actually wants to keep and put them away properly.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

cynthia mosher said:


> I remember a discussion similar to this one some time back that discussed swatting a child on the behind for running out into the road in front of an oncoming car. The mom felt a strong punishment was necessary so that the child would never do it again biut there was quite a bit of disagreement expressed. Of course, allowing the natural consequence to occur would not have been appropriate. But was the swat appropriate?I think most who posted felt that physical punishment is never justified.


It's a myth that strong punishment works better than mild consequences. It's no more effective and has counter-productive side effects.

It's also myth that spanking or any other discipline measure is so effective that using it once reliably causes a child to never do a behavior again.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Linda wrote:


> A logical consequence is taking all the stuff and putting it in a box. When she's ready, she can sort through the things she actually wants to keep and put them away properly.


Okay, logical, yes, but: Does that ever work for anybody??? We have FOURTEEN boxes of stuff in our basement that my partner cleaned up because our kid would not clean it up...when he was between 4 and 7 years old...and he's turning 10 next week and shows no sign of ever being willing to deal with that stuff! I would just throw it away, except that the two times I insisted he sit down and sort a box with my help (which was a lengthy ordeal) we found 90% crap but also valuable toys, an important missing piece of an appliance, and $40 cash! In my house, at least, sorting the stuff when you first handle it is a far, far better method than shoveling it into a box without looking.


----------



## teacha42 (Aug 16, 2003)

Linda on the move described things really well. I believe every action has a consequence of some sort. My 16 year old has a driver's permit, but he is aware, and has been for a few years now, that if he chooses to drink and drive or drive under any kind of influence, it will mean he will need to take a time out on driving. I won't sell the vehicle (he doesn't own one yet and I still wouldn't sell it if he had one), or make him stay home, or take tv, games, or whatever else away. I won't lecture or belittle or turn it into a crisis or make him doubt himself on some stupid or traumatic level. It's been made clear he wouldn't be a poopy or corrupt human being for doing so - it would just mean he wasn't quite ready to take that challenge on... that he wasn't quite responsible enough yet, and that's ok. We have let him know that if that happened while in our care, when and if he felt he was ready to take that responsibility back on - he just needs to let us know and why he feels he is ready. That's the reality, and my boys know that they are not my only responsibility in life. I do have a responsibility to society and my mind will never change on that level. This can be viewed as punishment, but that's not how my kids perceive it. They won't be surprised or feel screwed over, if they make a poor choice and can't drive. It won't damage our relationship or the impact we have on them. My kids would think we didn't really care about them if we did it any different. I certainly would not let either of my 2 boys show up home drunk after driving and just give them the message that because they weren't caught by law enforcement that they were ok. lol. That's permissive and neglectful parenting. We are a punishment free home, but helping a child be accountable with empathy, understanding, and grace (no lectures, shame/guilt/threats) is not punishment. 
Also, enviro, most likely your child had too much to begin with. If he doesn't care about it now, then he doesn't need it - especially after this amount of years. You might need it or feel some attachment, but clearly your child doesn't. Parents often overload their children with material items at a young age, then blame or get frustrated with the child when they can't handle it - when in actuality it's the parent's fault or issue. It sounds as though you are making or creating a battle when there isn't one - as if it's your personal battle with yourself and your beliefs - not your kid's. We don't teach kids to care or take care of their stuff by taking it away and packing it up and then 1 or 2 years later making them choose between items. You should have gone through it and respected you child's lack of desire to do so, because most likely he had moved on. You should have found what you could sell or make money off of and left it at that. Or maybe packed away and saved childhood mementos for your grandchildren, or both... fulfilling your own need without making it your son's issue or concern.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I have punished. It's something that I keep on the back-burner because I don't want to feel like my only options as a parent are things that are super labor-intensive. But the very few times I've tried to actually punish it hasn't really "worked". What works better for me are some fairly creative ways of phrasing logical consequences. 

In the case of the door slamming, my older child would need to help me calm her sibling down and make things better. I would say that I am simply not willing to deal with the fall-out from her poor choices on my own. That may involve cooking a special snack for the younger, reading a book or helping me with chores while I tend to the younger. Stuff like that. It's all a bit contrived but it feels good enough to me and it does seem to work pretty well. 

For the desk, I think I may say that a child who isn't able to keep a reasonably neat desk is not ready for a desk in the common area that she is in charge of. I would probably say something like, "If you want to work in the living room I need X level of tidyness". We lucked out with a really neat kid though so I haven't dealt with that too much. My younger is much messier and I just really limit her toys out. Not as a punishment but more of a method for living together.


----------



## blessedwithboys (Dec 8, 2004)

adinal said:


> Okay. Logical consequence helps bridge that gap.
> 
> Example: 8yo slammed her bedroom door in 2yo's face, after being mean and telling 2yo to go away.
> 
> ...


Slamming doors can equal broken fingers. The logical consequence for slamming doors is to have the door taken off the hinges and put in the garage.


----------



## fayebond (Jun 16, 2012)

Side note, @EnviroBecca, no, that has never worked for me, all that I get is a pile that is a ton of stuff. Maybe next time you know you will have a day to focus on this,it's swap time. So he gets to fill a box with something he finds desirable, and that box goes in the back of the pile until he gets all the other boxes sorted with you. This might help it take less time. I have my own boxes of stuff in the attic, but they are mine, not the kids. I think our society in general just has too much stuff floating around so we all end up with floatsam and jetsam bits of this and that that, in any other society, would be our one or two extra things. But we have too many extra things to keep it all! We try to sort it out as we get time. No one has a perfectly decluttered life around here, so enviro kid is in good company.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Teacha42 wrote:


> Also, enviro, most likely your child had too much to begin with. If he doesn't care about it now, then he doesn't need it - especially after this amount of years. You might need it or feel some attachment, but clearly your child doesn't. Parents often overload their children with material items at a young age, then blame or get frustrated with the child when they can't handle it - when in actuality it's the parent's fault or issue. It sounds as though you are making or creating a battle when there isn't one - as if it's your personal battle with yourself and your beliefs - not your kid's. We don't teach kids to care or take care of their stuff by taking it away and packing it up and then 1 or 2 years later making them choose between items. You should have gone through it and respected you child's lack of desire to do so, because most likely he had moved on. You should have found what you could sell or make money off of and left it at that. Or maybe packed away and saved childhood mementos for your grandchildren, or both... fulfilling your own need without making it your son's issue or concern.


Yes, I agree 100%. That's why *I would never have "solved" the problem of his stuff lying all over the place in this way.* My partner did it and now expects me to deal with the boxes. It's not a personal battle with myself and my beliefs; it's a battle between my approach (clean the house on a regular basis, sorting the stuff and dealing with it appropriately at that time) and my partner's approach (blame the kid for the messy house but take no action until the last minute when you "don't have time" to do the job right but just shove everything into boxes; claim inability to deal with contents of boxes because it's not your stuff). To prevent him from creating more boxes, I have to do all the cleaning up of stuff myself--that is, he will mop the floor after it's empty, but I have to pick up all the stuff off it. I have an infant and a full-time job, so every few months I stay up until 3am sorting crap, because that is the only way I can make time for it. I also keep ramping up my insistence that the kid pick up after himself routinely rather than leaving things out, to prevent the problem of excessive clutter, and I've had some success with this now that I have my partner on board insisting that the kid follow a chore schedule in the afternoons before I get home.

But I disagree that it's not my son's issue or concern what happens to his stuff. If we routinely allowed him to leave stuff out without saying anything about it, then decided arbitrarily that we were going to clean up at a particular time when he wasn't around and got rid of some of the things, I think he'd be completely justified in being upset.

And even when he isn't justified, he gets upset. I'm okay with his experiencing upset feelings as a natural consequence of his choices, but I don't like his screaming and accusations, so I'm motivated to avoid them. Most recent example: Right after Thanksgiving, we told him that because 4 relatives were coming for Christmas, we would need to move the big table into the dining room and unfold it to full length; this table was in the living room, folded to half size and ostensibly being used for crafts but in reality covered with a heap of art supplies and miscellany while kid did his crafts on the floor next to the table. We reminded him several times a week that the table needed to be cleared off before December 21 and anything he left on it would be removed as we parents saw fit. He gradually dealt with maybe 10% of the things. On December 21, I started working on the stuff, and he rushed over to argue with me, order me around, step in front of me every time I moved, etc. I told him I welcomed his help with the job and input about where things were going to go, but most of this stuff had to go in the trash/recycling and it had to happen NOW. We did manage to work together, and it wasn't as bad as many previous times, but it was an ordeal...and he quit when we had cleared the surface of the table but not the stuff underneath. After he was in bed, I sorted the rest of the stuff. I found a lovely bookmark and a silly picture he'd made and made these items stocking stuffers for my mother and brother respectively. I feel this was absolutely my decision to make, because he had ample opportunity to deal with his stuff and chose not to stick with it long enough to uncover these items. But my son had a fit on Christmas morning when he saw that I'd given away his creations! He says that because he didn't know they were in that pile, his decision not to deal with the pile didn't include giving up control of these items. I was firm about my opinion. But I don't like suffering this natural consequence of my behavior...and throwing away the things, instead of giving them to people I'd hoped could enjoy them, is not always a solution: If my son remembers that something existed, he demands to know where it is, and when the answer is that he wasn't responsible with it so we threw it away, we get hours of shrieking, stomping, slamming doors, and then months or years in which he brings it up over and over again and complains about how we're so mean to him. :shake


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I meant to add: The natural consequence of the above conflict over the art table is that we can no longer have an art table. When we switch back to eating at our smaller table, the big table will get folded down to its minimum size (surface about 8 inches wide) and placed against the wall. Crafts will have to be done on the dining table or floor and cleaned up immediately, or the kid can clean off his desk already and then he'll have a surface to use. No more art table, because cleaning it up took hours and I don't want to do it again.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

EnviroBecca said:


> I meant to add: The natural consequence of the above conflict over the art table is that we can no longer have an art table.


Not to be nit-picky, but this is a logical consequence. "A consequence imposed that is logically related to the unwanted behavior". A natural consequence is what your son suffers when he just can't find his stuff because of all the piles.

I dislike clutter that I know will not be looked at again for ages. It just doesn't make sense to have all that in our space. Work-in-progress clutter is fine by me. What I've done with clutter that I know isn't being used is just to pack it up in a box and stuff it in a closet somewhere. If my DC's ask about it I may try to put them off a bit by saying something like, "Oh, I packed that away because I hadn't seen you use it for a while. Why don't you wait a few days and if you still want it, I'll be happy to get it out for you."


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Identitycrisismama is right: It is a logical consequence.

I can believe that the pack-it-away-and-see-if-they-notice method works if you are willing and able to keep up with it and dispose of the stuff after a brief period in which its absence goes unnoticed. I have a hard time following through on that, so it is better not to box it. (When I had a "to be filed" pile myself, I had it for 7 years, even though I stopped adding to it after 2 years, because I could never find time to deal with it. Works much better for me to make myself file the stuff right away.)


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

EnviroBecca said:


> Identitycrisismama is right: It is a logical consequence.
> 
> I can believe that the pack-it-away-and-see-if-they-notice method works if you are willing and able to keep up with it and dispose of the stuff after a brief period in which its absence goes unnoticed.


Very true. And it also depends on how much storage you have. I'm careful not to put these boxes anywhere that can be mixed up with long-term storage or donations (There is usually stuff that second-hand stores would consider trash). I actually tend to store them "in my way". That way I know I can find them and also know they will eventually be dealt with. Though I can say for 100% certainty that there isn't one such box in my closet right now that may have been there for a couple of years. ;-) I don't know if I said this before but I attribute this practice to my older DC's neatness. I can never know for sure, of course.


----------

