# enlighten me - what's wrong with time outs?



## Ethan*sMom (May 25, 2007)

This is an honest question - not intended to be snotty or provoking...

I was reading another thread and it seems the general consensus here is that time out is some huge evil.

I don't see how, when my son does something I've asked, then told, then warned not to do, it is bad for him for me to sit him down next to me for two minutes (one minute per year of age). He is told when he is put in time out why he's there. After the 2 minutes are up, I ask him, "Do you know why were you in time out?" and he says "hitting Cara" (for example - he's really rough with our dog and he needs to learn to be gentle with animals - not to mention I don't want him pushing our very gentle dog to the point of biting because he's so rough with her). I then discuss it with him briefly, tell him I love him, and ask him to not do it again. We end with a kiss and a hug.

It's not violent. It's not mean. And he does learn from it. I could see how making them sit with their nose in a corner (or anywhere away from parents) would be damaging to their psyche, but to sit next to the parent and be told they are still loved even though their action wasn't acceptable...how is that harmful to them?

Please clarify! I sincerely want to know.


----------



## Incubator (May 11, 2006)

:

Figured I'd start with one anyway, because I've been flamed before. I'm not the MOST AP mom be far, but I do my best to be.

I don't see any problem with time outs, especially if the child is getting out of hand and needs a moment to cool down. I believe that sometimes children need to be reminded to slow down and get themselves together again.


----------



## Wittyone (May 11, 2005)

I'm interested in the responses that you get...

I have a friend who will put her child (almost 4) in "the naughty corner." I don't think that's useful approach to time out, particularly when he has to go there for a transgression committed elsewhere and this is delayed punishment upon arriving home









That's very different from what you described, which sounds like a cool down period followed by a rational, loving discussion on how people are to behave in your house (ie no hitting the dog). I think like anything else it can be used appropriately or not, though I think with young children the "cool down" period may serve to separate the action from the lesson too much, so they have difficulty applying what you are talking about to what they did. With an older child I think it can be valuable to cool off before discussing something, but toddlers can't rationalize (duh







). It may be more useful to just immediately have the discussion without the timeout. (wow, I"m feeling very ineloquent and like I'm talking in circles...just thinking out loud I guess)


----------



## hubris (Mar 8, 2003)

I do sometimes ask my children to take a break which sometimes involves spending time by themselves or with a parent, calming down, but we don't do a typical time out the way time-out proponents describe them. In general, I try to be non-punitive, emphasize natural consequences whenever possible, and in general I try to avoid giving in to the feeling ingrained in me by my parents' generation and their parents' generation that I have to "nip it in the bud". I have my not-so-great days (today was a hormonal tired grumpy pregnant biotch of a mama







) but in general I try to be gentle with myself as well as with my kids, and remember that we're all people who deserve to be treated with respect. Personally, I don't find the typical time-out methods to be very respectful of children.

I try not to label my children's behavior as "bad" and especially not label the children themselves as "naughty" or "hellions" or "brats," etc. In general I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and try to see things from their perspective, then help provide information that will guide their future behavior. That's how I'd want somebody to treat me if I did something that they saw as inappropriate - educate me, not punish me. (After all, "discipline" means educating, not punishing.)

This article is a good place to start on understanding another perspective on time-out:
The Case Against Time-Out. The site that hosts it, The Natural Child Project, has a lot of other articles that are very helpful in re-framing how adults and children interact.


----------



## naturegirl (Apr 16, 2002)

I sort of have a question about this also. I do







: put my child in his room for a time out occasionally. I feel that some of the time he is acting up because he doesn't want me to do what I am doing, (ie the dishes, making dinner, etc.) and wants my attention so he does things that are disruptive. I put him in time out away from me and then bring him out and sit down with him and explain that he does not get my attention in that way and he should ask nicely and not (hit the dog, throw the car, etc.) and I would be happy to stop what I am doing. I feel if I sat down with him for a time out at that moment it would kind of defeat the purpose because he would be getting exactly what he wanted by being disruptive, IYKWIM.

And to be completely honest, sometimes *I* need the "time out" and we both would be better off with a moment of separation.

I am also looking for realistic options to avoid the time out situation and open to workable solutions.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

IMO it's random and parent imposed. It is a punishment.

I think that discussion and natural consequences make more sense and work better.

-Angela


----------



## hubris (Mar 8, 2003)

Meant to add - most gentle discipline folks seem to agree that using a "naughty corner" or "naughty step" or having children put their nose against the wall or other similar strategies are shaming and punitive. The goal here is to teach children that a) their actions have negative consequences, and b) that their actions were socially inappropriate. I believe that the first goal can be met by the parent pointing out the natural consequences of their action, and the second goal can also be met through ongoing dialogue between parent and child, as well as modeling appropriate behavior.

The only time I ever do something time-out-ish is when one of my children is acting in a way that's very very disruptive (screaming that won't stop, thrashing/kicking/hitting, etc) and other methods have not helped. If I cannot determine a need that can be met, and they won't accept parental comfort, and nothing else works, then I invite them to please take a break in another room, take their time to calm down, and when they're ready to rejoin us, they're welcome to do so. I've noticed that my older son has recently started to go off on his own sometimes when he's grumpy and just can't bring himself to play nicely with the rest of us. When he's feeling less grumpy, he comes back. I'm really thrilled that he can identify when he's feeling antisocial and deal with it appropriately - just like my husband or I might take a moment alone to regroup and get the grumpies out.

I do think that sometimes people need a little time alone when they feel grumpy, I just don't think that time should be forced and isolating, and definitely not shaming/punitive. I also don't think time alone is the answer to *all* social missteps.


----------



## Ethan*sMom (May 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
IMO it's random and parent imposed. It is a punishment.

I think that discussion and natural consequences make more sense and work better.

-Angela

So, based on this, I should just sit there and gently tell my 2 year old son to not hit the dog and explain that she doesn't like it and might bite him. And then, when he doesn't listen, let him suffer the consequence of the dog getting fed up with being picked on and subsequently biting him? And then _I_ have to suffer the consequence of my husband killing my precious dog (no, she's not more important than my child, but I do love her dearly!) when it wasn't her 'fault' - she simply reacted to being hit, pinched, fur pulled etc.

Am I misunderstanding this?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ethan*sMom* 
So, based on this, I should just sit there and gently tell my 2 year old son to not hit the dog and explain that she doesn't like it and might bite him. And then, when he doesn't listen, let him suffer the consequence of the dog getting fed up with being picked on and subsequently biting him? And then _I_ have to suffer the consequence of my husband killing my precious dog (no, she's not more important than my child, but I do love her dearly!) when it wasn't her 'fault' - she simply reacted to being hit, pinched, fur pulled etc.

Am I misunderstanding this?

At two if your son can not resist the urge to hit the dog, it's your responsibility to keep he and the dog apart.

-Angela


----------



## hubris (Mar 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *naturegirl* 
I feel that some of the time he is acting up because he doesn't want me to do what I am doing,

What happens if you invite him to join you, and offer a task that he can handle? My kids get rammy when I'm cooking dinner, but they usually have their attention needs met if I get out the cutting board and allow them to sample veggies or help chop (4.5 y/o can use a paring knife with supervision, 2 y/o gets a dull butter knife), or invite them to stir, or help put away the lids of sippy cups, etc.

If they don't want to join me at my task, and the task really does have to be done, I simply tell them that. They don't have to be happy with it. It's ok for them to express that they don't like it. I draw the line when those expressions are disruptive or harmful - like hitting me, or screaming at the top of their lungs. When those things happen, I generally recognize their feelings, help them to label those feelings, and then invite them to either express them in a way that doesn't hurt people, or take a break until they can calm down. Often just having their feelings identified/recognized helps and then they're ready to play by themselves or help me. I also often ask how I can help them. Sometimes they just need help to find a toy to play with, or they need a hug to be offered, and then they can move on.

Part of the key, for me, is to ask myself what would happen if I were in their shoes. I have grumpy times. How would I want my husband to respond to me? Would I want to be punished for feeling tired and hormonal? Or would it be nicer for somebody to offer a hug and invite me to join them? If my husband is nice to me when I'm grouchy, would that be considered "positive reinforcement" for me treating him poorly? So much of what we say about children really doesn't make sense if we apply it to any other interpersonal situation. Kids are people, too!


----------



## hubris (Mar 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ethan*sMom* 
So, based on this, I should just sit there and gently tell my 2 year old son to not hit the dog and explain that she doesn't like it and might bite him. And then, when he doesn't listen, let him suffer the consequence of the dog getting fed up with being picked on and subsequently biting him? And then _I_ have to suffer the consequence of my husband killing my precious dog (no, she's not more important than my child, but I do love her dearly!) when it wasn't her 'fault' - she simply reacted to being hit, pinched, fur pulled etc.

Am I misunderstanding this?

I think perhaps you are. There's a lot that a parent can do between just explaining to a 2 y/o not to hit the dog, and putting the 2 y/o in time-out. You could assist him in using gentle hands, you could talk about how much the dog likes it when he pets gently (natural consequence of using gentle pats), you could encourage the dog to move away from the child, you could distract the child, etc etc etc.

Nobody would ever advocate that you allow a 2 y/o to be bitten.


----------



## naturegirl (Apr 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hubris* 
What happens if you invite him to join you, and offer a task that he can handle? My kids get rammy when I'm cooking dinner, but they usually have their attention needs met if I get out the cutting board and allow them to sample veggies or help chop (4.5 y/o can use a paring knife with supervision, 2 y/o gets a dull butter knife), or invite them to stir, or help put away the lids of sippy cups, etc.

If they don't want to join me at my task, and the task really does have to be done, I simply tell them that. They don't have to be happy with it. It's ok for them to express that they don't like it. I draw the line when those expressions are disruptive or harmful - like hitting me, or screaming at the top of their lungs. When those things happen, I generally recognize their feelings, help them to label those feelings, and then invite them to either express them in a way that doesn't hurt people, or take a break until they can calm down. Often just having their feelings identified/recognized helps and then they're ready to play by themselves or help me. I also often ask how I can help them. Sometimes they just need help to find a toy to play with, or they need a hug to be offered, and then they can move on.

Part of the key, for me, is to ask myself what would happen if I were in their shoes. I have grumpy times. How would I want my husband to respond to me? Would I want to be punished for feeling tired and hormonal? Or would it be nicer for somebody to offer a hug and invite me to join them? If my husband is nice to me when I'm grouchy, would that be considered "positive reinforcement" for me treating him poorly? So much of what we say about children really doesn't make sense if we apply it to any other interpersonal situation. Kids are people, too!


I so agree! My son is often "helping" me do the dishes, make the bed, make dinner. I just wanted to explain that I _rarely_ use "time outs" and it is in those situations where it is getting disruptive or harmful. I have no problem letting and helping him to express his feelings.

Anyone have trouble with their dh using or wanting to use different tactics for discipline? I guess that is a whole new thread though...







My hubby overuses time outs IMO and he has a hard time expressing his feelings. He had a shoddy childhood with a mom that was the "children should be seen and not heard era".







She really thinks I am WAY too easy on my child because I don't spank him or pull his hair when he pulls mine.







Thankfully dh isn't too keen on spanking or the such. I guess we just need to really sit down and have that discussion thoroughly.


----------



## Ducky5306 (Jul 2, 2006)

I dont give time outs but we do sometimes take a break when my ds gets to wild.. he is only 13 months so i go with him of course.. i tell him gently that we need to claim down and i talk to him and we nurse relax and after afew min we go back to whatever it was and he is fine.. not sure it would work for an older toddler


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hubris* 
I think perhaps you are. There's a lot that a parent can do between just explaining to a 2 y/o not to hit the dog, and putting the 2 y/o in time-out. You could assist him in using gentle hands, you could talk about how much the dog likes it when he pets gently (natural consequence of using gentle pats), you could encourage the dog to move away from the child, you could distract the child, etc etc etc.

Nobody would ever advocate that you allow a 2 y/o to be bitten.

Well put.

-Angela


----------



## verde (Feb 11, 2007)

"IMO it's random and parent imposed. It is a punishment."

What does "parent imposed" mean?


----------



## Carma (Feb 10, 2006)

Quote:

Part of the key, for me, is to ask myself what would happen if I were in their shoes. I have grumpy times. How would I want my husband to respond to me? Would I want to be punished for feeling tired and hormonal? Or would it be nicer for somebody to offer a hug and invite me to join them? If my husband is nice to me when I'm grouchy, would that be considered "positive reinforcement" for me treating him poorly? So much of what we say about children really doesn't make sense if we apply it to any other interpersonal situation. Kids are people, too!
I donot have a lot of experience yet, but I am still doing the routine with my 21 month old that I did when she was younger. When she cried when little I checked if she was hungry, needed a diaper, wanted to be held etc. And a lot of times that still works when she is acting out now at 21 months.

carma


----------



## Perdita_in_Ontario (Feb 7, 2007)

In the specific instance of a 2-year-old and an animal, I'm finding that my DD is learning to be far more gentle with the pets since I did this:

1. Reminding her of gentle hands - standing near (or over) DD and saying "gentle, gentle" as she pets the animals.

2. Guiding gentle hands - if she gets too excited, I will physically guide her hands to remind her.

3. If she is not gentle, I pick her up, move her away, and say "you weren't gentle with the cat - now she doesn't want to play with you" and guide her to another activity. When I started this, I didn't move her away at the first "transgression" - I'd give her a chance to be gentle. But now she's a little older, first transgression means that she's moved away from the animal.

4. I work hard to ensure that animals and toddler are not together unsupervised.

5. I give DD jobs to do with the animals - it's her "job" to fill the cat's bowls and get cookies for the dog. She takes it quite seriously and directs the cats to their bowls and has learned to tell the dog to "sit" before the cookie. This is great because she is enjoying the interaction with the animals without laying on hands 

I've found this really works well. There are no timeouts, but there are consequences for not being gentle. IMO, the same principles can be applied to most situations - it just takes some thought and creative solutions. Timeouts, for me, are for when kids have lost control of their emotions and who need a breather - and not as a punishment.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
"IMO it's random and parent imposed. It is a punishment."

What does "parent imposed" mean?

Exactly what it says. Imposed by the parents. Parents making up a random punishment for an action.

-Angela


----------



## karre (Mar 22, 2006)

I have not read all replies yet so forgive me if someone covered this.... but my understanding is that time out threatens childern with one of their biggest fears, being seperated from their parents. It starts to build insecurity in the relationship. The child can no longer trust that the caregiver/parent will always be there for him/her and the attachment relationship starts to disintergrate.

Anyway gotta go take the kiddo outside.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

I find time outs to be necessary when 1 child is attacking the other, so you need to sequester the attacker to comfort the attacked. If they go willingly, great, but if one child if being violent and refuses togo upstairs, I will close them in my room while I tend to the victim, then I promptly go talk to the perpetrator.

I don't think I'd use time outs with an only child... I only do so I can comfort the attcked one in a way that makes them feel safe (the attacker out of the picture for a few minutes).


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Exactly what it says. Imposed by the parents. Parents making up a random punishment for an action.

I understand this in young children who cannot comprehend how a time out is related to putting things in the toilet, for example.

But, what about in older children who can reason? When does it become appropriate to say "if you do x when I ask you not too, then y will happen"?

And if the "punishment" is consistent, how is it random? If the same thing happens every time (loosing a privilege, like TV, or going to the park).

I KNEW when I was kid that if I did something wrong I wasn't allowed to ride my horse. There were no "random" punishments, and honestly, I can see how that would be confusing to a child. But if the consequences are consistent...


----------



## Ethan*sMom (May 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karre* 
I have not read all replies yet so forgive me if someone covered this.... but my understanding is that time out threatens childern with one of their biggest fears, being seperated from their parents. It starts to build insecurity in the relationship. The child can no longer trust that the caregiver/parent will always be there for him/her and the attachment relationship starts to disintergrate.

Anyway gotta go take the kiddo outside.

Well, if that's it, then what I perceive/do as time out is fine (for us) since DS is not separated from me. He's usually no more than 2 or 3 feet away. He is not treated in a demeaning manner, nor is he physically hurt. He knows I'm right there the whole time.

Hope you had lots of fun outside!


----------



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

I think you have to look at the intent sometimes. Is removing the child from the dog the goal? If so, why couldn't you just go to another room? Is giving the child a chance to calm down the goal? What happens if the child isn't calm by the time the timer goes off? Or is calm well before?

Most of the time it seems that time-outs are designed to make the child wish they hadn't done whatever it was.

Especially for AP parents, it seems so strange to me to spend all this time building the attachment and trust and then using that against the child--taking it away when they've done something that displeases us.

Punishment, in general, doesn't teach the kind of lessons I want to teach my kids. I don't want to set up that whole adversarial relationship and have them worry more about being caught than doing the right thing. I prefer to explain things to them and give them tools to meet their needs.

Anyway, a good read on time-outs is this:

http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/peter_haiman.html

Or Alfie Kohn's Unconditional Parenting.


----------



## karre (Mar 22, 2006)

I didn't have time to say this earlier since my kiddo was patiently waiting for me to finish posting so i could take him out to the garden (and he is only 18 mos!), but i was talking about time outs as a form of behavior modification. Time outs that are removing yourself or your child from a dangerous situation are fine as far as i can tell. Routine time outs that are designed to punish bad behavior could damage the parent/caregiver child relationship. Hold onto your kids has more info about this i think.


----------



## karre (Mar 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I understand this in young children who cannot comprehend how a time out is related to putting things in the toilet, for example.

But, what about in older children who can reason? When does it become appropriate to say "if you do x when I ask you not too, then y will happen"?

And if the "punishment" is consistent, how is it random? If the same thing happens every time (loosing a privilege, like TV, or going to the park).

I KNEW when I was kid that if I did something wrong I wasn't allowed to ride my horse. There were no "random" punishments, and honestly, I can see how that would be confusing to a child. But if the consequences are consistent...

I think the older kid they could still feel hurt by the time out. Kids (even older kids) desperately want approval from their parents so the time out could be percieved as a removal of acceptance and love because the child did something they shouldn't have. I remember i used to feel hurt and ashamed by time outs.


----------



## A Boy's Mama (May 15, 2007)

I am a time out advocate. I find it to be a very effective and gentle tool for the big problem behaviors that don't have acceptable natural consequences. I've become sort of a broken record on this in the Gentle Discipline folder but one of the things I think time outs work very well for is violent behavior. Hurting someone else is not ok and should be addressed immediately. For me, the way to address that kind of behavior is with time outs and it's been very effective. I believe it would also be effective for most kids.

We're here to help our children figure out how this world works and how they can best work in their world, you know? A person is only a child for 1/5 of their life, if that, and while it's a very important part of their life, the adult version of our children should be a big priority and I don't want to leave my kiddo wondering how to behave in various situations. Time outs are just one tool a parent can use to help a child figure out what's ok and what's not.

Edited to add: I thought I should add how exactly we do our time outs. For example, if my son hits the cat or whatever, I immediately react by picking him up and sitting him in a chair in the dining room (a central room in our home). I kneel down and explain to him that he is getting a time out because he hit the cat (important to be specific about this so he can understand) and that he must sit in the chair for 3 minutes. Then I set the timer and walk away. I'm usually either in the kitchen or sitting out int he living room, both are within eyeshot. When the timer goes off, I kneel down in front of him again and I ask him if he understands why he's in time out. We talk about hitting the cat, is that an ok thing or no? What can we do next time the cat frustrates us (can you tell the cat vs. boy thing is an ongoing issue in my home?







), like saying "I'm mad!" or whatever. Then we hug and that's that.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
I find time outs to be necessary when 1 child is attacking the other, so you need to sequester the attacker to comfort the attacked. If they go willingly, great, but if one child if being violent and refuses togo upstairs, I will close them in my room while I tend to the victim, then I promptly go talk to the perpetrator.

I don't think I'd use time outs with an only child... I only do so I can comfort the attcked one in a way that makes them feel safe (the attacker out of the picture for a few minutes).

And I don't even see that as a time out- more of a triage dealing with the situation kind of thing.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I understand this in young children who cannot comprehend how a time out is related to putting things in the toilet, for example.

But, what about in older children who can reason? When does it become appropriate to say "if you do x when I ask you not too, then y will happen"?

And if the "punishment" is consistent, how is it random? If the same thing happens every time (loosing a privilege, like TV, or going to the park).

I KNEW when I was kid that if I did something wrong I wasn't allowed to ride my horse. There were no "random" punishments, and honestly, I can see how that would be confusing to a child. But if the consequences are consistent...


Past a young child you get into the argument that punishments are not appropriate. Of course there is a lot of disagreement on that.

But I'm coming around to that way of thinking... I've not yet come up with a senario that I'd personally feel okay with issuing a punishment.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I think you have to look at the intent sometimes. Is removing the child from the dog the goal? If so, why couldn't you just go to another room? Is giving the child a chance to calm down the goal? What happens if the child isn't calm by the time the timer goes off? Or is calm well before?

Most of the time it seems that time-outs are designed to make the child wish they hadn't done whatever it was.

Especially for AP parents, it seems so strange to me to spend all this time building the attachment and trust and then using that against the child--taking it away when they've done something that displeases us.

Punishment, in general, doesn't teach the kind of lessons I want to teach my kids. I don't want to set up that whole adversarial relationship and have them worry more about being caught than doing the right thing. I prefer to explain things to them and give them tools to meet their needs.









:

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A Boy's Mama* 
I am a time out advocate. I find it to be a very effective and gentle tool for the big problem behaviors that don't have acceptable natural consequences. I've become sort of a broken record on this in the Gentle Discipline folder but one of the things I think time outs work very well for is violent behavior. Hurting someone else is not ok and should be addressed immediately. For me, the way to address that kind of behavior is with time outs and it's been very effective. I believe it would also be effective for most kids.

We're here to help our children figure out how this world works and how they can best work in their world, you know? A person is only a child for 1/5 of their life, if that, and while it's a very important part of their life, the adult version of our children should be a big priority and I don't want to leave my kiddo wondering how to behave in various situations. Time outs are just one tool a parent can use to help a child figure out what's ok and what's not.

Edited to add: I thought I should add how exactly we do our time outs. For example, if my son hits the cat or whatever, I immediately react by picking him up and sitting him in a chair in the dining room (a central room in our home). I kneel down and explain to him that he is getting a time out because he hit the cat (important to be specific about this so he can understand) and that he must sit in the chair for 3 minutes. Then I set the timer and walk away. I'm usually either in the kitchen or sitting out int he living room, both are within eyeshot. When the timer goes off, I kneel down in front of him again and I ask him if he understands why he's in time out. We talk about hitting the cat, is that an ok thing or no? What can we do next time the cat frustrates us (can you tell the cat vs. boy thing is an ongoing issue in my home?







), like saying "I'm mad!" or whatever. Then we hug and that's that.


And for *me* that just doesn't sit right. I want my dd to not hit the cat because she cares about the cat not because she's afraid of a punishment.

-Angela


----------



## A Boy's Mama (May 15, 2007)

I don't think a time out like that is teaching him to be afraid of the time out though. It's a time to reflect on why it's not OK to hit the cat and that's why we talk about it briefly beforehand and then more in depth afterwards. If avoiding a time out is also part of his reasoning for not hitting the cat, I'm OK with that too. Life is filled with all kinds of social consequences for unacceptable behavior and I think it's an important part of growing up to learn how this all works. For example, if he hits me then not only is getting a time out going to occur but I will also be upset and I will explain that to him. I don't like being hit, it hurts and hurts my feelings and he needs to understand and digest that.

Ok and now it's sounding like my son is just a hitting machine and he's totally not!







I'm just using these situations as examples.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A Boy's Mama* 
I If avoiding a time out is also part of his reasoning for not hitting the cat, I'm OK with that too.

And I'm not okay with that.

-Angela


----------



## verde (Feb 11, 2007)

I have no problem with the concept of time-outs. I know many great parents who use gentle discipline, don't spank, have lots of love in their home, and they use time-outs. I think it depends on the personality of the child. Parents who take their parenting seriously know what works best for the kids and for some that means a time out.

I also have a hard time believing that just because a child has a time out they make this emotional leap into believing they've lost their parents love. I've worked in social services for over 20 years and I've seen lots of kids horribly abused and yet they still believe their parents love them and they still want to stay with their parents. Kids who have time out by loving parents in a loving, stable home will not end up as therapy patients in the future.

I also think that we should put time-outs in our cultural context. As an American, I would be happy if we could change our pro-spanking culture (all those polls and surveys show that most Americans believe in spanking and it makes me shudder) into a pro-time-out culture. Changing from violence to non-violence would be a good thing.


----------



## A Boy's Mama (May 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
And I'm not okay with that.

-Angela

Well Angela, isn't it wonderful that we can be so different and still have such great children? Every parent has to do what feels right to them (obviously I'm discounting sickos) and what feels natural. I'm doing exactly what feels natural and right for me and my son while I'm sure you're doing the same.


----------



## ikesmom (Oct 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *naturegirl* 

And to be completely honest, sometimes *I* need the "time out" and we both would be better off with a moment of separation.

I am also looking for realistic options to avoid the time out situation and open to workable solutions.

ME TOO!
Lately I find myself really flustered (okay raging mad) at the kids esp when they are all fighting and bickering and then the youngest has a meltdown for not having his way. If I try to talk it out while I am angry I say things in a meaner or sometimes even yell







:. So I send everyone to a different room and cool off. My dh thinks I am letting the kids walk all over me. He doesn't get the idea that I have boiling lava in my veins at the moment.

I think I use better words to explain when I cool down...they also realize I am hot and don't push it when they are separated.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A Boy's Mama* 
Well Angela, isn't it wonderful that we can be so different and still have such great children? Every parent has to do what feels right to them (obviously I'm discounting sickos) and what feels natural. I'm doing exactly what feels natural and right for me and my son while I'm sure you're doing the same.

Well.... just doing what feels right and natural I don't buy. Plenty of moms say it feels right and natural to hit their kids too...

-Angela


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A Boy's Mama* 
I am a time out advocate. I find it to be a very effective and gentle tool for the big problem behaviors that don't have acceptable natural consequences.

{snip}

...(can you tell the cat vs. boy thing is an ongoing issue in my home?

But, if it's still happening all the time, then what's effective about the punishment?

Obviously no one's saying that putting your kid in time-out is a direct line to the bell tower, but there are other repurcussions that make it problematic for many people.

Another problem for me is how time out takes the focus off the cat and puts it on the kid and his payment. And at the end of 3 minutes, the payment for hurting the cat is paid in full and off you go. That's not the message I want to send about harming animals. That it can just be paid off in some set parcel and then you just move on.

I'd much rather talk about the impact on the cat, practice tools for better interactions with the cat, and provide reminders/support for the kid to interact with the cat. Because I'm pretty sure that 99% of toddlers do NOT want to hurt animals. They forget, they like the reaction, they don't know how to gently touch the animal, etc. So punishing them for developmentally normal behavior just seems so off to me.

My first was a terror to the cat! If you asked him, "What does the kitty say?" he would HISS!







Because that's pretty much all he heard when he would even look at the cat. But we worked and worked and worked on it together and now he's a model citizen with animals at age 5. Punishment not needed.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Another problem for me is how time out takes the focus off the cat and puts it on the kid and his payment. And at the end of 3 minutes, the payment for hurting the cat is paid in full and off you go. That's not the message I want to send about harming animals. That it can just be paid off in some set parcel and then you just move on.

Very good point...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I'd much rather talk about the impact on the cat, practice tools for better interactions with the cat, and provide reminders/support for the kid to interact with the cat. Because I'm pretty sure that 99% of toddlers do NOT want to hurt animals. They forget, they like the reaction, they don't know how to gently touch the animal, etc. So punishing them for developmentally normal behavior just seems so off to me.

Yeah, that really bothers me. Like people who want to know how to discipline their 10 month old who keeps pulling on cords....

-Angela


----------



## A Boy's Mama (May 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Well.... just doing what feels right and natural I don't buy. Plenty of moms say it feels right and natural to hit their kids too...

-Angela

That's what I meant by "sickos". Hitting is not ok!


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A Boy's Mama* 
That's what I meant by "sickos". Hitting is not ok!

But bossing kids around just because we're bigger is?

-Angela


----------



## A Boy's Mama (May 15, 2007)

Well I admire you for your use of loaded language but in essence, yes, for now I am the boss of my kid. I am there to teach him what's OK and what's not and hurting others is not ok. For me and my family, time outs work well for that particular issue.


----------



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

I've seen a lot of physical forced used to execute time outs with unwilling children. Pinning kids down and pulling them back to a time out seems like a pretty common part of the scenario. I would not advocate that.


----------



## charmander (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A Boy's Mama* 
I don't think a time out like that is teaching him to be afraid of the time out though. It's a time to reflect on why it's not OK to hit the cat and that's why we talk about it briefly beforehand and then more in depth afterwards. If avoiding a time out is also part of his reasoning for not hitting the cat, I'm OK with that too. Life is filled with all kinds of social consequences for unacceptable behavior and I think it's an important part of growing up to learn how this all works. For example, if he hits me then not only is getting a time out going to occur but I will also be upset and I will explain that to him. I don't like being hit, it hurts and hurts my feelings and he needs to understand and digest that.









:


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

also, there is the concept that a discipline technique like time out teaches a child to relate everything to their OWN experience. it can foster self-centeredness and also negatively impact the development of compassion and empathy. since the child learns, time out after time out, that a negative consequence happens to them due to x y or z behavior, they don't learn that it's not ok to do x y and z. instead, they internalize that either they have to be better at not getting caught, or not to do a certain thing because of the impact on themselves, not on the effect that their actions have over others.

those are not a life lessons that i would like for my child to learn.

yes, there are negative social consequences out in the real world. but honestly, i don't cheat, steal or hit others because i'm afraid of going to jail or being sued. i don't do it because somewhere, somehow i learned that cheating, stealing, hitting etc are not nice, kind or ethical things to do to OTHER people and not because i'm afraid to land in the pokey.

as for using time outs as being a welcome shift in the current parenting paradigm, i do somewhat agree. as a physically abused child, i sure wish my parents used time outs instead of hitting me. but it is still the lesser of evils, and i hope to transcend these patterns and embrace truly non-violent parenting. i do believe that peace in the world begins with peace in the home.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A Boy's Mama* 
Life is filled with all kinds of social consequences for unacceptable behavior and I think it's an important part of growing up to learn how this all works.

I think by most standards we would find ignoring someone and putting them in a chair for a timed period for a social transgression would be pretty dysfunctional.

If a friend came over to my house and hit on my husband wouldn't I talk to her about it? And if I found out that she came from a culture where that sort of interaction/display was not considered inappropriate and she had not meant to offend, wouldn't it make more sense to explain that in this culture and in my home that sort of behavior is not acceptable? If she forgot in future visits would it be better to put her on "ignore" or gently remind her of my feelings? And obviously we're not dealing with developmental issues of *impulse control* in this scenario, so that's a HUGE difference.

I don't know....I remember an episode of Supernanny where they used the guest room as the "time out room" and I just remember thinking, "Oh my, you've created a jail in your own home!" I don't think four year olds need jail. Or solitary confinement.







They need guidance and parents who are on their side, IMHO.


----------



## stlmomof2 (Mar 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
And for *me* that just doesn't sit right. I want my dd to not hit the cat because she cares about the cat not because she's afraid of a punishment.

-Angela

What if the child doesn't like or care about the cat? It's a lot to assume that a kid can develop intrinsic motivation for following all necessary rules. There are many rules in life that people will never truly want to follow. So, what makes me not run red lights when there is no one else around or pay taxes that go toward pointless wars and so on and so forth? Fear of punishment.

That said, I don't think I believe in time outs unless the time spent out has a purpose to it, like some of the examples mentioned. But even removing a child from a situation where he doing something like hitting someone else is parent imposed and forceful. I'm sure my daughter sees it as a huge parent imposed injustice when I keep her from writing on the walls, take batteries away from her, brush her teeth, etc.


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mandymichel* 
What if the child doesn't like or care about the cat? It's a lot to assume that a kid can develop intrinsic motivation for following all necessary rules. There are many rules in life that people will never truly want to follow. So, what makes me not run red lights when there is no one else around or pay taxes that go toward pointless wars and so on and so forth? Fear of punishment.

That said, I don't think I believe in time outs unless the time spent out has a purpose to it, like some of the examples mentioned. But even removing a child from a situation where he doing something like hitting someone else is parent imposed and forceful. I'm sure my daughter sees it as a huge parent imposed injustice when I keep her from writing on the walls, take batteries away from her, brush her teeth, etc.

so in the absence of intrinsic motivation, punishment is the method of ensuring compliance?

i personally have a lot more respect for children (even the littlest ones) and their ability to internalize how to do the right thing for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mandymichel* 
It's a lot to assume that a kid can develop intrinsic motivation for following all necessary rules.

Well, if they're necessary, why wouldn't people want to follow them?

I don't abide red lights b/c I'm afraid of punishment, I abide them b/c of safety. But, many many many people run red lights all the time--despite the punishments.

And that's kind of the point....I don't want to raise a kid who looks around to see if someone's going to drop the hammar before or after he does something cruddy. I want him to think about how that cruddy behavior is going to affect others and his sense of character.

Time out (and other punishments), seem to me, to create a climate of seeking to *get away* with behavior, rather than doing the right thing intrinsically. Maybe your kids will be different, but I have yet to personally meet kids who operate differently. It makes me sad to see how furtive and sneaky they become--that look to the adult in the room and when they realize they haven't been "caught," how triumphant they seem.


----------



## glorified_rice (Jun 5, 2005)

This is a really interesting discussion. I have been thinking about this a lot lately because my son has been really challenging me with unacceptable behaviors that are out of the ordinary for him. Hitting, biting, slapping and screaming. All of these things are "normal" for this age, from what I gather, but this has all come so suddenly and I'm not quite sure how to handle it. Up until this point, we have had to do very little in terms of "punishment", because he didn't do anything that would really warrant that kind of response. He has by no means always been perfectly behaved, but any problems that we encountered could be talked through....explained, etc... (like many of the previous posters have mentioned) and he would listen and learn. Now, that approach doesn't seem to be making much of an impact. He will slap me all of a sudden for no reason, I'll explain to him why physically harming me, or any person or animal is unacceptable, etc... we discuss it and he will tell me all about it, I offer him alternatives ex."if you feel like you need to hit something, it is okay to hit a pillow", or "if you really need to scream, go into your room and do it so it won't be so loud for daddy and me", yet it still continues. I have resorted to immediately bringing him into his room and telling him to sit and think about what he did (clearly stating that it was for hitting me) and informing him that he can come out and join us when he is ready. I never close the door, or do this in anger or in a forceful manner. He doesn't seem to be bothered in the slightest, and usually comes right out in a better mood.(usually I ask him if he needs to go to his room, and he'll say yes) Then he says "I'm sossie mamma" and I ask him what he's sorry about, then he will explain it to me. This doesn't seem to work any better, because invariably, he will do the same thing again. In my experience, this version of a time-out works no better than what I was doing before, but for some reason I feel like I have to do something to let him know that his behavior is unacceptable. How can I help him deal with this negative energy in a more positive way?? I just don't know







Maybe I should just go back to talking it through each and every time and wait for him to grow out of it, which I'm sure he will at some point.


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

even if there is no forcing/pinning etc of a child, i cannot tell you how many times i've been out and about in the world and i've heard the words come from an exasperated parent:

"DO YOU WANT A TIME OUT?"

and usually, right after that, a "NOOOOOOOO!!" from a wailing child.

a threat is a threat is a threat, whether it's a swat on the butt, or being made to sit in a chair for a minute per year of age. what does that accomplish? maybe you get (temporary) compliance, but you also get the beginnings of an adversarial relationship based on a fundamental power struggle, and a child that learns that the most important consequence of a certain behavior is the one that pertains negatively to him or herself.

i so do not want that for our family.

on another note, as i was just nursing my little one down to sleep, i was thinking about what the societal ramifications are of this philosophy. if we've come to a point in society that people are doing the right thing based on what's in it for them, that does not bode well for us as a species.







: that is so...SAD to me, it's quite tragic. now that i think about it, there are reminders of it every day. on the highway, the sign to remind us to fasten our seatbelts says "buckle up...it's the law." but we shouldn't fasten our belts because we're loathe to get a ticket and pay a fine, we should do it because it's a safety issue. i don't recycle my cans, glass and plastic because i can get a fine and citation from the sanitation department...i take the time and effort to do it because it's an environmentally sound thing to do, and i do what i can to be a steward of the earth. i don't violate the user agreement here because i'm afraid of getting banned, but because i respect a rule that was set up to protect this community. and i'm not a good person that tries to help other people because i want to ride the glory train to heaven or because some book and a man at a pulpit said so, but because helping others and sharing the abundance of our lives is the right thing to do.

so now that i think on this more, i realize that in fact, i do feel that the answer to the op's question is that time outs are a violent, short sighted and controlling method of trying to elicit compliant behavior in children.

there. i said it.







:i'm ready for the tomatoes.


----------



## Montessorimom8 (Mar 6, 2006)

...Back to the original topic, personally *I* think time outs carried out in a natural consequence way (as in as a cooling off period so they can regroup and rejoin the family) IS gentle discipline. There is no such thing as one size fits all parenting.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glorified_rice* 
Then he says "I'm sossie mamma" . . .

To me, toddler hitting is not different than the above mispronunciation--developmentally normal and beyond their capability to change before they're ready.

No amount of punishing the kid for saying "sossie" instead of "sorry" is going to make his skills catch up with an adult's. But you could probably mess up the relationship a bit over it.

I think showing them what TO do ("Can you push your lips together like this? Rrrrrrr, rrrrrrr, rrrrrr?" or "Can you tell me with words that you're angry?") and letting them know how it impacts those around them ("Oh, it's OK, Nana might not understand you just yet, she's not ignoring you." or "It hurts when you hit the kitty.") and waiting for the skill set for them to outgrow it are more effective and better for the relationship.

And I agree with kidspiration! Awesome post!

I've definitely seen time outs used in a threatening manner and often are more about taking out the parent's frustration and anger on the child, than about providing a cool down and reflective time.

Finally, I'm not sure how many toddlers are able to spend two or three minutes reflecting on something that is not happening in that exact moment--I could be wrong, but it, again, doesn't seem to jive developmentally.


----------



## alicia622 (May 8, 2005)

I haven't read all the responses. I find timeouts often overused and random- not a great tool for teaching. I find talking, redirection, natural consequences to be more effective and more respectful. I have found myself removing G from situations when he gets all wound up and starting to be a super wild boy as opposed to his typical wild boy







That's when he's most likely to do things I don't want him to do and/or get hurt.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

IMO time out is a way for parents to convey "You sit here because *I* am upset. I cannot reasonably control this situation so I will impose a punative, passive agressive consequence so that I may feel I have done something."

Time out IS love withdrawl, I don't care how "nicely" you go about it.

Learn a better way to parent!


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karre* 
I think the older kid they could still feel hurt by the time out. Kids (even older kids) desperately want approval from their parents so the time out could be percieved as a removal of acceptance and love because the child did something they shouldn't have. I remember i used to feel hurt and ashamed by time outs.

I wasn't really referring specifically to time outs, just that _*any_ punishment is seen as random.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I want my dd to not hit the cat because she cares about the cat not because she's afraid of a punishment.

Yes, YES!! That right there is why I haven't really got on board with the whole time out thing (and because we aren't really there yet). But I have no idea what things will be like in say, 5 years, hence my above question.

But that right there is the crux of the issue, I think. The motivation to do things (or not do things) shouldn't come from fear. That is also why I believe corporal punish doesn't work.


----------



## natesmamma (Jul 8, 2005)

Ethan's Mom - I also have a son who is 2, and have needed to take him aside and sit him down and require him to take a "time out" but it is more like a time to calm down, take a breathe and shift gears. At this age, he doesn't have much self control and also doesn't fully understand that actions=consequences. He's getting it, but he's not actually even capable of totally understanding what a punishment is. When he pulls our cat's tail, I tell him to stop, I explain that it hurts the cat and that the cat will claw him and then I separate them. If he keeps it up I will naturally reprimand him a little bit (a more stern NO!) and put the cat outside, for example. I can see that in the future it may be necessary to remove him from situations where he may get out of control, and perhaps have him sit quietly to chill out. It would involve a conversation about why what he did wasn't the best choice. I'd try to avoid shaming and blaming... So I guess there are different ways to have time outs.

What you are describing sounds ok to me. It's not like on the Super Nanny where she gives children the "naughty seat." To me that takes it too far.


----------



## grumpyshoegirl (Mar 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
what about in older children who can reason? When does it become appropriate to say "if you do x when I ask you not too, then y will happen"?

And if the "punishment" is consistent, how is it random? If the same thing happens every time (loosing a privilege, like TV, or going to the park).

It's random in the sense that not being able to watch TV has nothing to do with the offense. Non-random would be not buying another whatever for a child who purposely breaks the first one, for example.

I'm big on natural consequences, personally. At 17 months, my daughter is a little young even for this (usually when she acts up it's because she's tired/bored/frustrated and can't express her feelings any other way), but I teach high school and that's pretty much the only "punishment" I use unless it's an offense the administration NEEDS to know about.


----------



## offwing (Aug 17, 2006)

I'm always bemused at the sense of their being "one true way" to raise a child that comes out of some comments in these kinds of discussions.

People seem to forget that children are not little cookie cutter beings that if treated the same way every time by every parent we get the same results everytime. They have different feelings, reactions, tolerances, likes and dislikes. What work for one will not automatically work for another.

A quiet contemplative child might thrive on a discipline approach where a time of calm thought allows him to deal with his thoughts where as a high-energy, bouncing off the walls child would find that to be an agony.

Luckily we are not primates who are stuck instinctually acting the same natural way regardless of whether or not it works. We have these big beautiful brains that allow us to read, observe and learn. We can modify our actions to fit the needs of our child and do what is best for her.

So if your child is healthy, happy, secure and loving kid, keep doing what you are doing. Don't let the process fuss you when what is important is the results of the actions.

*Warning:* I am really tired of cheap shot, straw man hysterics being used by people who disagree with a statement but who can't come up with anything sensible to say in objection. So if anyone posts something stupid like "_So, if BEATING your child is WORKING you should keep doing it, huh. You are child beater!!_ I will not bother to patiently explain how that was not what I was saying. But I might be rude and mock that person.


----------



## Tanibani (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 
also, there is the concept that a discipline technique like time out teaches a child to relate everything to their OWN experience. it can foster self-centeredness and also negatively impact the development of compassion and empathy. since the child learns, time out after time out, that a negative consequence happens to them due to x y or z behavior, they don't learn that it's not ok to do x y and z. instead, they internalize that either they have to be better at not getting caught, or not to do a certain thing because of the impact on themselves, not on the effect that their actions have over others.

1st - Wow. Thank you for that explanation! I'm going to print that up so I can remember that because it makes total sense.

2ndly - I can't believe I am seeing a time out thread in a Toddler forum. People put their toddlers in TO's? Wow. Why? There are better ways! You explain to the child... you teach empathy, yada, yada.

3rd - I think the vast majority of TO's are "abused and misused." I think the way the OP does it sounds fine - because she STAYS with the child.

The Disadvantages of Times Outs by Aletha Solter, Ph.D.

Quote:

According to many educators and psychologists, however, time-out is not as innocent as it seems and is, moreover, an emotionally harmful way to discipline children. In fact, the National Association for the Education of Young Children includes the use of time-out in a list of harmful disciplinary measures, along with physical punishment, criticizing, blaming, and shaming.2
People (adults and children) do need a place to calm down. But again, THE PROBLEM WITH TO's is the way * most * people do this, it's mean and abusive. GO TO YOUR ROOM RIGHT NOW (leave my presence, I don't want to look at you right now). How is a child supposed to feel? Is he getting the message that "I need to calm down." No, he's getting the message that HE is inherently bad and not worthy of parental love and attention when he is feeling out of control/can't control himself/needs help.

Quote:

Time-out stems from the behaviorist movement based on the work of psychologist B.F. Skinner. His theory of operant conditioning asserts that children will behave in certain ways if they receive rewards for doing so ("positive reinforcement"), and that undesirable behavior can be diminished by withholding the rewards or by invoking pain (both of which are termed "punishment"). Skinner himself believed that all forms of punishment were unsuitable means of controlling children's behavior.1 Even so, while spanking is on the wane in the United States, the withholding of love and attention has persisted as an acceptable means of control.
I do want to start doing what my awesome Parent Educator advised us to do - ask the child, you need to calm down... "do you want to stay in this room with me? Go to your room? Pick another spot? Pick to sit in quietly (it can be with me in the room or by yourself) to calm your body down." But I would not call it a TO because a) I hate the name and b) the implication "you are being separated for being "bad" and therefore you are punished."

Is the child bad? Or is the behavior bad? The behavior is bad, not the child, but the child doesn't see it that way. They think THEY are bad.








: DH (not being AP/GD himself) uses TOs because that's what he hears works. He encourages me to use it.

DS is 7. We've tried them in the past 2 years. Not knowing any better at the time (going along with this plan) fine, let's see if it works. When DH demands DS go upstairs, he goes. When I do, he laughs in my face and I have to drag him upstairs (this is what Alegna means by "parent imposed" a kid is usually dragged/hauled to their "naughty spot" or whatever destination.)

So... I've stopped doing it. Doesn't work for me or him. And OMG







I think Kidspiration is right on about how a child perceives it.


----------



## SMR (Dec 21, 2004)

my dd is only 17 months.. so she's never had anything close to a time out.. I think when/if the time comes, I'll probably use that method of 'punishment' since obviously I don't see how I could ever smack my lovely girl!! YIKES!! So, I don't see anything bad about time outs.. esp. when done as the OP described... very lovingly and making sure that they know WHY they needed to take a break!

Another question though... people mention the natural consequence thing.. which is generally a good point. But using the OP's example of hitting the dog.. what is the natural consequence to that? The dog biting the kid, then getting put to sleep for biting??


----------



## verde (Feb 11, 2007)

Offwing, I agree with you completely. IMHO the two most vital requirements for successful parenting are a sense of humor (you'll go insane without one) and FLEXIBILITY. Children have their own personalities and although some are sweet and generous, many of them have less than attractive qualities like sneakiness and selfishness. There is no one true way to raise a child. Even Alfie Kohn (and some might say The Almighty Alfie Kohn) admits in his own book that his own methods don't always work on his own children. Having a messianic belief in one philosophy of raising children may work fine for you and your child but it does not work for everyone.

As I said in an earlier post, I know many wonderful parents who use time-outs and their children are fabulous. To call this a "love withdrawal" is totally absurd. It NEVER occurs to those children that their parents don't love them. If you want to believe that it's a "love withdrawal" that's fine but I do not believe that and neither do those other wonderful parents.

A Boy's Mama, I say carry on. Of course we are "the boss" of our children. This morning I told my 20 mos old dd to turn around and come down the stairs on her tummy instead of walking upright because it's safer. I guess that means I'm her boss. Yep. And she's better off because of it.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mandymichel* 
What if the child doesn't like or care about the cat? It's a lot to assume that a kid can develop intrinsic motivation for following all necessary rules. There are many rules in life that people will never truly want to follow. So, what makes me not run red lights when there is no one else around or pay taxes that go toward pointless wars and so on and so forth? Fear of punishment.

sucks to be you.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 
so in the absence of intrinsic motivation, punishment is the method of ensuring compliance?

i personally have a lot more respect for children (even the littlest ones) and their ability to internalize how to do the right thing for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Well, if they're necessary, why wouldn't people want to follow them?

I don't abide red lights b/c I'm afraid of punishment, I abide them b/c of safety. But, many many many people run red lights all the time--despite the punishments.

And that's kind of the point....I don't want to raise a kid who looks around to see if someone's going to drop the hammar before or after he does something cruddy. I want him to think about how that cruddy behavior is going to affect others and his sense of character.

Time out (and other punishments), seem to me, to create a climate of seeking to *get away* with behavior, rather than doing the right thing intrinsically. Maybe your kids will be different, but I have yet to personally meet kids who operate differently. It makes me sad to see how furtive and sneaky they become--that look to the adult in the room and when they realize they haven't been "caught," how triumphant they seem.











-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 
even if there is no forcing/pinning etc of a child, i cannot tell you how many times i've been out and about in the world and i've heard the words come from an exasperated parent:

"DO YOU WANT A TIME OUT?"

and usually, right after that, a "NOOOOOOOO!!" from a wailing child.

a threat is a threat is a threat, whether it's a swat on the butt, or being made to sit in a chair for a minute per year of age. what does that accomplish? maybe you get (temporary) compliance, but you also get the beginnings of an adversarial relationship based on a fundamental power struggle, and a child that learns that the most important consequence of a certain behavior is the one that pertains negatively to him or herself.

i so do not want that for our family.

on another note, as i was just nursing my little one down to sleep, i was thinking about what the societal ramifications are of this philosophy. if we've come to a point in society that people are doing the right thing based on what's in it for them, that does not bode well for us as a species.







: that is so...SAD to me, it's quite tragic. now that i think about it, there are reminders of it every day. on the highway, the sign to remind us to fasten our seatbelts says "buckle up...it's the law." but we shouldn't fasten our belts because we're loathe to get a ticket and pay a fine, we should do it because it's a safety issue. i don't recycle my cans, glass and plastic because i can get a fine and citation from the sanitation department...i take the time and effort to do it because it's an environmentally sound thing to do, and i do what i can to be a steward of the earth. i don't violate the user agreement here because i'm afraid of getting banned, but because i respect a rule that was set up to protect this community. and i'm not a good person that tries to help other people because i want to ride the glory train to heaven or because some book and a man at a pulpit said so, but because helping others and sharing the abundance of our lives is the right thing to do.

so now that i think on this more, i realize that in fact, i do feel that the answer to the op's question is that time outs are a violent, short sighted and controlling method of trying to elicit compliant behavior in children.

there. i said it.







:i'm ready for the tomatoes.


No tomatoes here. I agree wholeheartedly.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
To me, toddler hitting is not different than the above mispronunciation--developmentally normal and beyond their capability to change before they're ready.

No amount of punishing the kid for saying "sossie" instead of "sorry" is going to make his skills catch up with an adult's. But you could probably mess up the relationship a bit over it.

I think showing them what TO do ("Can you push your lips together like this? Rrrrrrr, rrrrrrr, rrrrrr?" or "Can you tell me with words that you're angry?") and letting them know how it impacts those around them ("Oh, it's OK, Nana might not understand you just yet, she's not ignoring you." or "It hurts when you hit the kitty.") and waiting for the skill set for them to outgrow it are more effective and better for the relationship.


Wow- GREAT comparision.

I agree.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SMR* 
my dd is only 17 months.. so she's never had anything close to a time out.. I think when/if the time comes, I'll probably use that method of 'punishment' since obviously I don't see how I could ever smack my lovely girl!! YIKES!! So, I don't see anything bad about time outs.. esp. when done as the OP described... very lovingly and making sure that they know WHY they needed to take a break!

Another question though... people mention the natural consequence thing.. which is generally a good point. But using the OP's example of hitting the dog.. what is the natural consequence to that? The dog biting the kid, then getting put to sleep for biting??

Okay - first, it is possible to parent and discipline without every using punishments.

Next, as I said, if the child is young enough that they can not keep themselves from hitting the dog then they simply need to be better supervised so they don't have the opportunity.

-Angela


----------



## crissei (Oct 17, 2004)

This thread has given me a lot of food for thought.

Me and DH have been so exhausted lately that we are finding dealing with our DS very challenging. In the throws of DS tearing the house apart, I have been taking DS to the couch and telling him to sit, just so I can play catch-up with whatever happens to be all over the place. I haven't thought of this as time-out, but maybe it is?
I try to get him to help clean up, but his understanding is still pretty limited.
Anyway... I guess I have some thinking to do...


----------



## dis (May 21, 2005)

I've read that Haiman article several times, and what bothers me is that I'm not sure I believe his base assumption - that the behaviour is always a symptom of an underlying unmet need. I don't buy it. Sometimes I think the behaviour is just to see the parental reaction. Sometimes I don't think the child has any idea why they do a particular behaviour; there is no unmet need underlying it, they just wanted to see what would happen when they hit the cat/their brother/whatever. Sometimes a toddler or a child is just really worked up and isn't thinking at all. So first you stop the behaviour, then you explain why we don't do that. And in the case of things like hitting, my primary goal is to stop the behaviour (because it's potentially dangerous), and THEN work on empathy and intrinsic motivation. It takes time for a person to develop empahty and that knowledge that they shouldn't hit because it hurts the target, and the empathy can easily lag behind.

We use time-outs when DD is worked up. When she gets worked up, she hits. So we try, as much as possible, to head things off early and avoid having her get to the point where she starts hitting, and we talk about why we shouldn't hit, but sometimes we miss the cues or it happens so fast we're at that point before we can do anything. So yeah, in that situation? She gets a short time out where she sits on the stairs, with a parent in eyeshot (although not within arms-reach, because we're the ones she wants to hit), until she's calmed down and can return to her usually sunny self and we can discuss why we don't hit.

Every child is different. I'm sure there's many kids who don't need timeouts; but to call time-outs 'violent' is just way too much. I'm sure there are parents who use them inappropriately, just as with everything, but I just can't agree that they are harmful - unless someone has some scientific research to back that up?


----------



## Kathryn (Oct 19, 2004)

I disagree with time outs, especially TIMED ones. I have, however, had my dd sit in my lap until she calms down (attacking the babies) or come sit in a different room with me. I never put a time per year type thing on it because it's not about 'if you sit nicely for 3 minutes, I forgive you'. It's about getting her to calm down and stop hitting and kicking things/people. That usually means me bear hugging her long enough for her to get back in her head and realize it's ok. I don't consider those time outs, personally. They're more of just getting away from the thing that's causing her to flip out. When she hits the dog or cat, I make US go into a different room to play. I tell her that we need to be gentle to the animals and until we can, we are playing in here to protect the animals. I never make her leave by herself or apply a consequence that doesn't even make sense.


----------



## glorified_rice (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dis* 
I've read that Haiman article several times, and what bothers me is that I'm not sure I believe his base assumption - that the behaviour is always a symptom of an underlying unmet need. I don't buy it. Sometimes I think the behaviour is just to see the parental reaction. Sometimes I don't think the child has any idea why they do a particular behaviour; there is no unmet need underlying it, they just wanted to see what would happen when they hit the cat/their brother/whatever. Sometimes a toddler or a child is just really worked up and isn't thinking at all. So first you stop the behaviour, then you explain why we don't do that. And in the case of things like hitting, my primary goal is to stop the behaviour (because it's potentially dangerous), and THEN work on empathy and intrinsic motivation. It takes time for a person to develop empahty and that knowledge that they shouldn't hit because it hurts the target, and the empathy can easily lag behind.

We use time-outs when DD is worked up. When she gets worked up, she hits. So we try, as much as possible, to head things off early and avoid having her get to the point where she starts hitting, and we talk about why we shouldn't hit, but sometimes we miss the cues or it happens so fast we're at that point before we can do anything. So yeah, in that situation? She gets a short time out where she sits on the stairs, with a parent in eyeshot (although not within arms-reach, because we're the ones she wants to hit), until she's calmed down and can return to her usually sunny self and we can discuss why we don't hit.

Every child is different. I'm sure there's many kids who don't need timeouts; but to call time-outs 'violent' is just way too much. I'm sure there are parents who use them inappropriately, just as with everything, but I just can't agree that they are harmful - unless someone has some scientific research to back that up?

I really agree with what you are saying. I know that when my son hits me, he is sometimes doing it to test my reaction and sometimes it is because he is tired, overstimulated, etc... We try to avert those situations, but of course it is not always possible. I know that at two, his sense of empathy is not fully developed, yet I know that it is developing because I have seen clear signs that it is.
I am conflicted though, because like you said some of these situations can be potentially dangerous (to me, mostly), because some of his hits and slaps are very painful. I don't know what a natural consequence of hitting me should be (with all this discussion of natural consequences). Should it be that I get up and go into another room without explanation? Should it be that I ignore him and don't talk to him? I don't think so. That would be as confusing or more so than a brief cool-down period in his bedroom, which I sort of think of as pushing the "reset" button on the situation. Perhaps I should just ignore the fact that he slapped me in the face? That does not seem logical to me either. I think my son is well aware that what he is doing is unacceptable and I think that he needs to know that I am in control of the situation and that he can be free to express his emotions (positive or negative) and that I will be there for him no matter what, in a loving way while also providing clear boundaries and guidance when it comes to behavior.


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dis* 
I've read that Haiman article several times, and what bothers me is that I'm not sure I believe his base assumption - that the behaviour is always a symptom of an underlying unmet need. I don't buy it. Sometimes I think the behaviour is just to see the parental reaction. Sometimes I don't think the child has any idea why they do a particular behaviour; there is no unmet need underlying it, they just wanted to see what would happen when they hit the cat/their brother/whatever. Sometimes a toddler or a child is just really worked up and isn't thinking at all. So first you stop the behaviour, then you explain why we don't do that. And in the case of things like hitting, my primary goal is to stop the behaviour (because it's potentially dangerous), and THEN work on empathy and intrinsic motivation. It takes time for a person to develop empahty and that knowledge that they shouldn't hit because it hurts the target, and the empathy can easily lag behind.

We use time-outs when DD is worked up. When she gets worked up, she hits. So we try, as much as possible, to head things off early and avoid having her get to the point where she starts hitting, and we talk about why we shouldn't hit, but sometimes we miss the cues or it happens so fast we're at that point before we can do anything. So yeah, in that situation? She gets a short time out where she sits on the stairs, with a parent in eyeshot (although not within arms-reach, because we're the ones she wants to hit), until she's calmed down and can return to her usually sunny self and we can discuss why we don't hit.

Every child is different. I'm sure there's many kids who don't need timeouts; but to call time-outs 'violent' is just way too much. I'm sure there are parents who use them inappropriately, just as with everything, but I just can't agree that they are harmful - unless someone has some scientific research to back that up?

he has been mentioned several times in this thread already, but alfie kohn's book, unconditional parenting, has numerous citations of scientific research that has been done on this subject. some of the research is quite surprising, in fact.

the book is great but it's quite information dense, so if you're pressed for time (being parents, we probably ALL are pressed for time







) there is a DVD of him doing a lecture at stanford university that is quite entertaining and very well done. he is able to explain his major points in a very digestible form.

violence does not just mean physical violence. the outward appearance of time out is that it is a 'calm' technique because there is no hitting involved. but the underlying interaction between parent and child is still adversarial. we do need to dig much much deeper than the surface and to also be empathetic to the child's perception and experience. i contend that it is through this empathy and compassion towards our children, at those moments when we find it hard to love them due to their behavior, is when they need it the most. isn't that the definition of 'unconditional love'? when modeled this, they internalize empathy and compassion WITHOUT having to be 'taught' how to be empathetic and compassionate, because empathy and compassion are NOT behaviors.

(so sorry i'm not very articulate this morning, my coffee hasn't kicked in yet







)


----------



## karre (Mar 22, 2006)

I don't really believe in time outs. Yet i do not believe that using time out to deter a child from hitting the cat will prevent a child from learning to have compassion and empathy for the cat. A parent can use time out to impose consequences for hitting the cat and ALSO teach their child that the cat should be treated with kindness and help to foster compassion for the cat. A child afraid of time out might learn to leave the cat alone much sooner than he learns empathy for the cat (and initially will be motivated by time out) BUT i do not think that IN ANY WAY prevents the child from learning empathy for the cat. Some parents, who are not invested in the moral growth and maturity of their child, may use quick and effective means of behavior control and then fail to do the work of teaching their child why they should do the right thing (other than time out) but i don't think these people/situations are created by the very nature of the discipline that is used. I do not think the discipline itself prevents the child from learning to be motivated by other forces. I would expect those of you who stated that they have faith in a child's ability to learn, reason and grow would agree with this statement.

I think this is a very poor argument against time outs. I think many parents who use time outs also teach their childern moral responsibility. I have yet to see an arguement that demonstrates why a child who initially was motivated by a fear of time outs would fail to learn to be motivated by moral reasons.

I think the problem with time outs arises when the time outs damage the parent child relationship (which i believe eventually happens and that is the reason i do not believe in time outs). If the child develops a lack of trust and feels insecurity about his relationship with his parents then i think a problem arises. The child may become unattached to the parent and form another attachment elsewhere. If this attachment is with a loving, responsible and invested adult like a loving grandmother, aunt or teacher then the child will still most likely grow up to be a responsible, compassionate person. However if the child instead forms an attachment with another child, someone who has not yet learned to be responsible themselves, then the child will fail to mature normally and and may grow up to be motivated solely by self interest. (i think the degree to which this happens depends upon how sustained the child's attachement to other childern is and how long the parent--child relationship is damaged.)

Bottom line: When the child feels he can no longer rely on the parents for love, support, etc the parent loses his/her natural, non-coercive power (that forms out of the child's love and trust for the parent) to influence and teach the child.


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

nobody said that using time outs prevent the development of empathy and compassion.

it is entirely possible to use time outs as a form of discipline and have the end result be an adult that is empathetic and compassionate. but it's not BECAUSE of the discipline that they developed the ability to be kind and see the world through other people's perspectives.

as for the contentions that not using time outs is a 'cookie cutter' approach, i'm kind of







:. what is more cookie cutter than a time out?

Toddler hits the cat...TIME OUT.

Preschooler hits mommy...TIME OUT.

Child doesn't comply with parents directive...TIME OUT.

that's not consistency, people.

that's lazy, uninspired parenting.















i guess i need to get ready for those tomatoes again.)


----------



## dis (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 

as for the contentions that not using time outs is a 'cookie cutter' approach, i'm kind of







:. what is more cookie cutter than a time out?

Toddler hits the cat...TIME OUT.

Preschooler hits mommy...TIME OUT.

Child doesn't comply with parents directive...TIME OUT.

that's not consistency, people.

that's lazy, uninspired parenting.















i guess i need to get ready for those tomatoes again.)

And 'please timmy, we don't hit because it's not nice' over and over and over again while Timmy just keeps right on hitting is inspired parenting?

See, I can make inappropriate and inaccurate generalizations too!


----------



## samanthasmom (Jun 18, 2006)

what a gread thread. my dd is 13 mos and my husband and i haven't really discussed discipline. this has given me so much to think about!


----------



## Perdita_in_Ontario (Feb 7, 2007)

The reasonable natural consequence for hitting the dog is that the dog goes away - at least in our house. Hit the dog (or the cat) and the toddler is removed and the cat/dog is moved to behind the baby gate. Usually the cat/dog beats me to it...

There are two advantages to this. The child learns that playing roughly with the animal means there's no more animal to play with. And the animals feel protected and therefore don't have to protect themselves. 3 animals (2 cats and a German Shepherd - plus one more Shepherd up till recently) and none of them have bitten, scratched, snapped, or even hissed or growled. And the toddler has learned self-restraint.

I do agree that different techniques (within reason) work in different households. So much depends on temperaments (childs and parents and the interaction). But my bias is to start with the least controlling discipline and try to make that work first. I don't use a lot of "explaining" with DD - short sentences and clear words work best, I find.

As for "do people use timeouts with toddlers" - I talk to parents and day-care providers who are putting 14- and 15-month olds in forced timeouts. Try to tell me that's not just plain punishment - there's no reflection going on, that's for sure.


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

to me, inspired parenting is when you maintain a loving connection with your child, coupled with an understanding of development and meeting your child where they are, added to an attitude of cooperation, the spirit of maximizing 'Yes'es in our lives as much as possible while maintaining safety and appropriate personal boundaries and taking responsibility for modeling positive values and actions.

wow, that's quite a run on sentence.

anyways, nowhere in there are the words behavior, control or compliance.


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

I don't think every combination of child and parent allows for the same child rearing techniques.

I don't use time outs. Never have, and dd is really exceptionally well behaved. My friends who do use time outs call her 'the angel', which is really a gross overcharacterization. She's a normal three year old, with all the developmental and human nature challenges that go along with that.

But for the combination of she and I, time outs are damaging to our relationship. The closer we are, the more receptive she is to taking guidance from me. She trusts me not to shame her or hurt her, so she listens when I ask her to do or not do something. She has embraced the idea that I have her best interests at heart and am motivated by what is good for her. So she listens.

But I don't parent other children, I parent my own. And other parents may not be able to find the emotional tools to accomplish child guidance without coercive techniques. Perhaps if another parent was matched with dd, that parent would feel as though time outs were necessary. And for that particular combination of child and parent, maybe that would be true.


----------



## devster4fun (Jan 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mandymichel* 
What if the child doesn't like or care about the cat? It's a lot to assume that a kid can develop intrinsic motivation for following all necessary rules. There are many rules in life that people will never truly want to follow. So, what makes me not run red lights when there is no one else around or pay taxes that go toward pointless wars and so on and so forth? Fear of punishment.


I guess I think they can develop that intrinsic motivation. It takes time, maybe even a lifetime of positive and negative experiences.

What makes me not run red lights when no one is around? Well, I think for myself. Really, if not one car is around and I'm waiting..._I go_. It doesn't harm anyone. I pay my taxes because they fund a lot of wonderful things in my community. Do I agree with how every penny is spent, of course not.

I think the biggest drawback of punishments and rewards, is they teach to child to rely on someone else to think for them. Children learn this black and white thinking. (good vs. bad, etc..) When so much of life is grey and in the middle. And, each day you have to make choices about what is best. And, they both require escalation to continue working.
Stickers turn into candy, then toys, then trips etc...


----------



## stlmomof2 (Mar 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
sucks to be you.

-Angela

Whereas you feel morally driven to follow all of society's rules and you love and care about everything that your mom does?


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

I'm sorry, I have to say something.
Though I'm not an advocate of time-outs, there are moms on this board who OBVIOUSLY did not have to deal with challenges that require a time-out. I only gave my son time out once, when he was insisting on playing with oven. Though I'm all for gentle discipline and talking and explaining and teaching, there are some children that no matter what you say or how you act will not listen or understand unless the time-out is provided.

Boys for example are a lot more challenging,and more likely to deserve a time-out...
I emphasize with mothers who feel like there is no other choice but give time-out and maybe it's not such a bad thing to teach a child that everything he does in life has consequences.


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mandymichel* 
Whereas you feel morally driven to follow all of society's rules and you love and care about everything that your mom does?

i think she was trying to point out that a life lived in fear of punishment um, well...sucks.


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 
I'm sorry, I have to say something.
Though I'm not an advocate of time-outs, there are moms on this board who OBVIOUSLY did not have to deal with challenges that require a time-out. I only gave my son time out once, when he was insisting on playing with oven. Though I'm all for gentle discipline and talking and explaining and teaching, there are some children that no matter what you say or how you act will not listen or understand unless the time-out is provided.

Boys for example are a lot more challenging,and more likely to deserve a time-out...
I emphasize with mothers who feel like there is no other choice but give time-out and maybe it's not such a bad thing to teach a child that everything he does in life has consequences.

OBVIOUSLY? ok.

are you suggesting that those that are able to parent without coersion are only able to do so because they haven't had to deal with challenging behaviors or lucky enough to have compliant little girls? then that goes to the assumption that some children NEED to be coerced, or there is some behavior that NEEDS to be punished for in order to elicit compliance? i don't believe that for a second, that is quite a slippery slope and i'm not sure that is a can that you want to open.


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

I think it's true that not every child will respond to any given method of discipline. But I do think that the vast majority of children respond to noncoercive techniques.


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 
...there are moms on this board who OBVIOUSLY did not have to deal with challenges that require a time-out. I only gave my son time out once, when he was insisting on playing with oven..

I got a bit of a giggle over this as well.

Sure, that's right. None of us has ever had our child persist in playing with something we'd asked them not to. OBVIOUSLY if we had experienced misbehavior of THAT magnitude, we'd understand this whole time out business







.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

I'm not going to correct myself. There is no "one size fits all" - bottom line.
It's funny - I had a friend who had 2 children who were challenging and strong-willed and she was so proud of herself for never giving them "time-out". There is until little Jake came along.
There are some situations that can drive a mother off the wall and if she feels like she needs to give a child "time-out"for sanity of both them, then it's her prerogative and nobody can judge her.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 
I'm sorry, I have to say something.
Though I'm not an advocate of time-outs, there are moms on this board who OBVIOUSLY did not have to deal with challenges that require a time-out. I only gave my son time out once, when he was insisting on playing with oven. Though I'm all for gentle discipline and talking and explaining and teaching, there are some children that no matter what you say or how you act will not listen or understand unless the time-out is provided.

Boys for example are a lot more challenging,and more likely to deserve a time-out...
I emphasize with mothers who feel like there is no other choice but give time-out and maybe it's not such a bad thing to teach a child that everything he does in life has consequences.

My first child has been a HUGE challenge. HUGE.

Ask anyone in my API group what it was like for a full YEAR (plus) of following him around the room monitoring him so he wouldn't hit the other children, guiding him to share the toys, removing him when he became so overwhelmed he would completely melt down kicking and screaming.

Add years of food allergies with Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde type behavioral reactions with aggression, tantrums, very little sleeping, and an almost autistic-like ability to tune you out, and you've got a kid that most people told me they understood why I wasn't getting pregnant again anytime soon.

High needs and spirited and sensitive to the n-th degree.

And, now, at 5.5 one of the most considerate, gentle, kind kids you ever want to meet. I'm biased, of course. But, I can't tell how often I get postive feedback from other people about how generous he is, how considerate and polite he is, how he helps kids mediate and negotiate. He's still very sensitive to injustices and other things, but he has STOPPED all of those insane toddler behaviors like hitting, tormenting the cat, grabbing toys, being unwilling to share, etc. And without punishment. Without time-outs. Without imposing consequences.

Now, if he knocks a kid down on the playground he doesn't look around to see if he's going to get in trouble or not. He helps the kid back up and hugs them or helps them find their mom and apologizes.

So, believe me, my kid was a huge pita for a long, long time. You could probably find lots of posts on the GD forum about it.







But, he's passed through that stuff feeling like I'm his ally not his adversary, and he's got a much bigger tool box of stuff to call on.

I read the posts from people like Dar, UnschoolinMa, wuwei and see how these amazing mamas have raised their kids without punishment and coercion, and they are not having the issues that most of the other parents I know are.

So, I'm convinced: Time-outs are not only NOT necessary, they've got the potential to do a lot of damage to the kid and the parent-child relationship. It's just not worth it in my opinion. It's one of those things I want to shout from the rooftops: "Hey! You don't HAVE to punish your kid! There is another way!!" Obviously, there are tons of people out there and on here who are not going to go this route, but I do feel compelled to put it out there: There is a different way that does not involve your child turning into a monster, and in fact, will probably turn out better than you imagined.

Peace.







:


----------



## karre (Mar 22, 2006)

I'm not even sure we are all defining time outs in the same way. For instance, i do not think that removing your child from an activity where he could be harmed or could harm someone so that you can stop the behavior and explain to him that the activity or his actions were dangerous and could harm him or someone else is a time out. A time out is not (imo) a situation where you are doing something dangerous and the child must be removed for his safty so you can complete your task. Also a time out, imo, is not a situation where you are dealing with two kids in a fight and you must seperate them and cannot be with them both at once but must attend to them each individually. Also i would not conisider a mom (dad/parental figure) who removes herself/himself from a situation where she might yell or hit out of anger a time out. For young childern, this seperation may still be difficult but at least you can say "mama will be right with you, mama just needs to take care of..." (babies/toddlers can be put in cribs/playpens while still in your presence, etc)

A time out, by my definition, is where you deny/prohibit the child from being in your presence (or the presence of another caring adult) as a punishment for "bad behavior". The child is not allowed to benefit from your presence so he/she can discuss his/her emotions with you (or you help the child interept his/her emotions) until the child has served her punishment. If the child was just removed from a difficult situation and has a lot of intense emotions at the time of the time out, i could see how the child would feel quite isolated and abandoned with no one to turn to for support. Even if the child is calmed down and then ordered to go to time out afterwards the child could feel very ashamed of his/her prior emotions and feel afraid that he/she has done something to cause the parent to no longer love him/her.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
My first child has been a HUGE challenge. HUGE.

Ask anyone in my API group what it was like for a full YEAR (plus) of following him around the room monitoring him so he wouldn't hit the other children, guiding him to share the toys, removing him when he became so overwhelmed he would completely melt down kicking and screaming.

Add years of food allergies with Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde type behavioral reactions with aggression, tantrums, very little sleeping, and an almost autistic-like ability to tune you out, and you've got a kid that most people told me they understood why I wasn't getting pregnant again anytime soon.

High needs and spirited and sensitive to the n-th degree.

And, now, at 5.5 one of the most considerate, gentle, kind kids you ever want to meet. I'm biased, of course. But, I can't tell how often I get postive feedback from other people about how generous he is, how considerate and polite he is, how he helps kids mediate and negotiate. He's still very sensitive to injustices and other things, but he has STOPPED all of those insane toddler behaviors like hitting, tormenting the cat, grabbing toys, being unwilling to share, etc. And without punishment. Without time-outs. Without imposing consequences.

Now, if he knocks a kid down on the playground he doesn't look around to see if he's going to get in trouble or not. He helps the kid back up and hugs them or helps them find their mom and apologizes.

So, believe me, my kid was a huge pita for a long, long time. You could probably find lots of posts on the GD forum about it.







But, he's passed through that stuff feeling like I'm his ally not his adversary, and he's got a much bigger tool box of stuff to call on.

I read the posts from people like Dar, UnschoolinMa, wuwei and see how these amazing mamas have raised their kids without punishment and coercion, and they are not having the issues that most of the other parents I know are.

So, I'm convinced: Time-outs are not only NOT necessary, they've got the potential to do a lot of damage to the kid and the parent-child relationship. It's just not worth it in my opinion. It's one of those things I want to shout from the rooftops: "Hey! You don't HAVE to punish your kid! There is another way!!" Obviously, there are tons of people out there and on here who are not going to go this route, but I do feel compelled to put it out there: There is a different way that does not involve your child turning into a monster, and in fact, will probably turn out better than you imagined.

Peace.







:

I applaud you for this. I honestly have nothing but admiration for mothers who dealt with such challenges and knew a better way to deal with it then "time-outs" and as I said I don't advocate them in any way and if I can avoid giving them ever again, I would love to. You are a testimonial to all women out there.
All I'm saying is that I emphasize with mothers who feel the need to give a child a time-out and maybe some approach works with one child that will not work with other children. I feel like the way this board is approached is with a lot of judgement, some posts are short and plain mean and I don't see a need for it.

We are in the same boat here. We are all trying to do what's best. I know for sure that some children are easier then others and a mother might think that her child is a challenge but really has no idea what a challenge is. So there is no room for judgement on these boards, none.

With that said, I appreciated your post so much, because it was respectful of how I felt and at the same time offered hope to moms who are struggling now.


----------



## Rico'sAlice (Mar 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 
OBVIOUSLY? ok.

are you suggesting that those that are able to parent without coersion are only able to do so because they haven't had to deal with challenging behaviors or lucky enough to have compliant little girls? then that goes to the assumption that some children NEED to be coerced, or there is some behavior that NEEDS to be punished for in order to elicit compliance? i don't believe that for a second, that is quite a slippery slope and i'm not sure that is a can that you want to open.









:
To vouch for this in a round-about way, I live/work with SN adults many of whom have outrageous behavior issues. I really can not believe that many posters have children who present challenges that are on some level way beyond what we deal with. [And FTR in the community I work in we are talking about living together 24/7]
Personal philosophy aside, for Legal human rights reasons we simply are not allowed to use punishments. At all. Ever. (And the community I am involved with generally does not use medication to "treat" behavior issues or drug people into submission.)
So we are pretty much "forced" to stick with discussion and natural consequences.
It is totally possible. And it works. When it doesn't work b/c of an individuals lack of ability to learn XYZ there is usually a way to control the environment to prevent the bad situation from reoccurring.

We don't use "time outs." They are considered punishment.
However, I/we/the state don't consider that _suggesting_ someone might _want_ some time alone to calm down and them going to their room or wherever _voluntarily_ to be a "time out." It is a coping technique that I use on myself. IMO it feels _totally_ different than being _sent_ to or _"put"_ in timeout.

The rough w/ animals thing comes up here too. Some people (due to the extent of their disability) are simply not going to learn to be sufficiently gentle when with pets. Therefore it is _our_ responsibility to ensure that an opportunity for them to hurt an animal never happens. It is _our_ responsibility to see that they don't get bit. That can be done w/o anyone getting punished. I'm not sure why that is hard to get.


----------



## offwing (Aug 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 
as for the contentions that not using time outs is a 'cookie cutter' approach, i'm kind of







:. what is more cookie cutter than a time out?

That was not the contention. The contention was that there is no one single true way to raise a child. Period.

Now go sit in the corner until you learn to read! (







- just joking!)


----------



## karre (Mar 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 
also, there is the concept that a discipline technique like time out teaches a child to relate everything to their OWN experience. it can foster self-centeredness and also negatively impact the development of compassion and empathy. since the child learns, time out after time out, that a negative consequence happens to them due to x y or z behavior, they don't learn that it's not ok to do x y and z. instead, they internalize that either they have to be better at not getting caught, or not to do a certain thing because of the impact on themselves, not on the effect that their actions have over others.

those are not a life lessons that i would like for my child to learn.

yes, there are negative social consequences out in the real world. but honestly, i don't cheat, steal or hit others because i'm afraid of going to jail or being sued. i don't do it because somewhere, somehow i learned that cheating, stealing, hitting etc are not nice, kind or ethical things to do to OTHER people and not because i'm afraid to land in the pokey.

as for using time outs as being a welcome shift in the current parenting paradigm, i do somewhat agree. as a physically abused child, i sure wish my parents used time outs instead of hitting me. but it is still the lesser of evils, and i hope to transcend these patterns and embrace truly non-violent parenting. i do believe that peace in the world begins with peace in the home.


Quote:

I don't really believe in time outs. Yet i do not believe that using time out to deter a child from hitting the cat will prevent a child from learning to have compassion and empathy for the cat. A parent can use time out to impose consequences for hitting the cat and ALSO teach their child that the cat should be treated with kindness and help to foster compassion for the cat. A child afraid of time out might learn to leave the cat alone much sooner than he learns empathy for the cat (and initially will be motivated by time out) BUT i do not think that IN ANY WAY prevents the child from learning empathy for the cat. Some parents, who are not invested in the moral growth and maturity of their child, may use quick and effective means of behavior control and then fail to do the work of teaching their child why they should do the right thing (other than time out) but i don't think these people/situations are created by the very nature of the discipline that is used. I do not think the discipline itself prevents the child from learning to be motivated by other forces. I would expect those of you who stated that they have faith in a child's ability to learn, reason and grow would agree with this statement.

I think this is a very poor argument against time outs. I think many parents who use time outs also teach their childern moral responsibility. I have yet to see an arguement that demonstrates why a child who initially was motivated by a fear of time outs would fail to learn to be motivated by moral reasons.

I think the problem with time outs arises when the time outs damage the parent child relationship (which i believe eventually happens and that is the reason i do not believe in time outs). If the child develops a lack of trust and feels insecurity about his relationship with his parents then i think a problem arises. The child may become unattached to the parent and form another attachment elsewhere. If this attachment is with a loving, responsible and invested adult like a loving grandmother, aunt or teacher then the child will still most likely grow up to be a responsible, compassionate person. However if the child instead forms an attachment with another child, someone who has not yet learned to be responsible themselves, then the child will fail to mature normally and and may grow up to be motivated solely by self interest. (i think the degree to which this happens depends upon how sustained the child's attachement to other childern is and how long the parent--child relationship is damaged.)

Bottom line: When the child feels he can no longer rely on the parents for love, support, etc the parent loses his/her natural, non-coercive power (that forms out of the child's love and trust for the parent) to influence and teach the child.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 
nobody said that using time outs prevent the development of empathy and compassion.

Of course time outs are not going to teach empathy and compassion, i clearly state that the parents can do that seperatly from the time outs but you stated that time outs foster self centeredness and negatively impact the development of empathy. I don't see any compelling evidence for that statement. i think that the parents and people the child love and admire will have a much greater impact on that then the discipline method. The problem is not that time outs foster self-centeredness but that they destroy a child's trust in his/her parents and then the parents lose the power to influence the child. That same child though could form a healthy attachment with grandma and learn compassion and empathy from her despite A MILLION time outs imposed by mama and dada.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Okay- I think we can all agree (at least I hope...) that no child *deserves* to be hit.

I realize that most of us grew up thinking at least punishment was just part of life, but I would like to ask everyone to stretch their minds a bit.

Perhaps, no child *deserves* to be punished.

-Angela


----------



## glorified_rice (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 
I applaud you for this. I honestly have nothing but admiration for mothers who dealt with such challenges and knew a better way to deal with it then "time-outs" and as I said I don't advocate them in any way and if I can avoid giving them ever again, I would love to. You are a testimonial to all women out there.
All I'm saying is that I emphasize with mothers who feel the need to give a child a time-out and maybe some approach works with one child that will not work with other children. I feel like the way this board is approached is with a lot of judgement, some posts are short and plain mean and I don't see a need for it.

We are in the same boat here. We are all trying to do what's best. I know for sure that some children are easier then others and a mother might think that her child is a challenge but really has no idea what a challenge is. So there is no room for judgement on these boards, none.

With that said, I appreciated your post so much, because it was respectful of how I felt and at the same time offered hope to moms who are struggling now.

Thank you for saying that. I think that just by discussing this and trying to learn from each other we are all evolving as parents. There are so many people out there who never even take the time to think about issues regarding discipline and how their approach might affect their children.


----------



## karre (Mar 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glorified_rice* 
Thank you for saying that. I think that just by discussing this and trying to learn from each other we are all evolving as parents. There are so many people out there who never even take the time to think about issues regarding discipline and how their approach might affect their children.

which is why it is preposterous that anyone would suggest any of us (proponents of time out or not) engage in the type of "lazy" parenting where discipline is used as an attempt to make our problems (ie kids) go away.


----------



## offwing (Aug 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Perhaps, no child *deserves* to be punished.

That just gives rise to a discussion of what is considered a punishment.

And given that a lot of the defintions here are already in conflict, I don't see much chance of agreement!









Personally, I think it is silly to nitpick over the exact technique when what really matters is the results.

If a child is secure, happy, loving and attached, what difference does it make what approach was used with that child?


----------



## glorified_rice (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Okay- I think we can all agree (at least I hope...) that no child *deserves* to be hit.

I realize that most of us grew up thinking at least punishment was just part of life, but I would like to ask everyone to stretch their minds a bit.

Perhaps, no child *deserves* to be punished.

-Angela









I agree with you Angela. That kind of thinking could change the world. It would take a huge paradigm shift in the minds of so many people to be able to accept that idea. The problem though, that comes to mind, is how does one define punishment. I'm sure we would all differ at least slightly on that question. I don't think I have ever "punished" my son, but some of you may think otherwise. I guess it all depends on each individual's perception.
I am of the mindset that, at least within a certain age range, no child really deserves punishment for anything. Now, teenagers on the other hand... punishment might be called for when they are sneaking out of their bedroom at night, etc... I don't even want to think about that







I can't think of anything that my son could do that would warrant a punishment or a "forced" time-out.


----------



## glorified_rice (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karre* 
which is why it is preposterous that anyone would suggest any of us (proponents of time out or not) engage in the type of "lazy" parenting where discipline is used as an attempt to make our problems (ie kids) go away.

Did anyone suggest that here? I completely agree with you, but I didn't detect that lazy attitude from anyone posting here. (oops, karre, I think I might have misinterpreted your post. Sorry.
Offwing, it seems like we cross-posted to some extent...sorry.


----------



## karre (Mar 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 
nobody said that using time outs prevent the development of empathy and compassion.

it is entirely possible to use time outs as a form of discipline and have the end result be an adult that is empathetic and compassionate. but it's not BECAUSE of the discipline that they developed the ability to be kind and see the world through other people's perspectives.

as for the contentions that not using time outs is a 'cookie cutter' approach, i'm kind of







:. what is more cookie cutter than a time out?

Toddler hits the cat...TIME OUT.

Preschooler hits mommy...TIME OUT.

Child doesn't comply with parents directive...TIME OUT.

that's not consistency, people.

that's lazy, uninspired parenting.















i guess i need to get ready for those tomatoes again.)

I guess i interpreted this post as suggesting that time-outs were a lazy form of parenting. I'm not even sure we are all using the same def of time out though. Oh and there was one other post where kidspiration gave a defination of inspired parenting (after this post i think) which may have used the word "lazy" in reference to time-outs but i may be wrong...i can't find it right now.

kidspirations post was actually very respectful...just found it.


----------



## offwing (Aug 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glorified_rice* 
Did anyone suggest that here? I completely agree with you, but I didn't detect that lazy attitude from anyone posting here. (oops, karre, I think I might have misinterpreted your post. Sorry.
Offwing, it seems like we cross-posted to some extent...sorry.

No problem!

I think that there have been a small handful of posts that could be _perceived_ as being judgmental and critial of others.


----------



## stlmomof2 (Mar 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 
so in the absence of intrinsic motivation, punishment is the method of ensuring compliance?

i personally have a lot more respect for children (even the littlest ones) and their ability to internalize how to do the right thing for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.

My daughter is definitely too young to understand that certain things are the "right thing to do." For instance, when I try to brush her teeth, I may as well be abusing her, because it makes her absolutely miserable. She is not going to decide to do it on her own anytime soon. It just has to be imposed upon her by an adult. And anyway, there is a lot of disagreement even among adults about what is ethically the right thing to do in various situations. So the point is that even though I don't think time outs would be effective (they seem arbitary, kind of like "Wear this clown mask because you did something wrong"), even removing children from dangerous situations function like punishments in that children don't get to make their own decisions based upon what they think is right. And you can't just assume that kids are eventually, as they get older, going to develop the same sense of right and wrong as their parents. Some rules we only learn to follow because they are rules.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *offwing* 
That just gives rise to a discussion of what is considered a punishment.

And given that a lot of the defintions here are already in conflict, I don't see much chance of agreement!









Personally, I think it is silly to nitpick over the exact technique when what really matters is the results.

If a child is secure, happy, loving and attached, what difference does it make what approach was used with that child?

I've known secure, happy, loving and attached children who were spanked.

So that's okay?

-Angela


----------



## mraven721 (Mar 10, 2004)

_moved to gd_


----------



## stlmomof2 (Mar 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 
i think she was trying to point out that a life lived in fear of punishment um, well...sucks.

During part of my life, I am fearful of punishment (mostly little punishments like little fines). I think it would suck a lot more to convince yourself that you are following a bunch of arbitary laws in your life because you personally believe in all of them and you're not just scared of punishment. And then you expect your kids to feel the same way.


----------



## offwing (Aug 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I've known secure, happy, loving and attached children who were spanked.

Really? Hard to believe. I'm pretty sure the prevailing opinion here (and yours too if I'm not mistaken) is that there is no way a child who was spanked could really be secure, happy, loving and attached due to the inherent and pervasive physical, emotional and psychological harm of spanking.

I thought it went without saying that most people here are quite sure that a child raised in home where corporeal punishment was practiced would never meet that standard.


----------



## dis (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I've known secure, happy, loving and attached children who were spanked.

So that's okay?

-Angela

Apparently, it was OK for those children. Although I doubt they really are secure, happy, loving and attached if they were spanked - unless you mean they were spanked, like, once or something. Almost no one parents perfectly all the time.

I've never really viewed time-outs, as we use them, as a punishment. They're a moment for everyone to take a breather from whatever is causing DD to get worked up so we can all calm ourselves. Honestly, I sound like I'm hauling her off to time out every 10 minutes - she's had two time outs from us in her entire life (she's 25 months), so it's not like I'm using them for every tiny little thing, and she's had 2 at daycare when she started hitting the other little girl there. We've now got a good handle on what causes her to get to that point and have been able to avoid the situation altogether for the last two weeks.


----------



## kaspirant (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *offwing* 
Really? Hard to believe. I'm pretty sure the prevailing opinion here (and yours too if I'm not mistaken) is that there is no way a child who was spanked could really be secure, happy, loving and attached due to the inherent and pervasive physical, emotional and psychological harm of spanking.

I thought it went without saying that most people here are quite sure that a child raised in home where corporeal punishment was practiced would never meet that standard.

I don't think it's a stretch at all. Does it take more will-power, desire and work for the individual who *WAS* spanked... by all means.

I was spanked...and witnessed my sisters being all but beaten on a near daily basis. My sisters are both raising their children in the way we were raised and it breaks my heart to watch the cycle continue. BUT I AM SECURE, HAPPY, AND LOVING and I have been since I was a child...It's not been easy though...and I still continue to fight my monsters.

DH is sitting here reading over my shoulder. He has witnessed first hand the way I was raised when we visit and spend time with my sisters and the cousins. He marvels everyday at the loving, gentle way I treat our son.

I think it's a very ignorant thing to say that just because someone else *hurts* a child ****and deeply**** that they can never live a secure, happy life.


----------



## offwing (Aug 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaspirant* 
I think it's a very ignorant thing to say that just because someone else *hurts* a child ****and deeply**** that they can never live a secure, happy life.

Please don't take it personally. I was not speaking about you or to your life.

First, I didn't say anything about living a secure, happy life as an adult. if you go back and read carefully, you will note that I specifically was talking about a child.

Second, I never said that I believe that. I was asking a question because it is my understanding a large part of the argument for GD/AP styles of child rearing is that traditional punishment practices (including time outs in some people's opinion) are so emotionally and psychologically harmful to children that they result in insecure, fearful unhappy children with attachment problems. So I was very surprised to see the post talking about spanking not having that effect.

My original point was if our goals as parents is is to raise happy, secure, loving and attached children, shouldn't we be focused on doing whatever works for us that results in that happy outcome? Instead of pointing fingers over exactly how many seconds in which room after saying what is supposed to be the evil act that results in sad, fearful kids?

I'm very sorry my post upset you truly, but I think you should go back and read the whole thing in context to see what I was actually saying.


----------



## elizawill (Feb 11, 2007)

i like this thread. i have always thought i put my children in "time-outs" but i have never and would never put them in a naughty chair or put their nose in the corner! that is shaming them and humiliating in my opinion. i only make my children sit in their room if all else has failed and we just downright need a break to regroup. i always considered this a time out, although i don't call it that. my children are allowed to play quietly in their room while we are taking our time to regroup, and then after a short period we gather back together and talk. my husband made my daughter sit in time out when she was about 4. he made her sit in the corner (not even in a chair). my husband and i have an agreement that we support each other when it comes to the other one disciplining the child, so i didn't say anything to him in front of my dd. afterward, i asked to see him alone though...and needless to say we don't do that anymore.


----------



## Heather423 (Dec 15, 2006)

They use time-outs on the Nanny 911 and supernanny TV shows all the time and they do seem to work. It takes some crying and screaming to get them to settle down, but they teach the parents to be consistent. I don't think it causes any separation since the parents are there, or at least in the next room. The results seem to speak for themselves. But my baby is only 3 mo, so I don't have any experience in discipline, so I am not sure, but I don't see anything wrong with it.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Hi everyone~

This thread was moved to the Gentle Discipline Forum, so I would like to post a reminder of the forum guidelines here:

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.

Hitting is never the best way to teach a child. Even in the case of real danger - as when a child runs out into the road - you can grab him, sit him down, look him in the eyes, and tell him why he must never do that again. The panic in your voice will communicate your message much more effectively than any spanking. You can be dramatic without being abusive.*


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

I am struggling with this issue right now. We had never used time-out till very recently. I used to be quite vocal about my objections--many of which I still do have. I will never use TO for "not listening," being rude, etc.

But I changed my views about using time-out the day my DD grabbed my hair and pulled it so hard and persistently that my hand reached out and smacked her on the back just so she would let go.







:cry You of course need not tell me how wrong this is. I was viscerally shocked that I had done it--I didn't even know I was doing it till I was done. (This was after I had already been hit a number of times.) Of course I cried and apologized (and DD, naturally, said "Mama, don't hit me! It's not okay to hit!") I felt like crap, believe you me, but the thing was, I just snapped. (I had already been hit a number of times and was at the end of my rope.)

That was the day I realized that when my DD is physically lashing out, I MUST get distance from her. If I shut myself in my room ("Mommy takes a time out"--often suggested here), she will follow and scream and bang on the door. If I shut her in her room, she will do the same. It's really all the same to her. I do one or the other--whichever. I tell her I can't be with her till she's ready to stop hurting and promises she will. It does work. Yes, she cries and protests. But I literally do not know what else to do. I never, ever, want to strike my child again.

IMO, this is what time-out is for--a last resort separation and cool-down time for parent and child when parent and child cannot cope. When we think of the origins of time-out, it is used in sports on players who are physically out of control. I think it does have a very limited place in that sense.


----------



## Ethan*sMom (May 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *offwing* 
No problem!

I think that there have been a small handful of posts that could be _perceived_ *as being judgmental and critial of others*.

You mean like THIS one? This really hurt my feelings and made me very angry. I almost didn't come back to this thread because of it. People should not be allowed to make personal attacks like this poster did. Rule # 1 for the board.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rmzbm* 
IMO time out is a way for parents to convey "You sit here because *I* am upset. I cannot reasonably control this situation so I will impose a punative, passive agressive consequence so that I may feel I have done something."

Time out IS love withdrawl, I don't care how "nicely" you go about it.

*Learn a better way to parent!*

(bold - mine)
That was a very blatant attack on, I assume (because I started the thread), *my* parenting skills and being told by a complete stranger to learn a 'better' way - well...







:


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

One of the things I don't like about time-out is the power dynamic that generally has to exist for it to "work." What would keep my child sitting in the spot where I've placed him other than my exerting power over him? (Unless he were a particularly compliant child by nature, I suppose, but I don't know too many children like that.)

I can't think of a single thing that time-out can teach my child that I can't teach him even more effectively by engaging with him.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
IMO, this is what time-out is for--a last resort separation and cool-down time for parent and child when parent and child cannot cope. When we think of the origins of time-out, it is used in sports on players who are physically out of control. I think it does have a very limited place in that sense.

This I agree with. I take time-outs for myself, sometimes, and we do time-outs together to cool down (though I don't impose them on him - I tell him I need it and suggest he do it, too). This isn't what most people mean by time-out, IME.

I'm sorry for your experience. I had a similar one when ds was 3 that was just terrible.


----------



## Perdita_in_Ontario (Feb 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 
I emphasize with mothers who feel like there is no other choice but give time-out and maybe it's not such a bad thing to teach a child that everything he does in life has consequences.

I do agree - but for myself, not using time outs doesn't mean no consequences. There's a big difference between gentle discipline and no discipline. It's kind of like suggesting that being an AP parent necessarily means that your house is chaos (one of the most common charges, it seems, by those who don't believe in it).

One of the other reasons that we don't use timeouts is that evidence shows that they, like other forms of punishment, just don't work long-term. So while removal from a situation is often necessary, it stops that action, at that time - but it doesn't do anything to prevent the action in the future. Whereas more logical (natural) consequences can actually be learning experiences.

None of this is easy though, is it? And just when we think we've got our parenting groove worked out, there's another bend in the road that teaches _us_ something.

P (whose DD is definitely not a compliant little girl - I'd rather she not learn to obey without question even if that makes it more difficult for me in the short-term!)


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
I am struggling with this issue right now. We had never used time-out till very recently. I used to be quite vocal about my objections--many of which I still do have. I will never use TO for "not listening," being rude, etc.

But I changed my views about using time-out the day my DD grabbed my hair and pulled it so hard and persistently that my hand reached out and smacked her on the back just so she would let go.







:cry You of course need not tell me how wrong this is. I was viscerally shocked that I had done it--I didn't even know I was doing it till I was done. (This was after I had already been hit a number of times.) Of course I cried and apologized (and DD, naturally, said "Mama, don't hit me! It's not okay to hit!") I felt like crap, believe you me, but the thing was, I just snapped. (I had already been hit a number of times and was at the end of my rope.)

IMO, this is what time-out is for--a last resort separation and cool-down time for parent and child when parent and child cannot cope. When we think of the origins of time-out, it is used in sports on players who are physically out of control. I think it does have a very limited place in that sense.

ITA. And I think your use of TO makes sense.

I never had to think too much about discipline until my son turned about 3 1/2. Talking with him and explaining things worked really well. But at about 3 1/2 that completely changed. And I do think there is a testing of the limits that starts to happen. He's trying to find the boundaries/limits while also playing around with his sense of power and individuality.

Anyway, I say this because I was very opposed to using these kinds of techniques until I was faced with actually needing to! I have had to swallow my words a bit and realize that judging other's methods is completely off-base (for me, anyway) because I have no idea what they are dealing with in terms of behavior/temperment/personality/etc. Until age 3 1/2, I had a very easy-going child - at the time, I attributed it more to my parenting than to his personality/developmental stage/etc.

I agree whole-heartedly with what others have said that there is no single style of parenting that is best. Now that I have two children, I'm realizing how I'm going to have to adjust my style to each based on what they need at any point in time. I will forever be a student on this journey, which isn't a bad thing.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
I agree whole-heartedly with what others have said that there is no single style. Now that I have two children, I'm realizing how I'm going to have to adjust my style to each based on what they need at any point in time. I will forever be a student in this journey, which isn't a bad thing.









My perspective on other people's parenting has changed a lot in the last few years (now that ds is approaching 7). There are still some absolutes, IMO - hitting and shaming, for example, are two things that I still am just as strongly against as ever. But I can't get as worked up about people using time-outs as I used to.

It's not the relationship I want with my child and I think it's a stretch to say that they're necessary, but I don't see them as hugely damaging the way I used to. (The way that most people I know use them, that is... I do think that some people go over the top. Supernanny is a shining example.)


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly* 







My perspective on other people's parenting has changed a lot in the last few years (now that ds is approaching 7). There are still some absolutes, IMO - hitting and shaming, for example, are two things that I still am just as strongly against as ever. But I can't get as worked up about people using time-outs as I used to.

It's not the relationship I want with my child and I think it's a stretch to say that they're necessary, but I don't see them as hugely damaging the way I used to. (The way that most people I know use them, that is... I do think that some people go over the top. Supernanny is a shining example.)

Actually that's what I was trying to say earlier. People get worked up about other people's parenting skills, but maybe just maybe they had not been put in certain situations where they would do what they preach they never would never do.


----------



## elizawill (Feb 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *offwing* 
Really? Hard to believe. I'm pretty sure the prevailing opinion here (and yours too if I'm not mistaken) is that there is no way a child who was spanked could really be secure, happy, loving and attached due to the inherent and pervasive physical, emotional and psychological harm of spanking.

I thought it went without saying that most people here are quite sure that a child raised in home where corporeal punishment was practiced would never meet that standard.

i was spanked growing up. but then again, my folks let me taste their alcoholic drinks as a kid too!







: i'm not normal by any means....but i am finally very secure and happy! but having said that, i don't practice spanking. my daughter is so much like me as a child (very strong willed) and i make a point to speak to her and treat her with respect and not invalidate her emotions. my parents and i are so close now - they are my best friends, but when i was little, i hated being controlled and told how i was supposed to feel. i don't hold it against them though. they were doing the best they could in their eyes.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I have done time outs. They rarely were any use, so I have stopped doing them. The only thing that did work re: time out was we were having an awful struggle with my daughter putting her clothes and shoes on when it was time to go out.

For clothing, I started dressing her the night before. For shoes, I told her, "You are in time out until you put on your shoes." Worked like a charm, and I felt fine about using it that way. She was never in time out for longer than a minute for that issue, as she figured out quickly the way to have it end.

I hear lots of fear of abandonment issues, and the child feeling unloved. I think that is a risk. It depends how you do it, IMO, and on the larger parent/child relationship.

I prefer to avoid time outs if I can, but I will use them when I can't find another decent option.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Janelovesmax* 
Actually that's what I was trying to say earlier. People get worked up about other people's parenting skills, but maybe just maybe they had not been put in certain situations where they would do what they preach they never would never do.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I mean, I've always said I think spanking a child for putting his life in danger (running in the street is a classic example) is illogical and ridiculous. I've actually seen my child run into the street, get snatched out of the path of a bus by a friend, and still feel that hitting him would have been illogical and ridiculous.

I've also been in many situations with ds - on a daily basis, I'll wager - where other parents would have used time-outs and I just don't do it. I'm sure many other parents here have, as well.

It seems to be a favorite assumption of parents who are more prone to use punishments (logical consequences, etc.) that parents who don't use them just have easy, compliant children and, so, have no need for them. The truth is that many of us have intense, challenging children and still don't see any need for punishment. My point, really, was that as I get further along in this parenting journey, I start to view some punishments as not so harmful as I used to. I still believe there are always other, better, ways to go.


----------



## dis (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
My first child has been a HUGE challenge. HUGE.

Ask anyone in my API group what it was like for a full YEAR (plus) of following him around the room monitoring him so he wouldn't hit the other children, guiding him to share the toys, removing him when he became so overwhelmed he would completely melt down kicking and screaming.

Add years of food allergies with Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde type behavioral reactions with aggression, tantrums, very little sleeping, and an almost autistic-like ability to tune you out, and you've got a kid that most people told me they understood why I wasn't getting pregnant again anytime soon.

High needs and spirited and sensitive to the n-th degree.

And, now, at 5.5 one of the most considerate, gentle, kind kids you ever want to meet. I'm biased, of course. But, I can't tell how often I get postive feedback from other people about how generous he is, how considerate and polite he is, how he helps kids mediate and negotiate. He's still very sensitive to injustices and other things, but he has STOPPED all of those insane toddler behaviors like hitting, tormenting the cat, grabbing toys, being unwilling to share, etc. And without punishment. Without time-outs. Without imposing consequences.

Now, if he knocks a kid down on the playground he doesn't look around to see if he's going to get in trouble or not. He helps the kid back up and hugs them or helps them find their mom and apologizes.

So, believe me, my kid was a huge pita for a long, long time. You could probably find lots of posts on the GD forum about it.







But, he's passed through that stuff feeling like I'm his ally not his adversary, and he's got a much bigger tool box of stuff to call on.

I read the posts from people like Dar, UnschoolinMa, wuwei and see how these amazing mamas have raised their kids without punishment and coercion, and they are not having the issues that most of the other parents I know are.

So, I'm convinced: Time-outs are not only NOT necessary, they've got the potential to do a lot of damage to the kid and the parent-child relationship. It's just not worth it in my opinion. It's one of those things I want to shout from the rooftops: "Hey! You don't HAVE to punish your kid! There is another way!!" Obviously, there are tons of people out there and on here who are not going to go this route, but I do feel compelled to put it out there: There is a different way that does not involve your child turning into a monster, and in fact, will probably turn out better than you imagined.

Peace.







:

I'm really glad things worked out well for your son, I really am. But how do you know that they wouldn't have worked out just as well - heck, maybe even better or faster - with a different discipline style? I know as a child I was very similar to your son. I would definitely have been considered high needs an spirited if my mom had ever heard of those terms. And my parents used time-outs - I have memories of being in time out as a 4 year old at my own birthday party due to some particularly bad behaviour.

And by the time I was 5, I was the politest, nicest, sweetest kid around. And I loved my parents and had (and still have) a great relationship with them. And they did it WITH time-outs - no damage to the parent child relationship.

It's really hard to use anecdotes to try and prove anything about discipline styles, because someone could easily say that if you'd used time-outs, the results could have been exactly the same, or maybe things would have been better sooner. Maybe if my parents hadn't used time-outs I would have turned out horribly! We can't travel back in time and re-do things to find out.


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dis* 
I'm really glad things worked out well for your son, I really am. But how do you know that they wouldn't have worked out just as well - heck, maybe even better or faster - with a different discipline style? I know as a child I was very similar to your son. I would definitely have been considered high needs an spirited if my mom had ever heard of those terms. And my parents used time-outs - I have memories of being in time out as a 4 year old at my own birthday party due to some particularly bad behaviour.

And by the time I was 5, I was the politest, nicest, sweetest kid around. And I loved my parents and had (and still have) a great relationship with them. And they did it WITH time-outs - no damage to the parent child relationship.

It's really hard to use anecdotes to try and prove anything about discipline styles, because someone could easily say that if you'd used time-outs, the results could have been exactly the same, or maybe things would have been better sooner. Maybe if my parents hadn't used time-outs I would have turned out horribly! We can't travel back in time and re-do things to find out.

Very well said. I think this is all very true. That is why parenting is so often referred to as more of an art than a science. We do the best we can in the moment and there's really no way to know for sure that another way would have been better or worse (spanking, shaming and the like aside).

In my experience as a child, I would have greatly benefitted from more structure and limit-setting. For me, I saw the freedom my mother gave me as a lack of concern and caring on her part. I knew she loved me, but I wanted her to discipline me. I was actually jealous of my friends who would get grounded!

So it's a very individual, case-by-case kind of thing. We use time-outs for hurting others. That's the only time. It's one area that we won't budge on now because we've spent over a year doing the talking it out, guiding with different problem-solving skills, etc. Nothing stopped the hitting. So here we are, using time-outs and guess what...the hitting has stopped for the most part. It's given him more of a reason to stop and think about an alternative way of doing things. In his case, hitting was easy and something he had gotten used to doing. I think using time-outs was a way to break a habit in a sense. And all the talking we were doing seemed to only reinforce to him that he could carry on doing it because there were no real adverse consequences to him. We still talk a lot about it and work with him on compassion and empathy for others, but the time-out seems to be the thing that really stopped a behavior that we will not tolerate. (And btw, my son is nearly 4 1/2, so this isn't a toddler kind of thing...I certainly wouldn't have resorted to this when he was younger).


----------



## karre (Mar 22, 2006)

I know i posted alot about the risks of time outs being that the child will feel unloved and abandoned... I probably sounded somewhat dogmatic due to the fact that sometimes i feel like people are so stringent in their standards on this forum that i would be flamed if i expressed the fact that i believe any gray areas exist. I also completely disagreed with the arguement presented for why time outs were bad and wanted to make a strong arguement for my version of why time outs are bad. I think it is possible to maintain a healthy relationship while using time outs but I also think that there is a risk of hurting your child. I know parents who use "time outs" not really stringently who i think are wonderful parents and have done a great job.

On the other hand, no matter what you do or how perfect you are, your child will probably feel hurt by you somewhere down the line. Of course you should still do your best...!


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly* 
I don't think that's necessarily the case. I mean, I've always said I think spanking a child for putting his life in danger (running in the street is a classic example) is illogical and ridiculous. I've actually seen my child run into the street, get snatched out of the path of a bus by a friend, and still feel that hitting him would have been illogical and ridiculous.

I've also been in many situations with ds - on a daily basis, I'll wager - where other parents would have used time-outs and I just don't do it. I'm sure many other parents here have, as well.

It seems to be a favorite assumption of parents who are more prone to use punishments (logical consequences, etc.) that parents who don't use them just have easy, compliant children and, so, have no need for them. The truth is that many of us have intense, challenging children and still don't see any need for punishment. My point, really, was that as I get further along in this parenting journey, I start to view some punishments as not so harmful as I used to. I still believe there are always other, better, ways to go.

I think talking about using time-outs when you never thought you would is different than going back on your decision to not spank a child. I think everyone here is in agreement that spanking isn't ok.

I also don't think that the assumption is that non-punishing parents have compliant children. There is a huge spectrum of behavior and temperment ranging from compliant to defiant (for lack of better words). And I do think this in concert with the parent's temperment makes for why parenting styles work differently from one case to another.

This is so not black and white...


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karre* 
On the other hand, no matter what you do or how perfect you are, your child will probably feel hurt by you somewhere down the line. Of course you should still do your best...!

I just have to say that I think we are all going to hurt our children. We're human and we hurt each other even when we love each other more than we can express. This is one of those incredibly difficult things to accept as parents, but it is going to happen. And probably more than once.

I think trying to be perfect really doesn't help our kids. That isn't possible nor is it healthy. We all make mistakes, say things we didn't mean to say and behave in ways that aren't particularly pretty. I want my kids to see me fall and get back up again. I want them to know that they can do that, too. I think building resiliency in our children is one of the most important gifts we can give them.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I think it's important to take responsibility and empathize with our children's feelings when we hurt them. I know sometimes I speak too roughly to my child. It happened the other night, when she would *not* fall asleep and I needed to be up early. I said, "Go to sleep! You need to go to sleep NOW!" in the meanest voice.









She started to cry and said, "Mama! You hurt my feelings! WAH!!"

I think it's good if they can tell us that, yk? I said I was sorry, mama is being too impatient, I love you, etc. and held her til she felt better.

I think that's the best we can do. At least, its' the best I can do.


----------



## glorified_rice (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
I just have to say that I think we are all going to hurt our children. We're human and we hurt each other even when we love each other more than we can express. This is one of those incredibly difficult things to accept as parents, but it is going to happen. And probably more than once.

I think trying to be perfect really doesn't help our kids. That isn't possible nor is it healthy. We all make mistakes, say things we didn't mean to say and behave in ways that aren't particularly pretty. I want my kids to see me fall and get back up again. I want them to know that they can do that, too. I think building resiliency in our children is one of the most important gifts we can give them.









Very well put swampangel.


----------



## karre (Mar 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
I just have to say that I think we are all going to hurt our children. We're human and we hurt each other even when we love each other more than we can express. This is one of those incredibly difficult things to accept as parents, but it is going to happen. And probably more than once.

I think trying to be perfect really doesn't help our kids. That isn't possible nor is it healthy. We all make mistakes, say things we didn't mean to say and behave in ways that aren't particularly pretty. I want my kids to see me fall and get back up again. I want them to know that they can do that, too. I think building resiliency in our children is one of the most important gifts we can give them.

Yes i absolutely agree. I may not have accurately phrased my above post. I am sure i have already hurt my 18 month old. I once really yelled at him while i was absolutely worn out to the bone and their have been short with him many times since. I also agree that trying to be perfect probably isn't helpful (and never meant to suggest it). It is important for our childern to know that we all make mistakes and to learn that we can forgive ourselves for doing so. What i really meant is that the inevitability of hurting our childern shouldn't cause us sacrifice our standards and values yet at the same time we shouldn't carry around tremendous guilt for hurting them (since it is after all inevitable).


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dis* 
I'm really glad things worked out well for your son, I really am. But how do you know that they wouldn't have worked out just as well - heck, maybe even better or faster - with a different discipline style? I know as a child I was very similar to your son. I would definitely have been considered high needs an spirited if my mom had ever heard of those terms. And my parents used time-outs - I have memories of being in time out as a 4 year old at my own birthday party due to some particularly bad behaviour.

And by the time I was 5, I was the politest, nicest, sweetest kid around. And I loved my parents and had (and still have) a great relationship with them. And they did it WITH time-outs - no damage to the parent child relationship.

It's really hard to use anecdotes to try and prove anything about discipline styles, because someone could easily say that if you'd used time-outs, the results could have been exactly the same, or maybe things would have been better sooner. Maybe if my parents hadn't used time-outs I would have turned out horribly! We can't travel back in time and re-do things to find out.

For what it's worth, I was responding to a post that said people who haven't used time outs do not have difficult children.

The conventional wisdom is that punishments are a NECESSARY part of child-rearing. That without them a child will NOT likely learn discipline, manners, self-control, etc. And those are the mild predictions!







I believe I've seen the word "heathen" a time or two.

I'm saying that in my case and in the cases of many other parents, that has not proven true. In fact, the exact opposite has happened. Our kids aren't perfect by a long shot, but so many of the common issues that people assume is part of "the package" just don't exist (lying, sneakiness, angry/rebellious teens, etc.). It doesn't seem to be coincidence to me. I'm sure others feel differently.

Obviously, I have no way of knowing the outcome had I done things differently, but given what I know about how people *generally* respond to things like control and punishment and respect, it does seem to follow that a child treated with respect would start to manifest that in his character. And a child who was treated in a controlling manner would also manifest that. Given what I've seen and heard, I'd much rather deal with the repurcussions of "respect" vs. "control." And I'd also much rather BE a person who who gives respect instead of punishment or seeks to control. Again, other people feel differently.

Another part of it is the hindsight of how our relationship was, and how my child reacted, when I was "off the beam"--and not treating him the way I would want to be treated (mostly after my 2nd was born). Things were not good. I did not feel good about myself. Seeking obedience vs. seeking consensus did not make seem to make anyone in the family happier or improve our relationships or make behavior go away. It really fostered a negative attitude all the way around. I can't imagine how that would improve over a longer period of time.

I know that there are lots of great kids out there who are left to CIO, who are not bf, who are punished, and probably kids who are being hit....but that doesn't mean that those practices are ideal or something that I would feel good about doing. Millions of other parents feel differently. Millions of parents think we're crazy and are doing our kids a HUGE disservice. But if they tell me that what I'm doing is going to result in a kid who is out of control, who has no manners, who has no respect, who can't follow directions, who won't abide by societal rules, isn't kind/considerate/gentle/compassionate, will never stop bothering the cat, will never learn that hitting is wrong, etc., etc.-- then they're not looking at my real live kid who is a walking testament to how wrong those predictions are.

Again, my message is that there is a choice. Just as we, in this forum, spend a considerable amount of time advocating that hitting children is not necessary to discipline (and we all know that many people still believe that it is--despite the research, despite the warnings), I'm saying that time-outs are also not a necessary part of discipline. And there's research out there that shows some of the dangers of it and I think many people in this thread have spoken about their perceived dangers of it. And my sense is that the research that folks like Kohn have done is going to grow. Time outs are relatively new in the grand scheme. I think we're going to continue to hear that they are NOT having the effect that we thought they would.


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
For what it's worth, I was responding to a post that said people who haven't used time outs do not have difficult children.

The conventional wisdom is that punishments are a NECESSARY part of child-rearing. That without them a child will NOT likely learn discipline, manners, self-control, etc. And those are the mild predictions!







I believe I've seen the word "heathen" a time or two.

I'm saying that in my case and in the cases of many other parents, that has not proven true. In fact, the exact opposite has happened. Our kids aren't perfect by a long shot, but so many of the common issues that people assume is part of "the package" just don't exist (lying, sneakiness, angry/rebellious teens, etc.). It doesn't seem to be coincidence to me. I'm sure others feel differently.

Obviously, I have no way of knowing the outcome had I done things differently, but given what I know about how people *generally* respond to things like control and punishment and respect, it does seem to follow that a child treated with respect would start to manifest that in his character. And a child who was treated in a controlling manner would also manifest that. Given what I've seen and heard, I'd much rather deal with the repurcussions of "respect" vs. "control." And I'd also much rather BE a person who who gives respect instead of punishment or seeks to control. Again, other people feel differently.

Another part of it is the hindsight of how our relationship was, and how my child reacted, when I was "off the beam"--and not treating him the way I would want to be treated (mostly after my 2nd was born). Things were not good. I did not feel good about myself. Seeking obedience vs. seeking consensus did not make seem to make anyone in the family happier or improve our relationships or make behavior go away. It really fostered a negative attitude all the way around. I can't imagine how that would improve over a longer period of time.

I know that there are lots of great kids out there who are left to CIO, who are not bf, who are punished, and probably kids who are being hit....but that doesn't mean that those practices are ideal or something that I would feel good about doing. Millions of other parents feel differently. Millions of parents think we're crazy and are doing our kids a HUGE disservice. But if they tell me that what I'm doing is going to result in a kid who is out of control, who has no manners, who has no respect, who can't follow directions, who won't abide by societal rules, isn't kind/considerate/gentle/compassionate, will never stop bothering the cat, will never learn that hitting is wrong, etc., etc.-- then they're not looking at my real live kid who is a walking testament to how wrong those predictions are.

Again, my message is that there is a choice. Just as we, in this forum, spend a considerable amount of time advocating that hitting children is not necessary to discipline (and we all know that many people still believe that it is--despite the research, despite the warnings), I'm saying that time-outs are also not a necessary part of discipline. And there's research out there that shows some of the dangers of it and I think many people in this thread have spoken about their perceived dangers of it. And my sense is that the research that folks like Kohn have done is going to grow. Time outs are relatively new in the grand scheme. I think we're going to continue to hear that they are NOT having the effect that we thought they would.











i completely agree with your well written post.

i think the concept of not needing punishment or coersion (which includes time outs on that continuum) is hard idea to wrap your head around. however, it is an idea who's time has come, and it's only a matter of continued research being done and published and accessible to the mainstream that the paradigm will shift.

a lot of parents give themselves a pat on the back for not using overtly violent forms of discipline, ie..."at least we don't SPANK/HIT our child" and rationalize using other forms of discipline that may not hurt, physically, but have lasting long term emotional and relational implications. most parents do not want to think that they are doing something that could possibly hurt their child, and there will be a lot of cognitive dissonance and resistance. it is also incredibly hard to break familial patterns (and oh, boy, do i know about that one firsthand). no one wants to accept that their parents did things in a way that is hurtful, that is quite the cross to bear. but bear it we must, and dig deep into our heart to find how to truly connect with and guide our children.


----------



## mommaof3 (Dec 11, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
For what it's worth, I was responding to a post that said people who haven't used time outs do not have difficult children.


I have VERY spirited children, and my oldest was/is extremely challenging. None of my children have ever been punished in any way. My oldest is a teenager now (15.5 years) and he is a totally cool kid, and we have a great relationship - that's one of the big things that keeps me going, keeps me practicing respectful non-punitive parenting with the three other spirited kids each day. My goal is a great parent-child relationship, a connection throughout our live, not just a "well-behaved", polite child (although it seems I get that in the end too!). I try to keep the long-term relationship goal in mind.


----------



## elizawill (Feb 11, 2007)

_*QUOTE=Perdita_in_Ontario wrote, "I do agree - but for myself, not using time outs doesn't mean no consequences. There's a big difference between gentle discipline and no discipline."*_








:


----------



## mommaof3 (Dec 11, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *elizawill* 
_*QUOTE=Perdita_in_Ontario wrote, "I do agree - but for myself, not using time outs doesn't mean no consequences. There's a big difference between gentle discipline and no discipline."*_








:

Yeah, life has plenty of it's own consequences, we don't need to impose arbitrary ones to "teach a lesson"...

I like this article on consequences:

http://www.continuum-concept.org/rea...sequences.html


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

I didn't read that entire article, but it seems to unfairly describe how most of us are talking about consequences. Giving a cookie for not crying sounds insane! And cleaning everyone's shoes because they jumped in a puddle? That isn't a logical consequence.

When arguments against consequences are presented in this way, they lose a bit of credibility in my eyes.


----------



## Perdita_in_Ontario (Feb 7, 2007)

I think that was actually the point of the article  That the consequences weren't as "logical" as parents seemed to think they were.

But I do take your point - I think most of us on MDC, from what I've seen so far, are a bit more evolved than "clean everybody's shoes"....

Consequences happen - they're inevitable. The question is whether they are contrived or not. Putting my child in a timeout for striking the cat (to go back to the original post) is contrived. Showing her that the cat doesn't want to be around her when she is rough shows her that her specific actions caused something she was enjoying to stop, without causing her undue distress.

Yes, there are times when some action is dangerous and has to be stopped, NOW. But I think that perhaps with some forward planning and perspective, not as many situations are as desperate as we like to think...

midnight ramblings...


----------



## mommaof3 (Dec 11, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Perdita_in_Ontario* 
I think that was actually the point of the article  That the consequences weren't as "logical" as parents seemed to think they were.

yes, that's exactly the point of the article...

Jane Nelson (author of Positive Discipline) said later that she wished she had left out the part about logical/natural consequences because they weren't one of the main parenting tools in her mind, but everyone seemed to latch on to those, maybe because it seems like another way to "punish" or "teach" children.

Personally, I've never "used" any consequences in my home, but my children do experience the natural consequences of their actions all the time (i.e. run outside in the winter without shoes, get cold feet, come back in for shoes).

p.s. (we do set limits, respectfully, but never punish or reward)


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

But what point is that making if parents are using consequences that _do_ make sense. I.e., if you hit your brother, you are going to be removed from his presense (with a time-out or simply to another part of the house) until we can be gentle with one another. Or, you hit your friend on our playdate at their house and now we're going home. Now this is with a 4 1/2 year old, not a toddler. He absolutely knows that hitting is not ok.

I would never use a consequence for a child making the decision to not wear a coat. I know it doesn't help to get into these specifics, but it sort of invalidates the use of consequences with examples that many of us would never use anyway.

I use consequences when it wouldn't be safe or helpful to wait to experience the natural consequence. And I use them when talking/guiding/etc. haven't worked.

I dunno...I just have a problem with this kind of argument.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommaof3* 
Yeah, life has plenty of it's own consequences, we don't need to impose arbitrary ones to "teach a lesson"...

I'm not sure. I think children are pretty insulated from consequences. That is the nature of being a child in the world, they are supposed to be insulated from the big, real consequences.

But I think it does not follow that parents should never impose consequences. Kwim?

Example: Child draws in marker all over the wall. The consequence, in my world, would be that we pay for the cleanup or risk eviction. Mama gets the consequence. See what I mean? So I would in turn impose some kind of consequence on my child, personally.

Or kid doesn't put on shoes (this is a pet peeve of mine if you haven't noticed







) = mama is late for work or school.

I don't think the natural consequences only thing works all that well personally.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 

Example: Child draws in marker all over the wall. The consequence, in my world, would be that we pay for the cleanup or risk eviction. Mama gets the consequence. See what I mean? So I would in turn impose some kind of consequence on my child, personally.

I would agree that sometimes parents help to impose consequences. But in that situation, the consequence for the child would be helping with the clean up and/or repainting...

-Angela


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

thismama, I think you're absolutely right. I don't have any issues with shoes, so we wouldn't consequence for that but I can understand if you do!


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I would agree that sometimes parents help to impose consequences. But in that situation, the consequence for the child would be helping with the clean up and/or repainting...

-Angela

Yep. That is what i would do. But it's definitely parent imposed.

eta - Plus I'd b*tch that the paint is "'spensive!" My kid knows what "'spensive" means.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Yep. That is what i would do. But it's definitely parent imposed.

eta - Plus I'd b*tch that the paint is "'spensive!" My kid knows what "'spensive" means.









Yes it's parent imposed but it is neither random nor a punishment. Simply what has to be done.

And







at spensive...









-Angela


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Yes it's parent imposed but it is neither random nor a punishment. Simply what has to be done.

And







at spensive...









-Angela

See I get so confused becoz i've gotten the impression on here that anything parent imposed is punishment. So I say "I do punishment," but really this type of thing is about the extent of it.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
See I get so confused becoz i've gotten the impression on here that anything parent imposed is punishment. So I say "I do punishment," but really this type of thing is about the extent of it.

Hmmm, never seen that thought. Because sometimes the natural consequence needs to be pointed out by someone who's taller than 3ft







Um, you dumped a bowl of cereal and milk on the floor- we need to clean it up.

My impression is that those are natural consequences. Though I suppose if one were trying to be difficult one might say the NATURAL consequence of dumping the cereal is wet sticky mushy feet... and cleaning it up is a LOGICAL consequence.

Either way I don't see it as a punishment. Whereas, you dumped your cereal on the floor, now you have a time out, seems pretty much like a punishment to me...

-Angela


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Hmmm, never seen that thought. Because sometimes the natural consequence needs to be pointed out by someone who's taller than 3ft







Um, you dumped a bowl of cereal and milk on the floor- we need to clean it up.

My impression is that those are natural consequences. Though I suppose if one were trying to be difficult one might say the NATURAL consequence of dumping the cereal is wet sticky mushy feet... and cleaning it up is a LOGICAL consequence.

Either way I don't see it as a punishment. Whereas, you dumped your cereal on the floor, now you have a time out, seems pretty much like a punishment to me...

-Angela

Well, ITA with you.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well, ITA with you.

And this day shall be recorded in the history books...
















-Angela


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

:


----------



## karre (Mar 22, 2006)

I don't believe in using time-outs (or that any other form of punishments are necessary) but i think it has to be said (despite how obvious it is) that it is possible to screw up your kids even if you don't use (and don't believe in using) coercion or punishment. I also think all parents who have posted on this thread are deeply concerned and aware of the effect their actions have on their childern. I think this in itself puts them in a postion of working hard to maintain the attachment relationship with their child. I think this deep awareness and concern will probably go much further then simply subscribing to a single parenting style....

For example, if a mom finds herself in a situation where she is getting very angry at her child (and is unwilling to use time outs because of the damage they could cause her child) she might get so angry that she gets to a point where she calls her child a hurtful name. In this case, perhaps issueing a time out so that she never gets that angry in the first place would do a lot less damage then calling names. I certainly hope that if i am ever in that situation i will have the forsight to do this as opposed to hurting my child with angry words (my mom once called me a little s**t.) I don't know if i would call this a time out but maybe if a particular behavior always elicts the same reaction in me then i would need to use time outs while i learned to control my anger or respond differntly to the behavior.


----------



## LoBleusMama (Aug 10, 2005)

i give time outs when my dd definately crosses a line. I do not belittle her or make her feel bad though. I explain that it is time to take break in her room when she gets out of hand. I defiantly believe in time outs over physical punishment if


----------



## Aliviasmom (Jul 24, 2006)

I don't do a formalized time-out. DD is just too willful, and it would be more of a fight to get her to sit in one spot for 2 minutes then it is worth! Instead, when things get out of hand, or when no other consequence seems logical (for instance, when she hit me in the face in public the other day as we were checking out), I remove her from the location (in this case, I took her outside the store while my mom checked out), hold her, and talk to her about what went wrong and what can be done instead. I try and make sure she knows that a lot of these situations are things that NO ONE should do, not just her. I also make sure to use the same tone of voice that I would when I am asking her what she wants for breakfast (for example). My voice is not raised, or stressed. I'm trying to show her that it is a CONVERSATION, not a LECTURE.


----------



## FireFrog (Jun 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Hmmm, never seen that thought. Because sometimes the natural consequence needs to be pointed out by someone who's taller than 3ft







Um, you dumped a bowl of cereal and milk on the floor- we need to clean it up.

My impression is that those are natural consequences. Though I suppose if one were trying to be difficult one might say the NATURAL consequence of dumping the cereal is wet sticky mushy feet... and cleaning it up is a LOGICAL consequence.

Either way I don't see it as a punishment. Whereas, you dumped your cereal on the floor, now you have a time out, seems pretty much like a punishment to me...

-Angela









:

_But_ . . . I have to disagree the sentiment that one is being difficult if one describes that situation with NATURAL consequences and LOGICAL consequences.

I think this is a perfect example of how individuals may use different words to describe the same thing.

I do not advocate the use of TOs as punishment. I actually do not advocate punishment, period. To me, punishment is more about the adult getting back at the child for making them angry, then actually teaching the child anything.

However, I want to add that what actions I believe constitute punishment can be entirely different for another parent. And actions I take may be defined as punishment by some, even if I do not define it that way.

That is the problem with discussions such as this -- we are all working from our own personal definitions. Here are mine:

**Punishment is about intent.*
If my child does something and I impose a natural consequence (such as immediately cleaning up the mess, so that they end up losing 30 minutes of playtime), then this is NOT punishment.
But if I put them in a time out because what they did made me angry, then that IS a punishment.

**Time outs are legitimate tools.*
Like any tool, TOs can be (and often ARE) abused. But I think they have their place when used in combination with discussion, natural consequences, and respect for the individual (parent and child).
For me, time outs were appropriate with my DD when she went into full on melt down. This happened rarely, as I used all the other tools I had to avoid it (being aware of her needs, having a routine, etc.), but it DID happen. So I would take her to her room, talking to her the whole time. I told her that I loved her, but I did not have to be around her when she acted this way. Then, I would tell her that she was welcome to come out when she calmed down. There was never a time limit (this example took place when she was three) and I always made it clear that I wanted to be with her when she was ready to talk. I was always readily available, usually just in the next room.

Really, I agree with pp who have said that GD can and does run a spectrum. If we are on this board at all, I think it speaks volumes about our desire to raise happy, healthy, attached children who will become happy, healthy and attached adults. There is more then one GD path that leads to this result.

Lastly, I want to say that I am grateful that this forum (and MDC in general) can allow for us to have these discussions. I know I learn and grow every time I read other people's ideas and experiences.







:


----------



## Justmee (Jun 6, 2005)

I've been following this discussion with interest







I think a lot of the disagreements come with semantics and what *we* as the adult consider a punishment (or not).

Coming from my behavior modification background, I can't believe many parents *never* use punishment, even if they dont' call it punishment and it's logical / not punitive. Punishment is anything that decreases behavior. If your child colors on the wall, and you ask them to help clean it, and they don't like it (let's assume you don't force, but the child would rather play) and that decreases the likelyhood the child will color on the wall again, you punished. The consequense you imposed (help clean up, lose playtime) decreased the behavior you didn't like (coloring on walls).

If you have a fenced in yard and your child opens the gate and runs into the street 100x and nothing happens, but 1x (G/d forbid) your child gets hit by a car, that was a natural consequense. It happened in nature. Obviously we don't want that to happen!

If you tell the child they run out the gate, outside playtime is over and we go inside, you are imposing a logical consequense. It's related, relevent, etc. If that logical consequence deters your child from running out the gate in the future, you punished. Yes, you used a logical consequence, but you punished. You bringign the child inside (unplesent for the child) decreased the likelyhood the behavior would happen again (running in the street). If you said "that's it no more TV the rest of the week and no dessert either" you also punished, but it was unrelated, and punitive.

Something so gentle as telling a child you are upset, showing a frown, telling a child you are disspointed / angry / hurt, etc. can be considered a punishment if it decreases behavior. Anythign that decreases behavior is technically a punishment, even if it's just you saying "it makes me upset when I come in and see the playroom a mess after we cleaned it." Lots of the things we say to say on the GD board are technically punishemnts, but they are gentle and related. If they decrease behavior they are punishments, even if you are just telling a child the cat likes gentle touches, or it's not ok to hit your brother, etc.

Just my .02

back to







:


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Example: Child draws in marker all over the wall. The consequence, in my world, would be that we pay for the cleanup or risk eviction. Mama gets the consequence. See what I mean? So I would in turn impose some kind of consequence on my child, personally.

That's a good point. It's funny that I've always considered myself to be anti-parent-imposed consequence, yet my reaction to that would be, "Yikes! Look at the wall! We need to figure out how to get this fixed!" and then involving my son in the clean-up/repair. Hmmm.

I think I begin with the assumption that he wants to do the right thing, so he'll willingly help rectify the situation. And there's also the fact that if he refuses to help, I'm not going to impose some other consequence (except that he might have one very frustrated mom). But you're right: there's still some level of imposition on my part.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FireFrog* 
That is the problem with discussions such as this -- we are all working from our own personal definitions. Here are mine:

**Punishment is about intent.*
If my child does something and I impose a natural consequence (such as immediately cleaning up the mess, so that they end up losing 30 minutes of playtime), then this is NOT punishment.
But if I put them in a time out because what they did made me angry, then that IS a punishment.

I agree with you that everyone works from their own definitions. The above is a perfect example.









IMO, punishment is only a little about parental intent and mostly about the child's perception. Does the child feel punished by something the parent has imposed? Then it's probably punishment. That's why I generally think any level of parent imposition (making a child clean up a mess, for example) takes a consequence out of the realm of natural occurrence. (I guess an argument could be made that nature intends for the parent to be the "manager," so anything the parent imposes is natural, but then pretty much everything we do to our kids would be natural, so I don't think that works.







)

IMO, the exception would be safety hazards. It is absolutely the natural province of parents to keep their children safe. So the example in a post above where a child runs out of a front gate toward the street and the parent carries the child back, I wouldn't call punishment (despite the child wanting to run for the street and not being able to). Making the child go inside probably would be because it isn't necessary for keeping the child safe (unless the parent can't be outside to watch the child).

I guess I apply the "least restrictive means" test. Probably read too many First Amendment cases.


----------



## Perdita_in_Ontario (Feb 7, 2007)

I'm going to pop in a few quotes about punishment here from Karen Pryor's _Don't Shoot the Dog_. For those who aren't familiar with her, she's a behaviourist who sparked a dog (and other animal) clicker training revolution with her techniques. She also wrote a seminal book on breastfeeding in the 70s 

I'm currently reading it for interest's sake - because I like to get a balanced view, and although I'm not about to "train" my toddler or put my baby in a Skinner box, it's interesting that "behaviourism" makes the point that punishment doesn't work. I'm not necessarily advocating her methods, but if we're talking about "what is punishment" she's a good resource.

She says, I think, in the book somewhere that we shouldn't be allowed to have children until we have successfully trained a chicken - because chickens don't respond to punishment, you have to learn other ways to teach. Whether that method is her type of training or not, I think it's a good method - you _can_ teach without punishment.

"(Punishment) is humanity's favourite method. When behavior goes wrong, we think first of punishment. Scold the child, spank the dog, dock the paycheck, fine the company, torture the dissident, invade the country, and so on. But punishment is a clumsy way of modifying behavior. In fact, much of the time punishment doesn't work at all."

"The hideous thing about punishment is that there is absolutely no end to it. The search for a punishment so bad that maybe _this_ one will work is not a concern of apes or elephants, but it has preoccupied humans since history began and probably before."

"..the subject learns nothing about how to change the behavior. Punishment does not teach a child how to achieve a better report card. The most a punisher can hope for is that the child's motivation will change: The child will try to alter future behavior in order to avoid future punishment."

.....

To me - a timeout that is simply a punishment (you drew on the wall, so sit in the corner) is vastly different than being "invited" to cool down and come back when you're feeling calmer. In fact, I believe that the latter is modeling a good way to handle emotions, as long as the parent is doing the "inviting" calmly and lovingly (not dragging the poor child to their room bodily).

Again, I don't think that GD is about avoiding all consequences, but I think you can draw a line between explaining to a child that they need to clean the wall, whether they want to or not, and imposing some arbitrary "consequence".

Something else I submit is that punishments can impose fear. Not necessarily knee-quaking fear, but fear of something "bad" happening. Drawing on the wall and getting smacked (not that anyone suggested that) or ordered to the "naughty spot" doesn't do much more than remind the child that the parent is "in control" and to be feared, and that there will be a punishment. Draw on the wall and clean it off - it doesn't make a child fearful. It enforces that if they do something destructive, then they'll have to un-do it.

I guess there's no easy answers... and I echo the sentiment that it's nice we are discussing something that doesn't include physical punishment!

P


----------



## happyhippiemama (Apr 1, 2004)

subbing


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly* 
That's a good point. It's funny that I've always considered myself to be anti-parent-imposed consequence, yet my reaction to that would be, "Yikes! Look at the wall! We need to figure out how to get this fixed!" and then involving my son in the clean-up/repair. Hmmm.

I think I begin with the assumption that he wants to do the right thing, so he'll willingly help rectify the situation.

ITA.

Quote:

And there's also the fact that if he refuses to help, I'm not going to impose some other consequence (except that he might have one very frustrated mom). But you're right: there's still some level of imposition on my part.
I would probably do time out for refusal to help clean up a mess she made. "Then you can sit there until it is done," is what I would probably say. In a not very nice voice.







I just can't see myself cleaning up a giant mess like that, made by my child, while she plays with her toys. That would drive me crazy!


----------



## Thao (Nov 26, 2001)

I just wanted to post to say that I am as always puzzled by the posts that seem to make the "learn by wanting to avoid punishment/learn by wanting to do the right thing" a zero-sum dichotomy. I don't think that is how the vast majority of humankind work, being entirely motivated by one or the other. Rather we are motivated by both or either depending on the situation.

Take the speed limit, which another pp brought up. I understand that it is there for safety reasons. For the most part, I respect it because of that understanding. However there are times when I am in a hurry, or when I am on a really deserted, straight road and I believe I can safely drive over the speed limit, that I may not be inclined to respect it for safety reasons. In those cases, I am inclined to respect the speed limit for fear of having to pay a ticket. I don't mind the fact that the speed limit is there; as a matter of fact, I appreciate it because for the most part I do that such laws make our society a safer place to live. I think it is utopian to think that everyone will simply "do the right thing".

My philosophy with my dd is that I always try the consensual stuff first. We talk, we brainstorm, we negotiate. Sometimes her behavior is still rude and disrespectful. Sometimes I can't find out the reason behind it, or maybe it's a reason that I CAN'T fix for her (she wishes we could move back to the US, that is a big one, and that just isn't going to happen right now). I sympathize and talk about what she can do when she is feeling sad etc etc. But occasionally when I can see that she simply is not motivated to change at this moment I also institute a gentle system of punishment, such as points or going to her room until she is calm and can be respectful.

She understands the reasons, but sometimes, just like me with the speed limit, she needs an extra little push to work towards behaving well when she'd really rather not. Imposing a "punishment" does NOT mean that she (or I) don't understand the principle behind the expectation. It simply reinforces it in the occasions that is necessary.

I do understand that there are parents who just punish without ever explaining or teaching. But it would be a gross stereotype to assume that every parent who punishes is like that.


----------



## berkeleyp (Apr 22, 2004)

subbing


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Thao* 
I just wanted to post to say that I am as always puzzled by the posts that seem to make the "learn by wanting to avoid punishment/learn by wanting to do the right thing" a zero-sum dichotomy. I don't think that is how the vast majority of humankind work, being entirely motivated by one or the other. Rather we are motivated by both or either depending on the situation.

Take the speed limit, which another pp brought up. I understand that it is there for safety reasons. For the most part, I respect it because of that understanding. However there are times when I am in a hurry, or when I am on a really deserted, straight road and I believe I can safely drive over the speed limit, that I may not be inclined to respect it for safety reasons. In those cases, I am inclined to respect the speed limit for fear of having to pay a ticket. I don't mind the fact that the speed limit is there; as a matter of fact, I appreciate it because for the most part I do that such laws make our society a safer place to live. I think it is utopian to think that everyone will simply "do the right thing".

My philosophy with my dd is that I always try the consensual stuff first. We talk, we brainstorm, we negotiate. Sometimes her behavior is still rude and disrespectful. Sometimes I can't find out the reason behind it, or maybe it's a reason that I CAN'T fix for her (she wishes we could move back to the US, that is a big one, and that just isn't going to happen right now). I sympathize and talk about what she can do when she is feeling sad etc etc. But occasionally when I can see that she simply is not motivated to change at this moment I also institute a gentle system of punishment, such as points or going to her room until she is calm and can be respectful.

She understands the reasons, but sometimes, just like me with the speed limit, she needs an extra little push to work towards behaving well when she'd really rather not. Imposing a "punishment" does NOT mean that she (or I) don't understand the principle behind the expectation. It simply reinforces it in the occasions that is necessary.

I do understand that there are parents who just punish without ever explaining or teaching. But it would be a gross stereotype to assume that every parent who punishes is like that.

Well said!


----------



## PlayaMama (Apr 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ikesmom* 
ME TOO!
He doesn't get the idea that I have boiling lava in my veins at the moment.

still reading the thread for the first time but i LOVE this image. that's exactly what it feels like!


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Thao* 
I just wanted to post to say that I am as always puzzled by the posts that seem to make the "learn by wanting to avoid punishment/learn by wanting to do the right thing" a zero-sum dichotomy. I don't think that is how the vast majority of humankind work, being entirely motivated by one or the other. Rather we are motivated by both or either depending on the situation.

I think most (?) people are responding to the recent research by Kohn, et al, which suggests that the "avoiding punishment motivation" hinders the "wanting to do the right thing motivation."

So it's not necessarily that one precludes the other, but that given the likelihood that one will undermine the other, it seems that that's a risk many aren't willing to take.

But, it's been a long thread, so maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## mommaof3 (Dec 11, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly* 
That's a good point. It's funny that I've always considered myself to be anti-parent-imposed consequence, yet my reaction to that would be, "Yikes! Look at the wall! We need to figure out how to get this fixed!" and then involving my son in the clean-up/repair. Hmmm.

And, assuming the best possible intent from children, they would joyfully start to help you clean up, UNLESS they have some other unmet needs that are preventing them from being cooperative (maybe the ones that caused them to draw on the wall in the first place - attention? connection? creative expression?) and when my child says "no" I try to imagine WHY they would say no and get to the bottom of the unmet needs. When I am able to meet the need, the cooperative child magically returns!

Requesting involvment with clean-up is different than demanding it. With a request the parent is willing to hear "no" as an answer. It's works in my house.

Kind of like this article:
Hearing The Yes in the No

When we get home from the store, all of my children take a bag of groceries inside, they are not asked to, just simply handed a bag. Once in awhile a kid will not take his bag and he is asked to - he might then say "no, I don't feel like taking the bag in" and that's A OK with us because 1. they do it almost all the time happily 2. maybe there is a REAL need not to (even if the need is just autonomy) and 3. they are kids - they can't developmentally understand the consequences of each action (whether it's permanent damage to the wall, or rotting food left in the car) until they grow older. I want to be patient and understand that they are young, and that my job is to help them along gently, not expect that they will know how to be reasonable beyond their years.


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Don't we all just simply feel crabby from time to time? I know I do...yes, it might be because I'm tired, hungry, need time alone or whatever. But there isn't always a fix...sometimes you just have to ride out the feelings. I think children are this way, too.

It seems like the goal is for a child to be cooperative and happy. I think sometimes children play around with different attitudes and behaviors to see what reaction they might get. Also, I think sometimes they just feel out of sorts and need to feel that way until it changes. I don't believe that there is an underlying cause that needs to be found.


----------



## Janelovesmax (Feb 17, 2006)

Also, what needs to be considered is a physical health of a mother. I just spoke to someone I know has lupus and she is exhausted a lot of times. She told me that "time-outs" is what saved her relationship with her daughter. She would tend to get aggressive but instead she would just tell her daughter that she needs a time-out for both of them to be in separate rooms for few minutes. I'm not saying that time-outs are used by every mother with physical problem, but it's a better alternative to verbal fighting and screaming.


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Good point. We muddle through as best as we can a lot of the time. I think debating various techniques can be helpful, but the context and specific ways in which they are used (along with temperment, age, etc.) play a large role in what will work.

I thought what someone said earlier made a lot of sense - our relationship with our children has the most influence. And you have to do what jives with your own personality and theirs.


----------



## PlayaMama (Apr 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RachelEve14* 
I've been following this discussion with interest







I think a lot of the disagreements come with semantics and what *we* as the adult consider a punishment (or not).

Coming from my behavior modification background, I can't believe many parents *never* use punishment, even if they dont' call it punishment and it's logical / not punitive. Punishment is anything that decreases behavior. If your child colors on the wall, and you ask them to help clean it, and they don't like it (let's assume you don't force, but the child would rather play) and that decreases the likelyhood the child will color on the wall again, you punished. The consequense you imposed (help clean up, lose playtime) decreased the behavior you didn't like (coloring on walls).

If you have a fenced in yard and your child opens the gate and runs into the street 100x and nothing happens, but 1x (G/d forbid) your child gets hit by a car, that was a natural consequense. It happened in nature. Obviously we don't want that to happen!

If you tell the child they run out the gate, outside playtime is over and we go inside, you are imposing a logical consequense. It's related, relevent, etc. If that logical consequence deters your child from running out the gate in the future, you punished. Yes, you used a logical consequence, but you punished. You bringign the child inside (unplesent for the child) decreased the likelyhood the behavior would happen again (running in the street). If you said "that's it no more TV the rest of the week and no dessert either" you also punished, but it was unrelated, and punitive.

Something so gentle as telling a child you are upset, showing a frown, telling a child you are disspointed / angry / hurt, etc. can be considered a punishment if it decreases behavior. Anythign that decreases behavior is technically a punishment, even if it's just you saying "it makes me upset when I come in and see the playroom a mess after we cleaned it." Lots of the things we say to say on the GD board are technically punishemnts, but they are gentle and related. If they decrease behavior they are punishments, even if you are just telling a child the cat likes gentle touches, or it's not ok to hit your brother, etc.

Just my .02

back to







:

i think this is a great addition to the discussion! it really made me think about my boundaries regarding punishment. i know that sometimes an upset face from me can really hurt my ds feelings. i wouldn't necessarily think i'm punishing him, but if my goal is to decrease the amount of effort he puts into unwrapping the toilet paper roll, then it is a punishment of sorts.

lots to think about here. thanks!


----------



## avent (Mar 13, 2006)

Subbing so I can come back to this very important discussion when I have more time. DH and I have been talking about dropping timeouts. We've only used them maybe 5 times (our son is 3) but it doesn't feel good to me. Thanks everyone for posting your thoughts!


----------



## purplepixiewing (Jun 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RachelEve14* 
I've been following this discussion with interest







I think a lot of the disagreements come with semantics and what *we* as the adult consider a punishment (or not).

Coming from my behavior modification background, I can't believe many parents *never* use punishment, even if they dont' call it punishment and it's logical / not punitive. Punishment is anything that decreases behavior. If your child colors on the wall, and you ask them to help clean it, and they don't like it (let's assume you don't force, but the child would rather play) and that decreases the likelyhood the child will color on the wall again, you punished. The consequense you imposed (help clean up, lose playtime) decreased the behavior you didn't like (coloring on walls).

If you have a fenced in yard and your child opens the gate and runs into the street 100x and nothing happens, but 1x (G/d forbid) your child gets hit by a car, that was a natural consequense. It happened in nature. Obviously we don't want that to happen!

If you tell the child they run out the gate, outside playtime is over and we go inside, you are imposing a logical consequense. It's related, relevent, etc. If that logical consequence deters your child from running out the gate in the future, you punished. Yes, you used a logical consequence, but you punished. You bringign the child inside (unplesent for the child) decreased the likelyhood the behavior would happen again (running in the street). If you said "that's it no more TV the rest of the week and no dessert either" you also punished, but it was unrelated, and punitive.

Something so gentle as telling a child you are upset, showing a frown, telling a child you are disspointed / angry / hurt, etc. can be considered a punishment if it decreases behavior. Anythign that decreases behavior is technically a punishment, even if it's just you saying "it makes me upset when I come in and see the playroom a mess after we cleaned it." Lots of the things we say to say on the GD board are technically punishemnts, but they are gentle and related. If they decrease behavior they are punishments, even if you are just telling a child the cat likes gentle touches, or it's not ok to hit your brother, etc.

Just my .02

back to







:

Absolutely what I was thinking. I think most of us are on the same page, we're just using different definitions.

My kids take what we call time outs when they are just out of control it's time for them to step out and have a cool down. They can come back to the area when they are done being out of control, if they come back before that I ask them to step out again. They choose where they go, and they get to come back when they can be respectful again.


----------



## frontierpsych (Jun 11, 2006)

I don't personally see anything horrible about your method. You use an appropriate amount of time, and you explain to your child what is happening and why. I remember as a child being made to stand in the corner for up to half an hour at a time (from the age of four or so) and not a word was said about what was going on afterwards. The way you do it is more of a "time in", or a time to relax, calm down, then discuss what needs to happen to make both of you happy.


----------



## Genesis (Jan 8, 2007)




----------



## alison_in_oh (Nov 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RachelEve14* 
Coming from my behavior modification background, I can't believe many parents *never* use punishment, even if they dont' call it punishment and it's logical / not punitive.

For me, part of learning about this aspect of parenting has been a paradigm shift AWAY from a behavior modification point of view. Not everything a human being does is a behavior to be reinforced, punished, or extinguished. There's a whole 'nother layer going on in there, the moral/social/reasoning side of things, that is just not explained by operant conditioning. If I believe that taking my child for the ice cream I promised (which was never contingent on his behavior but only offered as a gift out of love) is not a reinforcer for his meltdown, even if the meltdowns happen to increase in frequency afterward, then I have to believe that the things I do that seem to make his undesirable actions less common are not in fact punishers, but simply a part of the larger picture of parenting that's going on. Does that make sense to anyone but me?







To be clear, I am the mother to an infant and so my parenting philosophy is purely theoretical at this stage.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alison_in_oh* 
For me, part of learning about this aspect of parenting has been a paradigm shift AWAY from a behavior modification point of view. Not everything a human being does is a behavior to be reinforced, punished, or extinguished. There's a whole 'nother layer going on in there, the moral/social/reasoning side of things, that is just not explained by operant conditioning. If I believe that taking my child for the ice cream I promised (which was never contingent on his behavior but only offered as a gift out of love) is not a reinforcer for his meltdown, even if the meltdowns happen to increase in frequency afterward, then I have to believe that the things I do that seem to make his undesirable actions less common are not in fact punishers, but simply a part of the larger picture of parenting that's going on. Does that make sense to anyone but me?







To be clear, I am the mother to an infant and so my parenting philosophy is purely theoretical at this stage.









It makes sense that alot of us don't want to use behavioral techniques with our children, because we don't want to control their behavior, we want to teach them to be reasoning, responsible people who are able to take other people's needs into consideration as well as their own.

But that doesn't change the principles of behavioral conditioning. Just because we may not want to believe in gravity doesn't mean we won't get hurt jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. If you give a child an ice cream after a meltdown and his meltdowns increase, its positive reinforcement. That doesn't mean its ONLY positive reinforcement. He could also be learning about the value of keeping promises, the consistency of a mother's love even when he's behaving in difficult ways, etc. Sometimes although reinforcement/punishment is occurring, that's not ALL that's occurring, and the value of what else is being learned might be greater than a little accidental operant conditioning that happens in the process.


----------



## mommaof3 (Dec 11, 2001)

Has anyone posted this article yet?

The Case Against Time-Out


----------



## alison_in_oh (Nov 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
But that doesn't change the principles of behavioral conditioning. Just because we may not want to believe in gravity doesn't mean we won't get hurt jumping out of an airplane without a parachute.

I hear you, and I think that your comparison here actually proves my point in a way. That is, according to the general theory of relativity, gravity can be approached as a force emanating from a massive body, or as an acceleration caused by a disturbance of spacetime. (Or, as my professor used to illustrate, for all we know we could be at the bottom of a giant bucket being swung in circles by the Great Earth Goddess!) Regardless of which framework we consider, the parachutist will still fall to the earth, but if we absolutely and totally believe in the Great Goddess's bucket, then the conventional view of gravity need not apply to us; our observations of phenomena are completely explained by an alternative theory.

Similarly, if we choose to take operant theory out of the picture of parenting, the child will still engage in the same behaviors upon which the operant definitions had been placed. But if we are not focusing on *behaviors*, we cannot apply the definitions about which behaviors are increasing or decreasing in frequency, so in that sense we *aren't* punishing or reinforcing no matter what a Skinnerian behaviorist would observe in the same situation.


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Interesting discussion!

I don't have much to add on this theoretical vein, although I find it very interesting.

The thing that strikes me is that if they don't see that there behaviors have an impact in the family system, they are going to learn that out in the world where the consequences might be more painful for them. I think we create a loving environment for our children to learn about the social world.

I agree with a pp that the way the time-out is done makes a big difference. If it coincides with discussion and explanation, it can be a helpful tool. I suppose if it is used as an alternative to hitting the child, that is also a good use of it. Again, it just depends on the circumstances and the behaviors that are going on.

Someone above mentioned the idea that perhaps giving the ice cream after a meltdown would reinforce the consistency of a mother's love. I have to disagree with this one. I don't think gestures like this have anything to do with expressing love. It can make the child very happy and they can enjoy it but I don't think it would be a method of communicating love. I think our children get that message in much more powerful ways that have nothing to do with our buying them ice cream or toys or what have you.

I say that because I think that ice cream idea example really is one of positive reinforcement for undesirable behavior. And a confusing message that you can hurt someone or do some other unacceptable thing and get rewarded with a treat.

I guess if you go to ice cream every day, this might not be the message you are sending....


----------



## Perdita_in_Ontario (Feb 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
The thing that strikes me is that if they don't see that there behaviors have an impact in the family system, they are going to learn that out in the world where the consequences might be more painful for them. I think we create a loving environment for our children to learn about the social world.

I guess again I go back to my philosophy - that avoiding TOs doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for my DD. She still gets the message that her behaviour has an impact - and in a way, she's also learning that she needs to "fix", rather than just "do penance" (not that I consider all TOs penance, but some clearly are).


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alison_in_oh* 
I hear you, and I think that your comparison here actually proves my point in a way. That is, according to the general theory of relativity, gravity can be approached as a force emanating from a massive body, or as an acceleration caused by a disturbance of spacetime. (Or, as my professor used to illustrate, for all we know we could be at the bottom of a giant bucket being swung in circles by the Great Earth Goddess!) Regardless of which framework we consider, the parachutist will still fall to the earth, but if we absolutely and totally believe in the Great Goddess's bucket, then the conventional view of gravity need not apply to us; our observations of phenomena are completely explained by an alternative theory.

Similarly, if we choose to take operant theory out of the picture of parenting, the child will still engage in the same behaviors upon which the operant definitions had been placed. But if we are not focusing on *behaviors*, we cannot apply the definitions about which behaviors are increasing or decreasing in frequency, so in that sense we *aren't* punishing or reinforcing no matter what a Skinnerian behaviorist would observe in the same situation.

What a great post.

But it kind of goes into "reality is changed by intention" (which might be true) and "reality is changed by the beliefs of the observer" (hmmm which might be true, too!)

Too heavy before coffee.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
Someone above mentioned the idea that perhaps giving the ice cream after a meltdown would reinforce the consistency of a mother's love. I have to disagree with this one. I don't think gestures like this have anything to do with expressing love. It can make the child very happy and they can enjoy it but I don't think it would be a method of communicating love. I think our children get that message in much more powerful ways that have nothing to do with our buying them ice cream or toys or what have you.

I tend to agree with you (and also enjoyed the rest of your post). But I just wanted to mention that after I read The Five Love Languages I realized that people have different ways of both giving love and receiving love... for some, a tangible token says, "They love me!" more than words or hugs. Or an act of service means love to some people. Or a sacrifice (I forget the different ways the author states that love can be recognized... it wasn't THAT great of a book but it did make me think).

My DH is constantly bringing me treats. He feels very loving towards me when he does this. However, I feel more loved when he says, "Me and DD are going to go for a long walk so you can take a hot bath and read your book." My nephew loves it when I send him some small token that he can hold and hug and be reminded that he's loved... when I tell him "I love you" over the phone he gets embarrassed and uncomfortable.


----------



## lil_earthmomma (Dec 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
I tend to agree with you (and also enjoyed the rest of your post). But I just wanted to mention that after I read The Five Love Languages I realized that people have different ways of both giving love and receiving love... for some, a tangible token says, "They love me!" more than words or hugs. Or an act of service means love to some people. Or a sacrifice (I forget the different ways the author states that love can be recognized... it wasn't THAT great of a book but it did make me think).

My DH is constantly bringing me treats. He feels very loving towards me when he does this. However, I feel more loved when he says, "Me and DD are going to go for a long walk so you can take a hot bath and read your book." My nephew loves it when I send him some small token that he can hold and hug and be reminded that he's loved... when I tell him "I love you" over the phone he gets embarrassed and uncomfortable.

This book changed my life in high school. I not only realized that my mother DOES love me, I learned so much about how to effectively communicate love to others. It has been invaluable in my marriage.

My ds is only 3 months old, but I thought I'd share my experiences as a child.

My parents practiced something I can only define as a severely modified TO. The term TO was never used. There were 6 of us born within 5 and a half years, so a lot of rough play and disputes went on each day. Whenever any child was "out of control" (hitting, biting, grabbing, pushing etc.) and could not be redirected or talked to because of a melt down, we were gently asked to pick a quiet spot to "get a happy mood."







We would then stomp off crying or screaming leading our mother to our chosen spot. My favorite spot was by the reading corner. My mother would then take a book and place me on her lap and read. I was extemely social, and can remember trying to calm down quickly so I could 1. Explain why I felt the situation was injust, and 2. Get back to playing. My mother would then listen to my side of the story talk to me about what I needed to try to do differently next time, kiss me and tell me she loved me and bring me back to the group.

I believe this taught us that sometimes you need to separate yourself from the community to calm down, and sometimes you need to get a snuggle or a hug to calm down. It was our choice how we calmed down, but we were given the tools to do so effectively.

Just my two cents on the matter.







:


----------



## Perdita_in_Ontario (Feb 7, 2007)

Before I had a child, and had only my Child Development academic background to rely on, I naively thought that the above is what ALL timeouts were 

I think that this is teaching an important life skill. You had great parents


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lil_earthmomma* 
My parents practiced something I can only define as a severely modified TO. The term TO was never used. There were 6 of us born within 5 and a half years, so a lot of rough play and disputes went on each day. Whenever any child was "out of control" (hitting, biting, grabbing, pushing etc.) and could not be redirected or talked to because of a melt down, we were gently asked to pick a quiet spot to "get a happy mood."







We would then stomp off crying or screaming leading our mother to our chosen spot. My favorite spot was by the reading corner. My mother would then take a book and place me on her lap and read. I was extemely social, and can remember trying to calm down quickly so I could 1. Explain why I felt the situation was injust, and 2. Get back to playing. My mother would then listen to my side of the story talk to me about what I needed to try to do differently next time, kiss me and tell me she loved me and bring me back to the group.

I believe this taught us that sometimes you need to separate yourself from the community to calm down, and sometimes you need to get a snuggle or a hug to calm down. It was our choice how we calmed down, but we were given the tools to do so effectively.

Just my two cents on the matter.







:

I love this! I'm going to do this instead of the chair that we use now. I don't like the feeling of banishing him to the chair which is what we have done before. We then decided to bring the chair out into the kitchen or living room so that he could be with us while he sat (we haven't done a TO in weeks so this never actually came about), but I think letting him find a quiet spot is awesome!!

God I love this forum...so helpful!


----------

