# time out is bad?



## theirmomjayne (Mar 21, 2006)

It seems to be working well for us

???


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Us too.







Altho yeah, it's frowned upon in some circles here.


----------



## ~Lolosoli~ (Mar 16, 2006)

I would not say it is bad however, I would say it may not be the best parenting tool we have to choose from.

I am sure for some children a loving time-out may be best for them in some situations...however, using time outs in a one-size fits all for most situations I do believe will do more harm in the long run then most parents think.

Also, it may work...but, does it really help to reach the goal parents are after (and should be after)...and just because it seems to _work_ in the minds of parents doesn't necessarily mean it works in the minds of children.

It may work to force children to comply...but, does it work deep down inside to give them valuable skills and tools that children can carry with them for life?

I find time outs used in the manner of the Supernanny benefit the parents above all else (and give the illusion of easy and well-behaved children)...however, I do believe when those children are bigger and wiser we will be seeing the negative results of the Supernanny method....they will be be unruly teens with no sense of inner dicipline....and hey the parents will get another chance to get help and be on TV when they sign them up for Boot Camp....

~Charlene~

The Case Against Time-out
http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/peter_haiman.html

Science Shows up Supernanny
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...345420,00.html

http://www.alfiekohn.org/up/content/articles.asp


----------



## theirmomjayne (Mar 21, 2006)

I can see the need for inner discipline.

It was the first thing we could think of after "no spanking." I am really trying. I didn't know where else to start.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theirmomjayne* 
I can see the need for inner discipline.

It was the first thing we could think of after "no spanking." I am really trying. I didn't know where else to start.

I think time out is a *great* alternative to spanking.

For me I do time out because when I didn't, I noticed I felt really helpless to stop a lot of behaviours that I found unacceptable (ie. hurting the animals), and what would end up happening is I would become enraged with my child. Which was a hell of a lot worse than 3 minutes on the sofa.

It depends on the child, and on the parent. Who we are matters in the equation, IMO. For me, time out really helps us by providing a nice, fairly harmless parent imposed consequence that prevents a lot of anger around here.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

it's bad if it's used as a punishment, to make the child "pay" for what he's done.
But if it helps calm down the situation, I think it might be ok. For example, I give myself a "time out" from time to time to gather my thoughts while I leave dh deal with ds.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

IMO, time-outs are a fine step up from spanking or other more damaging discipline. But I think of it as a step that implies a journey to more effective methods. TOs are like any other punishment in that they might get the immediate results that a parent is looking for but does not do much to help children develop a reason to "behave" other than not getting a TO. In that sense, I find TO (like spanking) to be a lot of work because you have to police kids constantly to make sure they get a TO every time they do something "wrong".

When one is coming from spanking and trying to learn new things, it can be very hard to control your own emotions. TO seems like a good option because it diffuses the situation and stops the spanking, which is a great step in the right direction. If I were in that situation, the next step for me would be to give myself TO. I would be the one trying to prevent violence towards my children but want to get to a point of decreasing my dependence on punishment. Giving yourself a TO allows you a chance to diffuse the situation, get a clear picture of what you want to do next as you calm down, and shows children that you are serious about finding a better way to handle "misbehavior".


----------



## sparklefairy (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transylvania_mom* 
it's bad if it's used as a punishment, to make the child "pay" for what he's done.
But if it helps calm down the situation, I think it might be ok. For example, I give myself a "time out" from time to time to gather my thoughts while I leave dh deal with ds.

I would be here. I see time out can be a way of teaching kids the same thing -- when you're feeling explosive, taking time to gather your thoughts rather than lashing out is a good choice.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Well, the idea of parents taking the time out is nice and all, but what if your child is hurting someone else? Like your pets? Or hurting you? Or destroying something?

Sometimes you can't be all *oh I'm taking a time out*. Also, I think my child would panic if I removed myself from her. Much better for us to put her on the sofa for time out than for me to leave the room altogether. Talk about abandonment issues! "When I am bad my mother leaves me." Yeowch.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
IMO, time-outs are a fine step up from spanking or other more damaging discipline. But I think of it as a step that implies a journey to more effective methods.

I don't necessarily think so. I think comfort levels with using time out are about whether one is comfortable with parental authority/parent imposed consequences. And whether you buy into the idea that by doing time out you will be causing your children to feel unloved and develop abandonment issues.

I'm cool with parental authority, and I don't think time out gives my kiddo abandonment issues. So, it's a good tool for me and I don't see it as a step away from spanking, or a step toward something else.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well, the idea of parents taking the time out is nice and all, but what if your child is hurting someone else? Like your pets? Or hurting you? Or destroying something?

Sometimes you can't be all *oh I'm taking a time out*. Also, I think my child would panic if I removed myself from her. Much better for us to put her on the sofa for time out than for me to leave the room altogether. Talk about abandonment issues! "When I am bad my mother leaves me." Yeowch.

I do not think one has to leave the room to be in TO. TO to me is creating a time space for me to gather my thoughts before acting. I can pick up kitty to keep her from getting hurt. That prevents further harm. THEN I can do whatever I need to to gather my thoughts and formulate a plan of action.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
I do not think one has to leave the room to be in TO. TO to me is creating a time space for me to gather my thoughts before acting. I can pick up kitty to keep her from getting hurt. That prevents further harm. THEN I can do whatever I need to to gather my thoughts and formulate a plan of action.

Well yes, I *could* stop whatever I'm doing and pick up the cat to prevent my child from hitting her. But, I could also give my child a consequence and then my child is the one who is inconvenienced because of her behaviour, not me and the cat.

I really think we take things too far around here sometimes. I think the way many of us (myself included) were parented is not okay, but sometimes I wonder how much obsession with non-authority is a response to that. It can go too far the other way, yk? Where we are too afraid of harming our children to place any responsibility on them.

I think parental authority combined with much love (from AP parenting, not mainstream distanced parenting) can be a really good and healthy thing.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I don't necessarily think so. I think comfort levels with using time out are about whether one is comfortable with parental authority/parent imposed consequences. And whether you buy into the idea that by doing time out you will be causing your children to feel unloved and develop abandonment issues.

I'm cool with parental authority, and I don't think time out gives my kiddo abandonment issues. So, it's a good tool for me and I don't see it as a step away from spanking, or a step toward something else.

That is why I said "IMO". If you are 100% happy with using TOs then that is cool with me. If TOs "work" for you and you see nothing wrong with them, then great! The OP was asking why people do not like them which implies that she might be looking for other's opinions. I do not find them useful. I do think they are harmful. And I have found other ways to address things like pet harm that has been "effective" that I like to share with others when they ask. Clearly you do not want to know about it and feel the way you interact with your dc is working well for your family which is cool with me


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Gentle time outs are included as a part of the Gentle Discipline forum (see resources at the top of the page).

Some families find that time outs are difficult to impose without using a degree of force they may not feel is gentle. Also, time outs may go against a specific parental belief regarding parental imposed consequences.

Alternately, some parents may over use time outs, use them in a shaming manner (ie. you should be ashamed, go stand in the corner!), or use them in a way that neglects the vital need for active teaching and learning together.

There are parents who use gentle time outs without shaming, and within a context of active learning and teaching the other 99% of the time. Gentle time outs can simply be a time to "chill out", or to provide a safe boundary for escalating behavior when the child is not responding to direct parental involvement.

If you hang out in this forum you may find idea's and alternatives to time out that gradually work for you too. Or, you may decide that time outs are part of effective and gentle parenting in your home.

Either way it is certainly not "bad" to discuss time outs here.

~Heartmama


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

yooper - the op's question to me invited debate. which is why i'm debating. i think it's an interesting discussion, and i didn't want to see the thread get only 'yes, it's bad' responses.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
yooper - the op's question to me invited debate. which is why i'm debating. i think it's an interesting discussion, and i didn't want to see the thread get only 'yes, it's bad' responses.

Cool.

Let's discuss









Have you found that TOs stop "bad" behavior? Not just short term....like getting dc to stop hitting the cat at the moment, but to stop hitting the cat completely? Does your dc stop immediately and go into TO without protest or without you having to stop what you are doing? I have never tried TO and do not plan to, but I think I would still have to be involved to make it happen.

I would still have to stop and pick up the cat and make sure she was OK and show dd that I have concern to others and that hurt people/animals need comfort. We have cats and I have a 3yo so I have "been there". Dd hit and/or grabbed one of the cats maybe 5 times total in her whole life. Until she was about 2 yo, she was too young to understand about cats so I had to supervise any interaction and therefore the cats were always "safe". But at 2 I started to teach dd how to handle the cats. I did not want her to not hit the cats because she was going to get punished. I wanted her to not hit the cats because she did not want to hurt the cats. Each time that it happened, I had to get down on her level and have all sorts of discussion on pain, loving pets etc..... I was a time investment. Maybe over the 5 incidents, we had a total of 2 hours discusssion and experimenting. Experimenting included trying out different touches and ways to play with the cats.....ways to make them "fun". So I spent 2 hours to have a child I can trust 100% around the cats. 2 hours seems like a lot. But now it is a non-issue. Looking back, 2 hours seems like a bargain.

This is how I address all "problems" with dd. It is not because I feel guilty about using punishments or overthink things. I do it because it fosters a very good and trusting and most importantly EASY relatonship with my dd. I run with a crowd that all parent thier children similarly. There are about 8 kids involved that I see regularly. Family structure, size, routine, and history varies widely. The typical "issues" that come up with preschoolers just do not seem to in these families, including mine. That is still pretty antedotal info, but it seems to "work" for all of us. But then I visit family and see kids being TOed into "good behavior" and it seems they are always struggling. It seems to hard to me from an outsider looking in.


----------



## theirmomjayne (Mar 21, 2006)

I didn't mean to start debate!


----------



## zenma (Mar 1, 2004)

Time outs work for us, sparingly. It gives everyone a break and a chance to think things over. Then we can talk it out and discuss alternatives.


----------



## happeeevraftr (Mar 27, 2005)

I try to use the "Golden Rule," even with my kids. I wouldn't want to be put on the couch and told I _couldn't_ get off (or talk, in some cases) for 25 minutes (a minute for every year of age, right?) And often I hear people say "The time out doesn't begin until you're calm," which forces the kid to squirm and stifle his emotions so the punishment will be over faster.

I'm all for "restorative time outs," where the parent sits with the child, offering love and support until he calms down. Those can be very beneficial. If I was out of sorts and just not thinking clearly and everything seemed to be going wrong, that's what I would want some one to do for me.

As far as addressing unacceptable behavior, I think the time out has all the disadvantages of any other punishment. One is that it takes the focus away the REAL consequences of the behavior (the effect on other people or one's self) and puts it on this fake, imposed consequence (I have to sit on the couch/be away from all the fun/have mother's attention withdrawn for a period).

This promotes self-interested behavior. So when it works, it often works because the kid is trying to avoid the punishment. Is that really the reason you want your kids to have for not being mean? I can't hit him because I'd have to go to time-out?

Better to focus on the real effects of the action (Look how sad he is. He is hurt. He doesn't like being hit), and help your child come up with solutions, (Maybe you could offer him a hug? What could you do to help him feel better now?) and ways to avoid repeating the behavior (What can you do next time you're feeling angry that won't hurt people? Here's what I do . . .)

This has "worked" great for us. It may not always deter the behavior (neither does a time-out). Kids are little, they have strong emotions, they forget. They are still learning; it takes awhile to get anything down right. Would you give your kid a time-out if they couldn't learn how to add? What if you'd shown him and shown him and explained every way you knew how, and he'd even "proven" to you that he understands and he's even done it before, but for some reason, he just wasn't getting it right?

I find it helpful to think about kids learning to control their emotions and their actions in the same way that they learn any skill. It will take lots of time, lots of practice, and patience and repetition on the part of the parent.

Giving a time-out may get them to stop mid-air from hitting a sister, but it will be because she caught a glimpse of mom and remembered she'd be on the couch if she carried out that action, rather than any true desire not to hurt her sister. In this way, I really think time-outs and any other punishment undermine moral behavior--doing the right thing because you don't want to hurt someone. It promotes self-interested behavior: Doing things on the basis of whether it will help or hurt ones self.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 

Have you found that TOs stop "bad" behavior? Not just short term....like getting dc to stop hitting the cat at the moment, but to stop hitting the cat completely? Does your dc stop immediately and go into TO without protest or without you having to stop what you are doing? I have never tried TO and do not plan to, but I think I would still have to be involved to make it happen.

Well I haven't found anything to get her to stop bothering the cat completely. I've tried a lot of strategies before resorting to time out, and none of them work.

It's funny because I hear arguments both ways about time out - "well it's not fair to 'punish' her because she is too young to control her behaviour," and "time out must not be effective if she doesn't stop bothering the cats long term, not just short term."

It interrupts me the least of anything else I have done. I stop doing the dishes or whatever, tell her "No hitting the cat, that's time out!" And she goes to time out for 3 minutes, gets down and doesn't bother the cat for ages. I don't get really angry, I don't expend more energy than I have on each tiny situation, she has time out and it's over. Good solution for us.

Quote:

I would still have to stop and pick up the cat and make sure she was OK and show dd that I have concern to others and that hurt people/animals need comfort.
Not me. I give it a quick look over from wherever I'm at, and continue on. I cannot be asked to stop everything I'm doing for every small thing that happens around here. It's too much, I'm a person, not an automaton with no will of my own.

Quote:

We have cats and I have a 3yo so I have "been there". Dd hit and/or grabbed one of the cats maybe 5 times total in her whole life.
Then you have not been there. If my kid grabbed the cat 5 times ever, it would be a non-issue.

Quote:

Until she was about 2 yo, she was too young to understand about cats so I had to supervise any interaction and therefore the cats were always "safe". But at 2 I started to teach dd how to handle the cats. I did not want her to not hit the cats because she was going to get punished. I wanted her to not hit the cats because she did not want to hurt the cats. Each time that it happened, I had to get down on her level and have all sorts of discussion on pain, loving pets etc..... I was a time investment. Maybe over the 5 incidents, we had a total of 2 hours discusssion and experimenting. Experimenting included trying out different touches and ways to play with the cats.....ways to make them "fun". So I spent 2 hours to have a child I can trust 100% around the cats.
Been there, done that, didn't work. You seem to be saying it's because your parenting strategies are better than mine. I offer that it may be because we have different children.

Quote:

I do it because it fosters a very good and trusting and most importantly EASY relatonship with my dd.
Which is why I do time out. The other strategies made our relationship harder, not easier. There is not one solution for every family, and IMO parent-imposed consequences are not a lesser form of parenting, just a different one. I see this GD purism around here, where you shouldn't ever do this or that, everything should be negotiated, or you are not parenting as well.

I think children are different, mothers are different, philosophies are different. And it's not necessarily a bad thing to not shy away from demonstrating authority in a parent-child relationship IMO.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theirmomjayne* 
I didn't mean to start debate!

I don't see what's wrong with a little lively debate.


----------



## Swirly (May 20, 2006)

I don't think "everything should be negotiated," but I think punitive parenting does not work in the long term.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

I started with time outs when older DD was about 2. For us it escalated everything into a huge power struggle and just wasn't worth it. It wasn't effective and only made our relationship tense.

We now try to live without punishments and our days are much more stress free









I think its perfectly fine to move from spanking to time out..... parenting is a progress and you take one step at a time. If time out is a way for you to deal with what you see as misbehaviors without getting angry or spanking, then awesome! Once you have it down you have the option of exploring less punitive discipline techniques







But you won't ever get there if you don't start the process!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

While it's fine to share your experiences here, and explain why you do or do not use time out, there needs to be a common understanding that we should not be debating whether gentle time out is part of the GD paradigm. We can say whether or not it is part of *our* GD paradigm-I know there are passionate feelings on both sides of this issue, and I appreciate everyone discussing this in a way that doesn't lead to defensiveness on either side


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Swirly* 
I don't think "everything should be negotiated," but I think punitive parenting does not work in the long term.

I wouldn't call my parenting style punitive. I am willing to give consequences, and IME I haven't seen parenting that doesn't include this willingness work in the long term.

ETA - What I have seen IRL is children with too much entitlement and too few boundaries, and a power imbalance between parents and children that I am very uncomfortable with. I've also seen less empathy among children who are not parented with consequences, although I hear you are meant to see more.

YMMV. In fact, I'm sure it must because otherwise people wouldn't be reporting feeling *less* stress. But there's what I hear on the internet and what makes sense in my actual life, based on my particular sitaution and observations I make IRL, yk?


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

We haven't done any "real" time outs (DD is almost 2.5) but sometimes I will remove her from a situation, which is sort of the same thing.

Like, yesterday she had sort of whipped herself into a frenzy with her crayons, and was throwing them hard all over the place. This was hurting me and leaving marks on the walls, which was not acceptable. I asked her several times to stop, but she was in one of those moods where she says NO and grins and does it anyway.

I didn't feel like being hit or having marks on the walls, so I removed her from the situation. I said "okay, this isn't working out very well for you. Let's sit in the armchair instead." I picked her up and put her in the chair.

It was a basic redirection. No time limit on how long she had to stay in the chair or anything like that. No "naughty stool" to sit on. I didn't "name" it as a time out, it was just a very matter of fact "now we are doing this instead of that" sort of thing, but I guess that's sort of what it was.

About a minute later she climbed down and helped me pick up the crayons.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

[edited to add -- this post made more sense before, when the previous post (which disappeared?) referenced a definition of _punitive_ as being _punishment_.]

So, what's the difference between _punishment_ and _consequences_, then?

Are punishments always consequences? But consequences are not always punishments? And where are we drawing the line?

I guess this discussion boils down to whether or not one sees three minutes of sitting on a sofa as punitive, e.g. punishment.


----------



## fly-mom (May 23, 2005)

I did try time outs briefly when dd was around 2.5. I even posted about it here a few times. I did not get flamed, which I appreciated immensely, and I did get some really good ideas regarding how to do it well, and other approaches to try instead.

When I did use time outs I tried to do it non-punitively, like take a minute to calm down. However dd did see it as punitive. She started really resisting even the "calm down, take a break" language I was trying to use. Also, DH continued to use the time outs punitively "SIT DOWN THERE NOW! DO NOT GET UP AGAIN".

Anyway, the time outs did not stop the behavior or even really improve it, AND they were setting up a dynamic between my dd and I that I didn't like. They put me in the role of the enforcer, not the teacher. They seemed to set us up for power struggles, and to stimulate a need in dd to test defiance. I decided to cut them out, and amazingly things got less stressful when I took them out of our tool-box. DD's behavior improved. I'm not going to deny that she could have also just grown out of the behavior, maybe.

I don't think time outs are "bad", and I don't think that parents who use them are "bad" or not gentle. I do think it's wise to be open to trying a different approach to see if maybe your discipline style would work, or even thrive, without time outs.


----------



## happeeevraftr (Mar 27, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
So, what's the difference between _punishment_ and _consequences_, then?

Are punishments always consequences? But consequences are not always punishments? And where are we drawing the line?

I guess this discussion boils down to whether or not one sees three minutes of sitting on a sofa as punitive, e.g. punishment.

I see all consequences imposed by a parent as a method of making a behavior less likely to happen as punishment. But I guess what's most important is how the child sees it. Although I have never used TO in the traditional sense, and although I don't see it as effective, helpful, or something I want to do, philosophically, there have been times when I have done things that my daughter certainly perceived as punitive.

Sometimes it's because I'm not in the best mood and so I react badly, and sometimes it is because I had to remove her from the situation when she did not want to be removed, but she was out of control. Even though I did not leave her, and I did my best to offer comfort and love until she calmed down, she did perceive that as punishment.

Because I believe any form of punishment actually hinders learning, I have just tried to minimize the effects and make sure she realizes we will go back as soon as she's feeling a little better and meanwhile I will provide a safe, supportive place for her to let her emotions out.

I don't like the argument that I haven't had to use time outs because my kids are "different." I agree all kids are different, but in this case, that word seems to imply "easier." My daughter is definitely not what I would call an easy child. She is strong-willed, determined, and intense.

But for us, the only time we have on-going issues like the cat issue thismama describes, have been when *I've* made it a big deal. And for my 3 year old, it doesn't take much to make it a big deal. We struggled with potty training for a year and a half, until I finally realized that just my mentioning anything about an accident, or trying to push her at all, was enough to hinder her progress. I had to be completely nonchalant about it.

Similarly, we had an issue for a few days with her hitting the baby. Not hard, and it was solely for me (she never did it when I wasn't there, except for once when she thought I was, and I didn't react, and she TOLD me she hit her.) I posted about it on here, but basically, I was making too big a deal about it by reacting strongly.

Even though I never imposed an actual consequence, it was punishment enough for her to hear "Nooooooo, Sariah, we can't hit the baby, that hurrrrrts her!" in an emotional tone. And for her, that punishment was enough to make the behavior continue. It only lasted a few days though, once or twice a day, until the one time I didn't react that way.

Instead, I said, "Do you need something, Sariah? Come here babe, what do you need?" And just held her for awhile. She never did it again.

I had to re-frame the issue for myself. She wasn't hitting out of anger or meanness or anything. She was showing me she needed some attention or love or something. She already _knew_ it wasn't okay to hit the baby. Just like during the extremely long potty training fiasco, she _knew_ how to do it, physically.

I think for some kids, they are held back in extreme ways when they feel like their parent is "disappointed in" them. Either that, or they are seeking attention in the best way they know how. (If grabbing the cat ALWAYS gets her a time-out, that's a sure fire way to get your attention even when you're busy.)

All that to say, ignoring all the other problems I see with punishment, I really think time-out can make things into bigger problems than they are. Even if it's just by showing your kid that that's something really important to you, and, therefore, and easy way to push your buttons or get you to react.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well, the idea of parents taking the time out is nice and all, but what if your child is hurting someone else? Like your pets? Or hurting you? Or destroying something?

Sometimes you can't be all *oh I'm taking a time out*. Also, I think my child would panic if I removed myself from her. Much better for us to put her on the sofa for time out than for me to leave the room altogether. Talk about abandonment issues! "When I am bad my mother leaves me." Yeowch.

That's why I said I leave ds with dh. Our child is never left alone or abandoned. You misunderstood me. I'm sorry you felt the need to belittle me in order to make your point.

One more thing: I would NEVER think that my ds is bad! Sometimes (most of the times) it's MY fault; I sometimes have a bad day at work or I couldn't sleep and I find his behaviour annoying. But I would never ever think that he's a bad child.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
I do not think one has to leave the room to be in TO. TO to me is creating a time space for me to gather my thoughts before acting. I can pick up kitty to keep her from getting hurt. That prevents further harm. THEN I can do whatever I need to to gather my thoughts and formulate a plan of action.

I agree. Sometimes my dh just picks ds up and they start reading a book or do something else while I catch my breath without leaving the room.


----------



## theirmomjayne (Mar 21, 2006)

See, my problem is that my Jacky absolutely DELIGHTS in making the younger ones cry/scream. I'll admit that the timeout is serving two purposes: 1) safety of the younger children and 2) punishment for his behavior.

What if the child can't/won't have empathy? (Like the example of the cat....what if the child LIKES to bother the cat?)


----------



## theirmomjayne (Mar 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transylvania_mom* 
I agree. Sometimes my dh just picks ds up and they start reading a book or do something else while I catch my breath without leaving the room.

I think this is great!!!!

However, my one concern in having the other parent 'redirect' is that it makes Daddy sound like the "good one." i.e. my husband is good about giving me time to myself when I need it. But I do get concerned when he sees me struggling with Jacky and he says, "Jack, let's go to the store to buy a few groceries and you can get some candy!" True, it gets Jack to concentrate on something else. But to me it almost seems like rewarding the behavior?


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theirmomjayne* 
I think this is great!!!!

However, my one concern in having the other parent 'redirect' is that it makes Daddy sound like the "good one." i.e. my husband is good about giving me time to myself when I need it. But I do get concerned when he sees me struggling with Jacky and he says, "Jack, let's go to the store to buy a few groceries and you can get some candy!" True, it gets Jack to concentrate on something else. But to me it almost seems like rewarding the behavior?

In our family, daddy doesn't get to be the good one, because it works both ways. I sometimes redirect him while dh gets a break (which is a lot easier because I still breastfeed him)








.
As for your second observation, sometimes there is a fine line between redirecting and rewarding a behaviour. I don't really have any advice, maybe your dh could say "let's go buy groceries" without the candy part? It would be an activity he would do anyway and your ds will enjoy spending some time with dad.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theirmomjayne* 
See, my problem is that my Jacky absolutely DELIGHTS in making the younger ones cry/scream. I'll admit that the timeout is serving two purposes: 1) safety of the younger children and 2) punishment for his behavior.

What if the child can't/won't have empathy? (Like the example of the cat....what if the child LIKES to bother the cat?)

I think most often a child is not showing empathy because either that child has not fully developed the skills of empathizing with others and perspective taking, or because that child needs empathy him/herself before he/she can empathize with others. I suspect that most children whom parents claim delight in making others cry are actually kids who are very much in need of empathy themselves, who need their feelings to be listened to, and who need someone to help them learn other ways of expressing themselves and getting their needs met. I can imagine that there are children out there who are truly incapable of empathy, but I also imagine that those children are very rare indeed.

I do agree with removing an aggressive child for the safety of the other children if it's necessary, but IME with my child it's the empathy and working with the child to help them communicate their feelings and meet their needs/solve whatever problem that really helps a child learn. I used to use time-out for dealing with my child's aggression, and while it certainly did remove her from the situation (which created physical safety for her sibling) and it certainly was a punishment, it did not at all help her to learn to handle her emotions, communicate, or develop self-control. It didn't do a darn thing to help her stop hitting (isn't that what punishment is supposed to do, deter someone from doing whatever they're being punished for?), because the reason she was hitting was not that she particularly enjoyed it or wasn't motivated to do better, but that she couldn't do better without learning new skills.

So those are just my thoughts and my experience. YMMV.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transylvania_mom* 
That's why I said I leave ds with dh. Our child is never left alone or abandoned. You misunderstood me.

I wasn't referring to you.







I've heard that argument a few times, about how everyone should not use time out for their kiddos, but take a time out themselves. Wouldn't work around here, I don't have the luxury of a second adult around at all times to take care of my kid whenever I feel like I've had enough.

Quote:

I'm sorry you felt the need to belittle me in order to make your point.
No need to apologize - I was not intending to belittle you, and had I been, it would not be your responsibility.

Quote:

One more thing: I would NEVER think that my ds is bad! Sometimes (most of the times) it's MY fault; I sometimes have a bad day at work or I couldn't sleep and I find his behaviour annoying. But I would never ever think that he's a bad child.
I don't think my kid is a bad child either. The word 'bad' was intended to be short form for negative behaviour as I was posting in a hurry. But I also don't think my kiddo's negative behaviour is my fault or my responsibility. It makes no sense to me to take on things my kiddo does that are violent or unacceptable as *my* fault. That to me is the epitome of martyrdom.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg* 
I think most often a child is not showing empathy because either that child has not fully developed the skills of empathizing with others and perspective taking, or because that child needs empathy him/herself before he/she can empathize with others. I suspect that most children whom parents claim delight in making others cry are actually kids who are very much in need of empathy themselves, who need their feelings to be listened to, and who need someone to help them learn other ways of expressing themselves and getting their needs met.

Not IME. My kid demonstrates empathy that I can recognize as such intermittently and inconsistently. She does not fully understand the impact of her behaviour on others, hence the cat harrassment. She doesn't consistently delight in making others cry, but she does sometimes enjoy it.

She is a super loved, super AP'ed kiddo. I think sometimes kids don't develop empathy because they are taught that everything revolves around them, everyone tiptoes around their feelings but they are not expected to do the same for other people. That is my concern with a lot of what I see here in the GD forum.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Personally, I don't believe that time outs serve the intended purpose. Even by the examples provided, time outs haven't altered behavior. *I believe that behavior is a message of underlying needs*. The underlying needs of the child are probably not being addressed, except to gain some (negative) attention and perhaps a chance to sit quietly to calm down (with or without parental companionship). I find it is more effective to give information which addresses and considers the needs of others (mama, cat, etc.). "The cat doesn't like xyz. See how her tail is twitching, and her ears are back and she is hissing? If we pet her gently, like this (demonstrating), she likes that. Hear her purring now?" "Mama needs to work on this abc thing. Let's find something fun for you to do to. How about xyz and a snack, while I am busy for a little while? Then we can play with playdoh together, ok?"

Pat


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

WuWei - I believe heartmama is saying time out is considered part of GD, and she doesn't want to see whether it is or not being debated. Because, it is, as far as the forum is concerned.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
"The cat doesn't like xyz. See how her tail is twitching, and her ears are back and she is hissing? If we pet her gently, like this (demonstrating), she likes that. Hear her purring now?" "Mama needs to work on this abc thing. Let's find something fun for you to do to. How about xyz and a snack, while I am busy for a little while? Then we can play with playdoh together, ok?"

I've done that. A million times. Completely useless with my kid.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Here is an article from The Natural Child Project "The Case Against Time Outs": http://www.naturalchild.com/guest/peter_haiman.html

Pat


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Yeah, I've seen that article before. I think it is worth reading, but I don't always think time out has to be like that. In the context of a loving, attached home, I don't think children are necessarily acting out because of something that is bad in the home. Nor do I think they will get abandonment issues from time out. My kiddo sleeps in my bed every night, gets carried around on my hip or back whenever she wants it, and attaches to one or the other of my boobs whenever the mood strikes. I really don't think 3 minutes on the sofa for bugging the animals is going to be her psychological undoing, or the beginning of the end in our loving relationship.

Context is all, IMO.


----------



## Tanibani (Nov 8, 2002)

I have not read this entire thread yet (but am looking forward to it).

- I welcome a discussion/debate on this topic (should be enlightening to all, no?)
- Unfortunately, out of anger, I do use TO's as punishments, "DS, Go To Your Room Right Now!" (usually after teasing/hurting younger sib)
- I know the above is NOT how TO is best used.








- I agree with WW that misbehavior is due to underlying needs.







I think DS needs more one-on-one time with me, which is hard to do, but I'm going to do this at least once a week starting tomorrow.

It's frustrating...

Another article on Time Outs:

The Disadvantages of Time Outs, by Aletha Solter, originally published in Mothering.
http://www.awareparenting.com/timeout.htm

Gordon Neufeld, http://www.gordonneufeld.com/
author of *Hold on to Your Kids* is going to have his first online course on Time Outs, on Saturday, 1/20/07.

Quote:

Dr. Neufeld will be doing his first open-to-the-public online training on Saturday, January 20th, 2007 from 10am-12noon Pacific Time. *The topic of this first online course will be "the Trouble with Time Outs" and will outline how some of today's most popular parenting practices actually make things worse and what we can do instead of using time outs which that is effective and non-harmful to our relationship with our child.*

This course is open to anyone in the world who has a computer with
high-speed internet connection. We are using an amazing online
learning program called Avacaster that will allow participants to see
and hear Dr. Neufeld live from his office in Vancouver, British
Columbia. You will also be able to view Dr. Neufeld's slide
presentation and type in questions for him to answer (as much as time
allows).

To find out more about this course and to register online, visit Dr.
Neufelds website:
http://www.gordonneufeld.com/schedule2007a.php#jan20
I just paid $35 to do it.


----------



## Cujobunny (Aug 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transylvania_mom* 
it's bad if it's used as a punishment, to make the child "pay" for what he's done.
But if it helps calm down the situation, I think it might be ok. For example, I give myself a "time out" from time to time to gather my thoughts while I leave dh deal with ds.

I agree with this. My brother uses a "time out" where he will remove his ds from the situation that is making him upset or anxious, but will sit with him and practice counting or talking about something else.

I don't agree with making them sit by themselves on a mat or a chair or whatever for a certain length of time as punishment.


----------



## PaxMamma (Jul 22, 2005)

my biggest concern w/TOs or most other form of "consequences" is not abandonment issues, or breaking attachment, or most other things discussed here. it is that they will more than likely create selfish children. if i put ds in timeout when he does something he shouldn't, he will most likely quit doing it, but not b/c he views it as wrong or has developed empathy, but b/c he fears what will happen to HIMSELF, not his peers, sibs, or environment. he will begin to weigh his actions only against what he will have to suffer.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)




----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

This thread is currently re-opened to new posts







. Please take note of the previous moderator statements:

Quote:

*
Gentle time outs are included as a part of the Gentle Discipline forum (see resources at the top of the page).

Some families find that time outs are difficult to impose without using a degree of force they may not feel is gentle. Also, time outs may go against a specific parental belief regarding parental imposed consequences.

Alternately, some parents may over use time outs, use them in a shaming manner (ie. you should be ashamed, go stand in the corner!), or use them in a way that neglects the vital need for active teaching and learning together.

There are parents who use gentle time outs without shaming, and within a context of active learning and teaching the other 99% of the time. Gentle time outs can simply be a time to "chill out", or to provide a safe boundary for escalating behavior when the child is not responding to direct parental involvement.

If you hang out in this forum you may find idea's and alternatives to time out that gradually work for you too. Or, you may decide that time outs are part of effective and gentle parenting in your home.

Either way it is certainly not "bad" to discuss time outs here.

~Heartmama*
and

Quote:

*While it's fine to share your experiences here, and explain why you do or do not use time out, there needs to be a common understanding that we should not be debating whether gentle time out is part of the GD paradigm. We can say whether or not it is part of *our* GD paradigm-I know there are passionate feelings on both sides of this issue, and I appreciate everyone discussing this in a way that doesn't lead to defensiveness on either side







*
From the MDC User Agreement:

Quote:

*Mothering.com is the website of natural family living and advocates natural solutions to parenting challenges. We host discussion of nighttime parenting, loving discipline, natural birth, homebirth, successful breastfeeding, alternative and complementary home remedies, informed consent, and many other topics from a natural point of view. We are not interested, however, in hosting discussions on the merits of crying it out, physical punishment, formula feeding, elective cesarean section, routine infant medical circumcision, or mandatory vaccinations...

MDC serves an online community of parents, families, and parent, child and family advocates considering, learning, practicing, and advocating attachment parenting and natural family living. Our discussions concern the real world of mothering and are first and foremost, for support, information, and community. Mothering invites you to read and participate in the discussions. In doing so we ask that you agree to respect and uphold the integrity of this community. Through your direct or indirect participation here you agree to make a personal effort to maintain a comfortable and respectful atmosphere for our guests and members.*
From Peggy O'Mara's book Natural Family Living: The Mothering Magazine Guide to Parenting:

Quote:

Family Matters
Discipline Pages 190-191
*The Problem with Time-Out*
_Many of us abhor the thought of spanking our children. Instead, we have decided to rely on the popular disciplinary took known as time-out. Sending a child to a corner or to her room, we reason, gives her time to cool off and think about her misbehavior.

The problem with time-out is that it doesn't work. As explained earlier, time-out teaches a child little about her behavior, or how to act differently in the future. A time-out is supposed to give a child a chance e to collect herself and reflect on her wrongdoings-but such reflection is a lot to expect of a child who is probably too overwhelmed by her own emotions to think clearly about her actions. Rather, the child is apt to focus on her feelings of frustration at not having her needs met, rejection act being sent away when she needed her parents' understanding, and anger at not being heard. And time-outs quickly become ineffective the older your child gets: Imagine telling a child who is almost as tall as you are to go sit in a chair in the corner.

Instead of being silenced and isolated in timeout, what a child needs most when she is out of control is a loving parent to hold her, listen to her, and allow her to release her pent-up emotions in a constructive way so that she may develop the ability to verbalize her feelings rather than to act out_.
And here is a different perspective brought to us by Mothering Magazine in an article entitled: "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child? The Negative Effects of Spanking--and Some Healthy Alternatives."

Please remember that Gentle Discipline covers a spectrum of gentle, non-punitive practices. Click here for a list of suggestions of gentle alternatives to punishment from Mothering Magazine.

If there are any further questions about the topic as far as moderation, MDC Administration or Forum Guidelines, please utilize the PM system to contact me or heartmama rather than making any questions a topic on this thread.

Thanks so much for your patience and your continued cooperation


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

: Huh, that looks like an interesting article by Peggy.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
For me I do time out because when I didn't, I noticed I felt really helpless to stop a lot of behaviours that I found unacceptable (ie. hurting the animals), and what would end up happening is I would become enraged with my child. Which was a hell of a lot worse than 3 minutes on the sofa.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I think this is a good point. This is also the reason that I DON'T use time-out - because I want to avoid being enraged. When I was punishing my dd for a behavior and it didn't make it stop, then I got enraged. So, for me, it was having the opposite effect. But I feel it's very important to take your own personality and limits on patience into consideration when deciding on a parenting tactic! It's really not a one-way street, and we can only change ourselves so much. At least I can


----------



## lara1828 (Aug 11, 2005)

Well, I don't use time-out, not because I think it is "bad" per se, but because time-out as I see it practiced IRL is generally punitive (or as a threat) and I firmly believe that punishment (and threats) is the least effective form of discipline. And, of course, I believe a discipline style that is too dependant on punishments is harmful.

Some pp mentioned that what they call "time-out" is gently removing the dc from a situation and/or sitting with the child until things have calmed down. This is not punitive (or certainly less so). Well, I do this, but I have never really felt the need to label it as "time-out". I just do it and move on.

I'm not convinced that people (here and IRL) are always honest with themselves as to whether they're using time-outs punitively.

DISCLAIMER: The previous statement was not directed at any particular poster, just a general feeling I get from reading TO threads.

DISCLAIMER: Punishments in my house do occur, but they are minimal and of the "logical consequences" type.

I really am interested in TO discussions, thanks for reopening the thread.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
It makes no sense to me to take on things my kiddo does that are violent or unacceptable as *my* fault. That to me is the epitome of martyrdom.

stop twisting my words. I didn't say I take responsibility for my child's actions and I'm certainly not a "martyr".
Also, I was not apologizing to you. I was saddened by the fact that you had to resort to such accusations (of child abandonment) in order to make a point.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transylvania_mom* 
stop twisting my words. I didn't say I take responsibility for my child's actions and I'm certainly not a "martyr".
Also, I was not apologizing to you. I was saddened by the fact that you had to resort to such accusations (of child abandonment) in order to make a point.

I was responding to the idea that time out are 'child abandonment' and that parents taking time out themselves is always a better option.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

We are a non-punishing household. Imo, the best that time outs can do, is to make a child behave for self centered reasons.
I want my ds to understand the REAL consequences of his actions, and how they affect others, and acceptable ways to express his impulses (ie: Dog doesn't like to be hit, it hurts her. If I want her to move, I can say "MOVE!"), NOT make decisions base on how those actions will affect him (I'll get a time out if I hit the dog).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well yes, I *could* stop whatever I'm doing and pick up the cat to prevent my child from hitting her. But, I could also give my child a consequence and then my child is the one who is inconvenienced because of her behaviour, not me and the cat.

Really really not to be snarky, but how does a time out stop the cat from being inconvenienced by being hit in the first place?
Unless you are saying that a couple time outs will stop the behavior completely?


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Yeah well I have no defence to that as we had a little pet related crisis around here the other day and I put up a gate.


----------



## Paigerina (Jan 15, 2007)

happeeevraftr, sledg and WuWei,

I found your words thoughtful and encouraging.

When a child demonstrates negative behavior like hitting or tormenting others, it's probably either because he/she lacks the understanding or maturity to "know better," or because he/she needs attention.

When a child demonstrates negative behavior due to lack of understanding or maturity, the concern and disapproval that will probably be the natural response of the parent(s) will help the child learn his/her actions are harmful, and hopefully put a stop to the negative behavior.

Though, it's hard for children and adults alike to learn to control their tempers.

When a child demonstrates negative behavior because he/she knows it's harmful, and considered unacceptable, it's a cry for attention. He/she may need more empathy, understanding or to feel more independent. The gentlest way to help a child get beyond the negative behavior is to provide the necessary attention by showing empathy and inquiring about what he/she might be upset about.

In any case, I feel time-out is harmful because it causes a child to feel ashamed, impotent, misunderstood and frustrated (or more frustrated). This leads to feeling resentful. Feeling resentful leads to more crying out for attention by demonstrating negative behavior.

I found what Dr. James Kimmel and Rue Kream had to say about punishment in these articles thoughtful and sensible:

http://www.naturalchild.org/james_ki...unishment.html

http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/rue_kream3.html


----------



## Paigerina (Jan 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dkeoshian* 
my biggest concern w/TOs or most other form of "consequences" is not abandonment issues, or breaking attachment, or most other things discussed here. it is that they will more than likely create selfish children. if i put ds in timeout when he does something he shouldn't, he will most likely quit doing it, but not b/c he views it as wrong or has developed empathy, but b/c he fears what will happen to HIMSELF, not his peers, sibs, or environment. he will begin to weigh his actions only against what he will have to suffer.

That's a great point.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dkeoshian* 
my biggest concern w/TOs or most other form of "consequences" is not abandonment issues, or breaking attachment, or most other things discussed here. it is that they will more than likely create selfish children. if i put ds in timeout when he does something he shouldn't, he will most likely quit doing it, but not b/c he views it as wrong or has developed empathy, but b/c he fears what will happen to HIMSELF, not his peers, sibs, or environment. he will begin to weigh his actions only against what he will have to suffer.

Aw, heck, the only reason I don't drive 85 MPH all the time is because I don't want to get a ticket. I love driving fast, even though I know it is wrong because it could be dangerous and it is not an efficient use of gas. My only real motivation for not breaking the law is that I don't want to get caught!

I can think of a dozen similar examples. I don't think that makes me (or the thousands of people like me) selfish. I think it means that _a problem behavior has been identified_ (people driving at dangerous speeds) and that the people that are in charge of keeping our highways safe have figured out a _discipline method that is effective_ in keeping me and lots of other people from driving ridiculously fast.


----------



## happeeevraftr (Mar 27, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Aw, heck, the only reason I don't drive 85 MPH all the time is because I don't want to get a ticket. I love driving fast, even though I know it is wrong because it could be dangerous and it is not an efficient use of gas. My only real motivation for not breaking the law is that I don't want to get caught!

I can think of a dozen similar examples. I don't think that makes me (or the thousands of people like me) selfish. I think it means that _a problem behavior has been identified_ (people driving at dangerous speeds) and that the people that are in charge of keeping our highways safe have figured out a _discipline method that is effective_ in keeping me and lots of other people from driving ridiculously fast.

Okay, I can relate here, because I would totally go 85 or 90 or 100 if there were no laws, because I love going fast, I'm always in a hurry, and also, I just don't pay attention to how fast I'm going until I remember the possibility of getting a ticket.

However, I don't think this is the best way to be. I wish I was more like my husband. He doesn't drive fast because he knows it's dangerous and irresponsible and could potentially have some really bad outcomes.

He feels very strongly about it, and so he _never_ goes more than maybe 4 or 5 over the speed limit. I "know" it's dangerous and all that stuff, but my main motivation for not speeding is not wanting to get pulled over.

The difference is, I still speed. Often. Unless there's a high probability of getting caught, which there usually isn't, in my estimation.

I would much prefer to be the kind of person who does everything I do because it's right (or nice, or unhurtful, or safe), rather than because I'm afraid of getting caught. That's called integrity, and I have it about somethings, but others, well, let's just say I'm working on it.

The point is that I don't want to do any more to foster and encourage that kind of thinking. I know it may happen anyway: Even if I never hold out a threat of a punishment for misbehavior, there will likely be some things my kids will do or not do just to avoid getting "caught" (and getting in trouble: i.e. a ticket, jail, or simply disapproving looks from those they love).

But I'm going to do everything I can to foster the _opposite_ of that kind of thinking, so that, for the most part, my kids will want do do the nice/safe/helpful thing, because they like helping other people feel good, keeping people safe, and easing the burdens of those around them.

In the end, I think the REAL reason for doing/not doing something is a far better motivator than the fake (parent-imposed) consequence is. And it will serve them always and forever, and not just until the parent is not in the room or the kid is too old for the parent to give him the consequence. (Can you really imagine putting your 13 year old in time-out?)

Oh, and I can already hear the rebuttal: We can teach our kids the REAL reasons too, and we'll do that first, of course, but when that doesn't work, we need _something_ to get them to stop right now.

My answer to this is: I think the two kinds of thinking are mutually exclusive. In reality, they are opposites. Either you don't hit your sister because you don't want *her* to feel hurt, or you don't hit her because *you* don't want whatever punishment is set up to go with hitting.

If you're thinking about one, you're probably not thinking about the other.

And if the parent is emphasizing one, the child will believe that one is most important.

So, if your kid is about to hit his sister, reminding him that he'll go to his room if he does it will focus his thoughts on _himself_, whereas reminding him that sister doesn't like to be hit because it hurts her, and he doesn't want her to feel bad focuses his attention on _his sister_ and her feelings. If you use both, ("Son, don't hit your sister, because it will hurt her and if you do you will go to your room,") and he refrains from hitting, I would guess he's trying to avoid the punishment.

IMO, if the threat of punishment is there at all, self-interest will be the main motivating factor in determining behavior.

But I haven't thought that last bit through completely and I'm kinda blurry eyed right now, so definitely open to discussion.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happeeevraftr* 
Okay, I can relate here, because I would totally go 85 or 90 or 100 if there were no laws, because I love going fast, I'm always in a hurry, and also, I just don't pay attention to how fast I'm going until I remember the possibility of getting a ticket.

However, I don't think this is the best way to be. I wish I was more like my husband. He doesn't drive fast because he knows it's dangerous and irresponsible and could potentially have some really bad outcomes.

He feels very strongly about it, and so he _never_ goes more than maybe 4 or 5 over the speed limit. I "know" it's dangerous and all that stuff, but my main motivation for not speeding is not wanting to get pulled over.

The difference is, I still speed. Often. Unless there's a high probability of getting caught, which there usually isn't, in my estimation.

I would much prefer to be the kind of person who does everything I do because it's right (or nice, or unhurtful, or safe), rather than because I'm afraid of getting caught. That's called integrity, and I have it about somethings, but others, well, let's just say I'm working on it.

The point is that I don't want to do any more to foster and encourage that kind of thinking. I know it may happen anyway: Even if I never hold out a threat of a punishment for misbehavior, there will likely be some things my kids will do or not do just to avoid getting "caught" (and getting in trouble: i.e. a ticket, jail, or simply disapproving looks from those they love).

But I'm going to do everything I can to foster the _opposite_ of that kind of thinking, so that, for the most part, my kids will want do do the nice/safe/helpful thing, because they like helping other people feel good, keeping people safe, and easing the burdens of those around them.

In the end, I think the REAL reason for doing/not doing something is a far better motivator than the fake (parent-imposed) consequence is. And it will serve them always and forever, and not just until the parent is not in the room or the kid is too old for the parent to give him the consequence. (Can you really imagine putting your 13 year old in time-out?)

Oh, and I can already hear the rebuttal: We can teach our kids the REAL reasons too, and we'll do that first, of course, but when that doesn't work, we need _something_ to get them to stop right now.

My answer to this is: I think the two kinds of thinking are mutually exclusive. In reality, they are opposites. Either you don't hit your sister because you don't want *her* to feel hurt, or you don't hit her because *you* don't want whatever punishment is set up to go with hitting.

If you're thinking about one, you're probably not thinking about the other.

And if the parent is emphasizing one, the child will believe that one is most important.

So, if your kid is about to hit his sister, reminding him that he'll go to his room if he does it will focus his thoughts on _himself_, whereas reminding him that sister doesn't like to be hit because it hurts her, and he doesn't want her to feel bad focuses his attention on _his sister_ and her feelings. If you use both, ("Son, don't hit your sister, because it will hurt her and if you do you will go to your room,") and he refrains from hitting, I would guess he's trying to avoid the punishment.

IMO, *if the threat of punishment is there at all, self-interest will be the main motivating factor in determining behavior*.

But I haven't thought that last bit through completely and I'm kinda blurry eyed right now, so definitely open to discussion.

I really like your reasoning happeeevraftr, here and in the post you made on the first page







Couldn't have said it better (really)


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I am going to disagree an itsy bit. I am all for self-motivation. I find that I am pleased when I have the ability to help others get what they want, in addition to getting what I want. I don't believe it has to be a winner-loser dynamic. I believe that win-win solutions can be created. "I want this, you want this, how can we work that out?" "You are playing with that, I want a turn, I want you to play AND I want to have fun, how can we both get what we want?" So, I don't believe that it is necessary for "self-motivation" to take a back seat to others getting what they want and need. I believe that there are abundant alternatives which can address BOTH of our self-motivations.

Pat


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I am going to disagree an itsy bit. I am all for self-motivation. I find that I am pleased when I have the ability to help others get what they want, in addition to getting what I want. I don't believe it has to be a winner-loser dynamic. I believe that win-win solutions can be created. "I want this, you want this, how can we work that out?" "You are playing with that, I want a turn, I want you to play AND I want to have fun, how can we both get what we want?" So, I don't believe that it is necessary for "self-motivation" to take a back seat to others getting what they want and need. I believe that there are abundant alternatives which can address BOTH of our self-motivations.

Pat

Yes, I agree with this as well. Though I did not find your post "disagreeing"







More like "adding to" .


----------



## clavicula (Apr 10, 2005)

:


----------

