# Logical Consquences - GD? or NOT GD?



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Logical Consequences are a core part of "Positive Discipline". I've posted before to try and tease out differences, if any, between PD v. GD -- and I recall most thought they were very similar if not identical.

This question is based on another thread where the topic of logical consequences is being discussed. Some posters feel LCs are NOT GD? This is a new one for me -- so I want to hear from GD mommas here - are Logical Consequences - in your opinions - GD?


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

At the risk of sounding as though I alone get to decide what constitutes "GD"...

I would be willing to concede that "logical consequences" CAN fall under the umbrella of GD, depending on how far the parent takes their definition of "logical". However, since I think consequences of any sort imposed by parents constitute punishment, I don't believe they are necessary or optimal. So, one can practice GD without ever using them, but at the same time I can see how some could use them and still be GD.

Does that make sense?


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
At the risk of sounding as though I alone get to decide what constitutes "GD"...

I would be willing to concede that "logical consequences" CAN fall under the umbrella of GD, depending on how far the parent takes their definition of "logical". However, since I think consequences of any sort imposed by parents constitute punishment, I don't believe they are necessary or optimal. So, one can practice GD without ever using them, but at the same time I can see how some could use them and still be GD.

Does that make sense?









Yes. Its what I think too . . in other words, there are a lot of "Logical Consequences" that are not GD.

However, I am wondering how many people think that any consequences at all are not GD? This is not my interpretation of PD or GD.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Count me in the "are GD" side, when used properly.
But yes they can be used in Non GD ways. No doubt.


----------



## Chicky2 (May 29, 2002)

Well, even though I don't come here and post, I do lurk. Seems to me that we cannot keep our children from experiencing the consequences of their actions. Ones that are introduced by the parents, however, are additional consequences and can be taken too far. That's my .02!


----------



## MsMoMpls (Oct 22, 2002)

Yeah, I am kind of thinking the same thing. Most people call things logical consequences that I would consider punishment. I like natural consequences better- things that happen that I don't "make" happen. If my son climbs onto a chair and falls... natural consequence. Consequences should work like gravity! Sometimes I get frustrated with my kids and get impatient and even yell... if I need to go hide in my room until I can be a good mommy- that feels like a natural consequence. I guess I don't see the "logic" in most logical consequences.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

hehehe I agree it depends on how they're used. I posted something about it on the other thread.
Suffice it to say, it matters how its done, why, and how the child interprets it.
"You keep throwing the ball, so now I'm taking it" is punishment imo.
"Lets put the ball up, to take away the temptation to throw it, and we'll find something else to do" is not imo.
(I've recently decided I'm only comfortable with that in situations where someone or something is likely to be harmed)


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
However, I am wondering how many people think that any consequences at all are not GD? This is not my interpretation of PD or GD.
















:

I haven't completely thought this through but it seems to me that logical consequences can seem gentle from a parent's perspective because the parent is comparing them to other forms of punishment and also understands his/her own intent. I have a hard time seeing how a child would perceive any imposed consequence as gentle within his/her own framework.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

well..following that then there must be natural consequences that are not GD as well...

child runs into street~consequence is eventually gets hit by a car~natural consequence..but not very gentle though.

I guess falling of the chair is the same..a "not so gentle" natural consequence.

nothing is ever black and white though is it.

I am a gentle parent. I am sure I use logical consequences. For example I have taken a bike away for not wearing a helmet(she's 11)...I could have left it to natural consequences but I rather my child not get a serious head injury or I get a fine(it's illegal where I live to ride without a helmet" and I had tried all the reasoning but if you have a preteen who doesn't want to mess up their hair then sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I didn't do it to be mean though, I did it to be safe. Do intentions count? I think so. She was angry but she wasn't hurt. And she understood why, she was more angry at herself after the first hour or so.

But I didn't do it to punish her and she actually got her bike back before the week was up after we came to a compromise and talked some more. I haven't ever taken the bike away for leaving it outside however it did get stolen and run over so now she has no bike...big time natural consequences. How hard it was not to do "I told you so" because we had but instead I did "oh, that's too bad your bike got stolen and run over, you don't have a bike now, you must be so upset"

I like making them part of the solution now...as they get older...for example...once she gets a new bike I am going to discuss what we can do to make sure 1.helmet gets worn 2. bike doesn't get stolen again. I bet she will say I can take the bike away if she forgets her helmet.









I am sure there is something I do on a daily basis that someone somewhere would look at and say "you are not GD" but I really don't care. I am a gentle parentand I discipline gently but I am not perfect.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I couldnt agree more Allgirls.
One of the main reasions I use logical consequences is because they are MORE gentle than the natural consequences involved.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

I don't feel like I am an authority on what is or is not technically GD. There are a couple of different issues I see in the debate about "logical consequences." It would be so much easier if we were all dealing with the same definitions here. I see the term "logical consequences" used in such different ways. Sometimes it is used when talking about a parent putting up a toy that is being thrown, for example, which could be a gentle redirecting (the offending toy is put out of sight so the temptation to throw it isn't there and the child is given something else to play with. Not the same as "you can't have this if you can't play with it appropriatly" which seems like a punishment to me). Other times it is used to discribe an obvious punishment, and some GD parents don't punish. For me, punishments haven't been an effective way of teaching (and often are not very gentle), so I don't use them. For a lot of parents, when you start down the punishment path, a parent can get caught in a trap of having to find harsher and harsher punishments to try to "fix" a problem behavior -- when they should be looking at what is causing the behavior in the first place.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*














:

I haven't completely thought this through but it seems to me that logical consequences can seem gentle from a parent's perspective because the parent is comparing them to other forms of punishment and also understands his/her own intent. I have a hard time seeing how a child would perceive any imposed consequence as gentle within his/her own framework.


I agree with this but it also depends on the age of the child. My older kids have that frame of reference because they have friends whose parents are not so gentle and very punitive. Now I am talking a 15 year old and an 11 year old. I rarely get told "but so and so is allowed to do XXX" because generally it's so and so who is grounded and can't do XXX while my kids generally get to do whatever they want(within the guidelines of school nights and me driving them etc. )

But my 2.5 year old doesn't have this frame of reference. But she still knows we are gentle simply because we are.


----------



## CarenSwan (Sep 29, 2005)

I'm in the middle of Unconditional Parenting by Kohn and he does not have much good to say about the way the term "natural consequences" gets used today. I"ll include a longish quote because I think it's quite interesting. Up until reading this book, I would have thought that "natural consequences" are the way to go. Now, I see that it really depends on how we define "natural". IMHO, it is not natural to subject our children to every "consequence" of their actions. It is natural to protect them as much as possible and create an environment of trust and mutual aid. Here's what Kohn has to say about "natural consequences" which he defines as "refusing to help":
_If a child is late for dinner, we're supposed to let her go hungry. If she leaves her raincoat at school, we're supposed to let her get wet the following day... The... lesson that she's likely to take away is that we could have helped--but didn't. [quoting two authors] "When you stand by and let bad things happen, your child experiences the twin disappointments that something went wrong and you did not seem to care enough about her to lift a finger to help prevent the mishap. The 'natural consequences' approach is really a form of punishment." --Kohn, p. 66_


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls*
well..following that then there must be natural consequences that are not GD as well...

child runs into street~consequence is eventually gets hit by a car~natural consequence..but not very gentle though.

I guess falling of the chair is the same..a "not so gentle" natural consequence.

i can't imagine there is a parent here who would allow their child to suffer all of the natural consequences of life. It is a parent's job to pretect and guide their child, so we sheild them from a lot of the "natural consequences" they aren't ready to face on their own. That's why, when our children are small, we use baby gates and outlet covers, etc. So yes, it wouldn't be very gentle to allow your child to face many "natural consequences", it would be neglectful.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I couldnt agree more Allgirls.
One of the main reasions I use logical consequences is because they are MORE gentle than the natural consequences involved.











Do you think we agree on things a bit more because we both have teens? I know my perspective is different than it once was regarding discipline...me with just toddlers and me with teens is about the same as me without kids and me with kids...


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls*
well..following that then there must be natural consequences that are not GD as well...

child runs into street~consequence is eventually gets hit by a car~natural consequence..but not very gentle though.

I guess falling of the chair is the same..a "not so gentle" natural consequence.

nothing is ever black and white though is it.

Absolutely. The difference is that we're querying whether GD includes actions that the parent affirmatively imposes upon the child as a consequence of the child's behavior. The "gentle" in GD, IMO, is primarily about the the child's perception of the parent's behavior. So getting hit by a car and falling off of a chair, while definitely not things that a child would experience as gentle, are really part of another question.

I'm still thinking about the rest of your post.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls*









Do you think we agree on things a bit more because we both have teens? I know my perspective is different than it once was regarding discipline...me with just toddlers and me with teens is about the same as me without kids and me with kids...









Could be. I am ashamed to admit that I now have less respect for a child's innate reasoning skills and sociality and desire to please their parents than I did before having a teen.
I also am face to face with real lifelong natural consequences that are much more serious than a bruise from falling out of a chair or being cold after forgetting a jacket.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
i can't imagine there is a parent here who would allow their child to suffer all of the natural consequences of life. It is a parent's job to pretect and guide their child, so we sheild them from a lot of the "natural consequences" they aren't ready to face on their own. That's why, when our children are small, we use baby gates and outlet covers, etc. So yes, it wouldn't be very gentle to allow your child to face many "natural consequences", it would be neglectful.

Oh...I wasn't suggesting anything like that...I was just making observations about how nothing is black and white...natural, logical..there are grey areas that's all.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CarenSwan*
I'm in the middle of Unconditional Parenting by Kohn and he does not have much good to say about the way the term "natural consequences" gets used today. I"ll include a longish quote because I think it's quite interesting. Up until reading this book, I would have thought that "natural consequences" are the way to go. Now, I see that it really depends on how we define "natural". IMHO, it is not natural to subject our children to every "consequence" of their actions. It is natural to protect them as much as possible and create an environment of trust and mutual aid. Here's what Kohn has to say:
_Another version of what might be called Punishment Lite is known as "natural consequences," which invites parents to discipline by inaction--that is, by refusing to help. If a child is late for dinner, we're supposed to let her go hungry. If she leaves her raincoat at school, we're supposed to let her get wet the following day. This is said to teach her to be more punctual, or less forgetful, or whatever. But the far more powerful lesson that she's likely to take away is that we could have helped--but didn't. As two authors note in their discussion of the practice, "When you stand by and let bad things happen, your child experiences the twin disappointments that something went wrong and you did not seem to care enough about her to lift a finger to help prevent the mishap. The 'natural consequences' approach is really a form of punishment." --Kohn, p. 66_

Cool quote..kind of the anti "tough love" approach. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls*
child runs into street~consequence is eventually gets hit by a car~natural consequence..but not very gentle though.

I guess falling of the chair is the same..a "not so gentle" natural consequence.

You are right about the falling out of the chair part, but completely off-base with the car and street one. There is a huge difference between safety and consequences of behavior-actions, words, and thoughts.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls*
For example I have taken a bike away for not wearing a helmet(she's 11)...

I would never take my child's bike away. That is not gentle. Riding a bike without a helmet is a safety issue, if my children do not wear their helmets, then they do not ride the bike. There is no leeway when it comes to the safety of ourselves, and my children know this.
Just like wearing your seatbelt when in a vehicle.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CarenSwan*
If a child is late for dinner, we're supposed to let her go hungry.

The natural consequence of missing dinner, is that you missed sitting with family and eating with us. It has nothing to do with making your child go hungry. If my child misses a meal or chooses not to eat the food that was prepared, there is a cupboard with food that they can eat. No, I will not cook an entirely different meal for each child, I am not their servant, I am their parent.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CarenSwan*
As two authors note in their discussion of the practice, "When you stand by and let bad things happen, your child experiences the twin disappointments that something went wrong and you did not seem to care enough about her to lift a finger to help prevent the mishap. The 'natural consequences' approach is really a form of punishment." --Kohn, p. 66[/I]

ITA with the part of standing by while letting bad things happen to your child, but IMO, that is not a natural consequence, as it is natural to have parents who love and cherish you and will keep you safe.


----------



## btlsmum (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
Suffice it to say, it matters how its done, why, and how the child interprets it.
"You keep throwing the ball, so now I'm taking it" is punishment imo.
"Lets put the ball up, to take away the temptation to throw it, and we'll find something else to do" is not imo.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
I would never take my child's bike away. That is not gentle. Riding a bike without a helmet is a safety issue, if my children do not wear their helmets, then they do not ride the bike. There is no leeway when it comes to the safety of ourselves, and my children know this.
Just like wearing your seatbelt when in a vehicle.

Now granted, I'm fairly new to this board and I am probably more punative than some others here but these two things seem more an arguement of semantics than discipline. If a child cannot do something (in these cases because it is unsafe or something may be broken) the message is the same regardless of the delivery. You are still removing the object that is the focus of the unsafe behavior until the child is able to use it appropriately. Removal of said object is still a form of "punishment".


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
You are right about the falling out of the chair part, but completely off-base with the car and street one. There is a huge difference between safety and consequences of behavior-actions, words, and thoughts.

I would never take my child's bike away. That is not gentle. Riding a bike without a helmet is a safety issue, if my children do not wear their helmets, then they do not ride the bike. There is no leeway when it comes to the safety of ourselves, and my children know this.
Just like wearing your seatbelt when in a vehicle.


What is the difference between climbing up on chair and running in street besides the severity of the possible injury? I don't quite understand.

I am also a little confused about the second part....you say you wouldn't take your child's bike away, that it is not gentle but if your child doesn't wear the helmet, they do not ride the bike...isn't that the same thing?

That is what I mean by "taking the bike away" not permitting her to ride it.(I didn't take it away off the property, in fact it just went in the garage next to all the bikes where it's normally kept, it wasn't a physical taking away of the bike)

She took off on her bike without a helmet so she couldn't have the bike to ride for a while, I asked her to put it in the garage and then told her no more bike. I originally said a week.

I gave it back to her after we talked about it and she convinced me she wouldn't do it again. It probably wasn't particularly gentle, I was angry at her and had every right to be. Again, at that time it was something I could do to once again try to impress upon her the importance of wearing her helmet every time...oh, and for what it's worth..she's 11, she's been riding bike since she was 5, she would never have gone without an helmet in the first 5 years..but suddenly she's doing it. We live in a small town and the kids go off on their bikes on their own quite a bit.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
ITA with the part of standing by while letting bad things happen to your child, but IMO, that is not a natural consequence, as it is natural to have parents who love and cherish you and will keep you safe.

Good point...and it is equally natural for parents to want to keep their children safe.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

I think it depends on how they are used. Yes, in my opinion the intention does count. Logical consequences like taking away a marker when the child is writing on the wall aren't intended to punish the child, but to stop the action. Markers can be used on paper at the table for younger children in my house. Allowing her to write all over the walls is not an option for us. DH would seriously freak and that's not gentle for them or me. Sometimes people use punishment and call them logical consequences. It depends on how they are used.

Natural consequences can be good, but can also be punitive. I went to a parenting seminar once where the presentor said if your child forgets her lunch, the natural consequence is to go hungry for the day. That is ridiculous in my opinion. I could never and would never let her starve to teach her a lesson. I couldn't get through the day knowing she was hungry. She leaves for school at 7 am and barely eats breakfast, so that "natural consequence" feels like punishment to me. Also, at the same seminar they said if your child doesn't bring the dirty laundry to the hamper or laundry room, let them wear dirty clothes to school. Also, not an option for me. Yeah, I'll let her go dirty and get made fun of to teach her a lesson, right.

I think some natural and logical consequences can be good, but it depends on the situation and how they are used.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *btlsmum*
Now granted, I'm fairly new to this board and I am probably more punative than some others here but these two things seem more an arguement of semantics than discipline. If a child cannot do something (in these cases because it is unsafe or something may be broken) the message is the same regardless of the delivery. You are still removing the object that is the focus of the unsafe behavior until the child is able to use it appropriately. Removal of said object is still a form of "punishment".

You are not understanding. I never removed the bike. They can push the bike, twirl the pedals, decorate it, etc., but they cannot ride it.
It is the riding part where the safety issues come into play, not the part about ownership.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls*
What is the difference between climbing up on chair and running in street besides the severity of the possible injury? I don't quite understand.

We don't own a ladder, so, sometimes we need to use the chair. It is important that my children learn how to safely climb upon the chair.
You cannot always keep someone from falling off a chair.
You can keep someone from getting hit by a vehicle.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls*
I am also a little confused about the second part....you say you wouldn't take your child's bike away, that it is not gentle but if your child doesn't wear the helmet, they do not ride the bike...isn't that the same thing?

No. Just like i would never allow anyone to ride in my vehicle without using a seatbelt. Learning how to be safe is not a form of punishment.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
You are not understanding. I never removed the bike. They can push the bike, twirl the pedals, decorate it, etc., but they cannot ride it.
It is the riding part where the safety issues come into play, not the part about ownership.

ah(is there a lightbulb smiley?)..I was a bit confused about that. I am assuming your kids are younger than mine...my eleven year old only uses the bike for transportation. Also I think even when she was younger I might have had to remove it...she was very impulsive and it would have tortured her to not be able to ride it...I think it would have been meaner to leave it in sight than put it away







Of course I probably would have been outside monitoring her play at a younger age anyway so it wouldn't have happened.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
(I've recently decided I'm only comfortable with that in situations where someone or something is likely to be harmed)


This is when I use logical consequences: to protect the person or property of another.

I think that it is GD in that circumstance.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
We don't own a ladder, so, sometimes we need to use the chair. It is important that my children learn how to safely climb upon the chair.
You cannot always keep someone from falling off a chair.
You can keep someone from getting hit by a vehicle.

No. Just like i would never allow anyone to ride in my vehicle without using a seatbelt. Learning how to be safe is not a form of punishment.


Well sometimes we have to cross the street and it's important that children learn how to safely go into the street. I am not really seeing a difference except in the degree of the injury. And you cannot keep someone from getting hit by a vehicle all the time either. An 11 year old and her dog were killed in a city nearby a couple days ago.









as to the second part. That's not what I was asking..I get that...I just didn't get how what you did was different from what I did..you explained it in another post though.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls*
Of course I probably would have been outside monitoring her play at a younger age anyway so it wouldn't have happened.

Bingo! I think this is the crux. Logical consequences are really not necessary at all when children are so little that prevention and supervision are constants in their life.
If dd ONLY rides her bike when mom is present, then it is pretty easy to make sure she always has her helmet on.
But when kids reach an age where they have more independance and they are testing boundaries they might take it as punishment either way.
"you may not ride your bike for a week" is perceived as no more a "punishment" than "you may not ride your bike for a week without supervision" Because an older child doesnt want to just ride in circles around the cul de sac.
Requiring supervision for a child who had previously had independance is a logical consequence as well. One that might FEEL punative to the child too.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
Logical consequences like taking away a marker when the child is writing on the wall aren't intended to punish the child, but to stop the action.

Redirection is more gentle than taking something away. Give them paper. Then you are giving, not taking.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
Natural consequences can be good, but can also be punitive. I went to a parenting seminar once where the presentor said if your child forgets her lunch, the natural consequence is to go hungry for the day. That is ridiculous in my opinion. I could never and would never let her starve to teach her a lesson. I couldn't get through the day knowing she was hungry. She leaves for school at 7 am and barely eats breakfast, so that "natural consequence" feels like punishment to me. Also, at the same seminar they said if your child doesn't bring the dirty laundry to the hamper or laundry room, let them wear dirty clothes to school. Also, not an option for me. Yeah, I'll let her go dirty and get made fun of to teach her a lesson, right.

WOW!!! We obviously had very different teachers!! As the parent, you are responsible for keeping your child fed, clothed, and sheltered, ie-basic needs.
They have all their adulthood to learn what it's like to forget to eat, not make time for laundering their clothes, etc.

A natural consequence is when you lie in the snow and get cold.
You run in the rain and get wet.
You fall and skin your knees.

When a parent uses natural consequences, it means they allow their child to bond with nature, understand nature, and learn respect for nature.

It is not natural to be punished, but it is natural to have guidance and be taught how to stay safe.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
"you may not ride your bike for a week" is perceived as no more a "punishment" than "you may not ride your bike for a week without supervision"

I would never offer either of these, as neither addresses the safety issue. I tell my children, "Once your helmet is on your head, you may ride your bike." That is not a punishment, nor is it discipline.

You are not punishing nor disciplining a person when you require them to wear a seatbelt.


----------



## Emmom (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CarenSwan*
Here's what Kohn has to say:
_Another version of what might be called Punishment Lite is known as "natural consequences," which invites parents to discipline by inaction--that is, by refusing to help. If a child is late for dinner, we're supposed to let her go hungry. If she leaves her raincoat at school, we're supposed to let her get wet the following day. This is said to teach her to be more punctual, or less forgetful, or whatever. But the far more powerful lesson that she's likely to take away is that we could have helped--but didn't. As two authors note in their discussion of the practice, "When you stand by and let bad things happen, your child experiences the twin disappointments that something went wrong and you did not seem to care enough about her to lift a finger to help prevent the mishap. The 'natural consequences' approach is really a form of punishment." --Kohn, p. 66_

I just wanted to point out that--from my observations lurking on this forum--it seems to me that nobody who posts here is this harsh in their "natural consequences." In fact, the situation that AK describes is more like "logical consequences." The parent is _imposing_ a consequence: "*refusing to help*."

This seems like a more typical definition of natural consequences from this forum:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
The natural consequence of missing dinner, is that you missed sitting with family and eating with us. It has nothing to do with making your child go hungry. If my child misses a meal or chooses not to eat the food that was prepared, there is a cupboard with food that they can eat. No, I will not cook an entirely different meal for each child, I am not their servant, I am their parent.
ITA with the part of standing by while letting bad things happen to your child, but IMO, that is not a natural consequence, as it is natural to have parents who love and cherish you and will keep you safe.

In short (just kidding







), the _natural_ consequence of being late to dinner is eating dinner later/making it yourself, not being hungry all night.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Ok - jumping in again -

The literature I've read on "natural consequences" says that NC is inappropriate in a circumstance where the child's safety is at issue (not that we need a book to teach us that).

As to "consequences" - I am seeing a lot of chatter on this thread sort of objecting to "any" consequences whatsoever?? I just don't think that is the point of GD. GD is an approach to discipline without shaming or hurting - not the complete removal of consequences for actions. I just think that distorts the whole thing.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emmom*
In short (just kidding







), the _natural_ consequence of being late to dinner is eating dinner later/making it yourself, not being hungry all night.

We have a different approach - and this is right out of Positive Discipline - if you don't eat your dinner during dinner time (which is a tactic in my household commonly used to delay bath and bedtime) - dinner ends at the appointed time - and you wait until the next meal to eat. Its not done with any shaming or any "I told you so" - and a lot of sympathy is given to the child and we try to focus on "OK DS - breakfast is the next meal - should we make your favorite pancakes for breakfast?" etc. etc. But the child is allowed to feel the natural consequences of not eating during mealtime - i.e. hungry.


----------



## btlsmum (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*

As to "consequences" - I am seeing a lot of chatter on this thread sort of objecting to "any" consequences whatsoever?? I just don't think that is the point of GD. GD is an approach to discipline without shaming or hurting - not the complete removal of consequences for actions. I just think that distorts the whole thing.

I could really use some clarification on this one too. I am interested in GD but not if it means no consequences or if it's a semantics game. I am also interested in GD as it applies to families with more than one or two children and families with a mix of ages. Of course, that's another post. LOL


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
But the child is allowed to feel the natural consequences of not eating during mealtime - i.e. hungry.

IMO, that is cruel. No child should ever go hungry.

Nature dictates that when the human body feels hunger, it is time to eat.


----------



## CarenSwan (Sep 29, 2005)

I hope I'm not hijacking this thread by bringing Kohn into it, but I'm just reading his book for the first time and find it interesting (I don't buy it all, but it is challenging!) I agree with the PP that I'm not interested in GD if it means no consequences at all. However, one major point of Kohn's book is that a consequence for a behavior, be it punishment, praise, whatever, forcuses on the behavior rather than the underlying motivation. This is what I find interesting--certainly there are plenty of times when you do need to deal with the behavior decisively (safety issues, for one) but what if the drawing on the wall (for example) was not really about freedom of expression, but about the child looking to get more attention? Kohn's point is that as parents we need to take the time to look beyond the behavior and deal with underlying issues, forming partnerships with our children in the process (we need them to help us understand their motivations). So, back to drawing on the wall, perhaps one response could be, offer some paper, and also offer to take a few minutes to draw a picture with the child. I don't know if I'm understanding his perspective correctly here, but thought I'd take a shot at it...


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
Redirection is more gentle than taking something away. Give them paper. Then you are giving, not taking.

.


In my case, paper is available and on the table. My youngest just chose to get up every time our backs were turned for even one second and start scribbling on literally every wall in the downstairs of our home. At first I just brought her back to the table. My husband spent an entire day cleaning and painting walls. The very next day, she did it again. I mean the entire wall from her height down. It really is amazing how fast they move when given even a minute or two. I then took the marker from her. For a while, she was only allowed to color when dh or I were able to sit right next to her and not move. I should mention that she was given several opportunities to do this throughout the day. But, when I was busy cooking dinner, going to the bathroom or whatever and couldn't sit by her, she couldn't have the markers. She has pretty much outgrown it. Still happens occassionally, but not constantly like it did before.

My first 2 had markers from the time they were 1 year old and never, ever drew on anything but paper. My littlest loved to write on the walls. We painted one wall in her playroom with chalk board paint, so she can enjoy "writing" on that wall with chalk, but it really isn't fair to dh to let her scribble all over the walls when he has to clean it up.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
I would never offer either of these, as neither addresses the safety issue. I tell my children, "Once your helmet is on your head, you may ride your bike." That is not a punishment, nor is it discipline.

You are not punishing nor disciplining a person when you require them to wear a seatbelt.

Without supervision how do you know they may not ride their bike without their helmet on?
I cant see how this is any different from the second scenario.
If the child rides his or her bike without his helmet on. The family rule is that he must have his helmet on. HE disregards the family rule. You dont check to make sure he is wearing his helmet next time?
And it is discipline to have limits.
I also think that it is discipline to require a person to wear a seatbelt. But it is silly to argue such little points.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
it really isn't fair to dh to let her scribble all over the walls when he has to clean it up.

Our rule is, you make a mess, you clean it. And, of course, you can ask for help.

Also, I never give a child anything that is not age appropriate.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Without supervision how do you know they may not ride their bike without their helmet on?
I cant see how this is any different from the second scenario.
If the child rides his or her bike without his helmet on. The family rule is that he must have his helmet on. HE disregards the family rule. You dont check to make sure he is wearing his helmet next time?
And it is discipline to have limits.
I also think that it is *discipline to require a person to wear a seatbelt.* But it is silly to argue such little points.

It is not a "family rule", it is a safety issue that is taught from the beginning.

It is not discipline to wear a seat belt. It is life or death. Not only could the person not wearing the belt die, but their body could kill the other passengers.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Why are we wasting time discussing whether or not something is "GD". I mean, shouldn't we just discuss the approach itself and its merits or shortcomings?

Sometimes I worry that we are all too focussed on the label and living up to that label, rather than following our guts when it comes to discipline.

btls: I am at a loss to think of any way your child could go through life without experiencing consequences, even if you sat on the sofa and ate cheese doodles for the first three years of their life.









My own approach is that life has consequences; I don't need to go out of my way to impose them on my children. I don't use anything that constitutes "punishment", defined as imposing a negative situation on the child (or deliberately allowing a negative situation to persist). I think most of what is described as "logical consequences" is punishment (JMHO). Until my children are old enough to work on problem-solving with me, I redirect and engage and get down with them to prevent misbehaviours. When they grasp enough verbal skills, then we problem solve ("you want to play with your blocks but you don't want DS to play; instead of pushing him away, what are some things we could do? we could move the toy to a place he can't reach, we can offer him something else to play with, we can put it away until he is napping...")....that sort of thing.

It is entirely possible to discipline without imposing consequences, but I don't think it's possible for children not to experience consequences.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
IMO, that is cruel. No child should ever go hungry.

Nature dictates that when the human body feels hunger, it is time to eat.

Sorry you feel that way MITB. As I think we are oceans apart on our philosophies here, all I will say is . . . if as his mother I felt that the issue was one of DS' hunger . . . I would have handled things differently.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
It is not a "family rule", it is a safety issue that is taught from the beginning.

It is not discipline to wear a seat belt. It is life or death. Not only could the person not wearing the belt die, but their body could kill the other passengers.

Sure it is a family rule. Some people never wear seat belts. You have made safety a priority in your family and have taught it from the beginning. That doesnt make it not a rule or not discipline.
You as the adult have decided that it is not acceptable and there are no alternatives. That is a rule. The fact that you have the best of reasons for it doesnt make it not a rule.


----------



## btlsmum (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
Why are we wasting time discussing whether or not something is "GD". I mean, shouldn't we just discuss the approach itself and its merits or shortcomings?

Sometimes I worry that we are all too focussed on the label and living up to that label, rather than following our guts when it comes to discipline.

btls: I am at a loss to think of any way your child could go through life without experiencing consequences, even if you sat on the sofa and ate cheese doodles for the first three years of their life.









My own approach is that life has consequences; I don't need to go out of my way to impose them on my children. I don't use anything that constitutes "punishment", defined as imposing a negative situation on the child (or deliberately allowing a negative situation to persist). I think most of what is described as "logical consequences" is punishment (JMHO). Until my children are old enough to work on problem-solving with me, I redirect and engage and get down with them to prevent misbehaviours. When they grasp enough verbal skills, then we problem solve ("you want to play with your blocks but you don't want DS to play; instead of pushing him away, what are some things we could do? we could move the toy to a place he can't reach, we can offer him something else to play with, we can put it away until he is napping...")....that sort of thing.

It is entirely possible to discipline without imposing consequences, but I don't think it's possible for children not to experience consequences.


You know, I do think we have differing opinions at the core but (and I hate to be this person) I do think age of children and temperment create many variables that require some flexibility in philosophy. Not that a person who has never given birth can't have valid opinions about childbirth, but they don't carry the same weight as someone who has been there a few times, kwim?

I enjoy your ideas but I must admit that I consider that they are coming from someone with two very young children. I hope that didn't come out wrong.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Sure it is a family rule. Some people never wear seat belts. You have made safety a priority in your family and have taught it from the beginning. That doesnt make it not a rule or not discipline.
You as the adult have decided that it is not acceptable and there are no alternatives. That is a rule. The fact that you have the best of reasons for it doesnt make it not a rule.

Not sure where you live, but here it is not only a safety issue, but if not followed, is punishable by the law.
It is not something I pulled out of my own little parenting 'tricks'.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
I would never offer either of these, as neither addresses the safety issue. .

I wanted to add that I sincerely believe that supervision IS the primary means to address safety issues.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
Not sure where you live, but here it is not only a safety issue, but if not followed, is punishable by the law.
It is not something I pulled out of my own little parenting 'tricks'.

Even where it is the law, you choose that for you and your family you will follow it.
Again many people do not make taht choice.
Nobody is saying that just because you choose to enforce this rule that you made it up yourself.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:

I wanted to add that I sincerely believe that supervision IS the primary means to address safety issues.








I am sorry, but all the supervision in the world will not teach a child how to stay safe.

IMO, someone who *choses* to not be safe, is not the brightest person. Notice how I bolded the 'choses' part, which implies that the person knows what a seatbelt/helmet/other safety device is and how to use it.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
Why are we wasting time discussing whether or not something is "GD". I mean, shouldn't we just discuss the approach itself and its merits or shortcomings?

Sometimes I worry that we are all too focussed on the label and living up to that label, rather than following our guts when it comes to discipline.

.

I think it is very valid to discuss because of how frequently moms get told that they arent being "gd" and that this is a "gd" forum and therefore such things oughtn't even bother being discussed.
I cant even say how many times a mom comes on desparately asking "how can I stop this behavior" and some moms try to offer to help with some suggestions for example involving logical consequences or something else. And invariably somebody comes on and says taht these things are not GD and why does this mom think she should try to control her child's behavior anyway?
I think in order to make room for all of us in this forum, we need to make it clear that we dont all agree on the very definition of GD. We also need to discuss "controversial" subjects to let each other know that we will still be accepted here even if we arent interested in TCS or Alfie Kohn or Anthony Wolf or Sears or whomever one might like and the other might reject.
If half of us think all logical consequences are punishments and all punishments are anti GD, and the other half think that there is room for some logical consequences or even some "gentler" punishments,(and a third "half" somewhere in between we may find that GD is defined by the louder group. And that doesnt really help newcomers who really are tryign to find their way, when we allow the definition of GD to become exclusive to definition of the most vocal posters.

Joline

(eta, a good example of this is the thread on "tokens" . There really is no "consensus" that all rewards and positive reinforcement are not GD. There is a particularly vocal camp that beleives that to be true however. In the end the mom apologised for thinking that positive reinforcement was consistent with GD. )


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
Our rule is, you make a mess, you clean it. And, of course, you can ask for help.

Also, I never give a child anything that is not age appropriate.

They do help, when they can. But, this job is not really one a three year old can do. (painting the kitchen wall)

Also, age appropriate is a matter of opinion. THis was right around her third birthday. I let my kids have art things when they show an interest in them. I also let them finger paint, use playdough and tear up magazines and glue the pictures to paper from a young age. My IRL friends think I'm nuts.







To me, these things are important for small motor development. As a Kindergarten teacher, I've seen kids who were unable to cut or even hold a pencil because mom never gave them things for fear of a mess.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

I enjoy your ideas but I must admit that I consider that they are coming from someone with two very young children. I hope that didn't come out wrong.
Naw, you have a point. All I can do is stay positive and stick to what is working for me now, and have faith that it will all work out when they get to be teens (because really, most of what I do is based on building a relationship that will make the teen years much easier than my own were).

Don't tell anybody, but in rare moments when I least expect it I am struck by a terrifying thought:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I am ashamed to admit that I now have less respect for a child's innate reasoning skills and sociality and desire to please their parents than I did before having a teen.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*







I am sorry, but all the supervision in the world will not teach a child how to stay safe.

IMO, someone who *choses* to not be safe, is not the brightest person. Notice how I bolded the 'choses' part, which implies that the person knows what a seatbelt/helmet/other safety device is and how to use it.

Right, which is why they need to be supervised until they figure it out.
If they are choosing not to be safe. Then they need some extra supervision until they are making wiser choices, coupled with reminders and explanation.
I mean, what meaning is there to say it is an absolute must that children wear bicycle helmets and seatbelts if you arent going to follow through to make sure they did until you can be reasonably certain that the habit has been formed?


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Right, which is why they need to be supervised until they figure it out.
If they are choosing not to be safe. Then they need some extra supervision until they are making wiser choices, coupled with reminders and explanation.

Supervision means using your eyes.
Children need more than just supervision and a few reminders, they first must be taught and what is taught is also modeled by the parent(s).

Quote:

I mean, what meaning is there to say it is an absolute must that children wear bicycle helmets and seatbelts if you arent going to follow through to make sure they did until you can be reasonably certain that the habit has been formed?
There would be no meaning.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
They do help, when they can. But, this job is not really one a three year old can do. (painting the kitchen wall)

When my 3yo wrote on the wall, she was given a soapy rag to wash it off. I was not talking about making a child do something that is not child-friendly nor safe for a small child.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
Also, age appropriate is a matter of opinion.

I disagree. A permanant marker has fumes that a small child could inhale and die from. The child could choke on the marker cap.
My friends 3 yo used the scissors to cut the baby's finger off.
If you don't want to go with age, then maturity level.

There are safer ways for children to develop their fine motor skills.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
We have a different approach - and this is right out of Positive Discipline - if you don't eat your dinner during dinner time (which is a tactic in my household commonly used to delay bath and bedtime) - dinner ends at the appointed time - and you wait until the next meal to eat. Its not done with any shaming or any "I told you so" - and a lot of sympathy is given to the child and we try to focus on "OK DS - breakfast is the next meal - should we make your favorite pancakes for breakfast?" etc. etc. But the child is allowed to feel the natural consequences of not eating during mealtime - i.e. hungry.


I don't think Positive Discipline is at all GD, and this is a perfect example of why I feel that way. This is punishment, plain and simple. And there's really nothing gentle about making a child go hungry until the next meal just because s/he is late. If I were late for a scheduled meal, I wouldn't make myself go hungry. I would fend for myself.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
I don't think Positive Discipline is at all GD, and this is a perfect example of why I feel that way. This is punishment, plain and simple. And there's really nothing gentle about making a child go hungry until the next meal just because s/he is late. If I were late for a scheduled meal, I wouldn't make myself go hungry. I would fend for myself.

Dragonfly - please read my post - he wasn't "late" for the meal?? That is a complete mischaracterization of the post.

My post was brief - here is some more info: Ds is 3. Its not like he is off on his own and not keeping track of his appointments on his blackberry. He comes to the table when the family eats - at a reasonable time for dinner - and is given a reasonably long time to eat -- and is served foods he likes. DS began "not eating" at meal time - then declaring himself hungry as I am cleaning up. I re-offer the food, he doesn't eat it, then declares he is hungry as I am cleaning up again. This little game was fun for DS - because he got to push bath and bedtime back farther and father. At one point, he even had his dad feeding him dinner after bath at 9:30 at night. This is not because he wasn't or was hungry - this is all in an effort to delay bedtime.

NC was a wonderful solution to this power struggle - which is a common problem with 3 yos. We set a clear time for the meal. We gave him a long time to eat. And gave him warnings that dinner was "almost over", etc. And if he didn't eat - NC was next time to eat was at the next meal - breakfast. No shaming. No I told you so. No "now your gonna be sorry". Just - "DS, I'm so sorry you didn't eat dinner. Should I make your favorites for breakfast?" Broke the power struggle/control cycle pretty quick.

You don't think PD is "at all" GD? That seems like an exaggeration. From what I've read and seen on these boards - I think the 2 are very close, if not identical?


----------



## AccidentalHousewif (Nov 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
age appropriate is a matter of opinion.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
I disagree.











And THAT is why I generally remain a lurker in this forum, because all the superfantastic substantive conversation is booby-trapped with all kinds of sophistry...


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *btlsmum*
I could really use some clarification on this one too. I am interested in GD but not if it means no consequences or if it's a semantics game. I am also interested in GD as it applies to families with more than one or two children and families with a mix of ages. Of course, that's another post. LOL

I don't think it means "no consequences". I think those that advocate "no consequences" are really distorting GD. I've seen people post about GD and specifically say - its not the "absence of discipline" but discipline without shaming or hurting the child. I really hope some more senior members or maybe a senior mod can flesh this out a bit.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *btlsmum*
You know, I do think we have differing opinions at the core but (and I hate to be this person) I do think age of children and temperment create many variables that require some flexibility in philosophy. Not that a person who has never given birth can't have valid opinions about childbirth, but they don't carry the same weight as someone who has been there a few times, kwim?

I enjoy your ideas but I must admit that I consider that they are coming from someone with two very young children. I hope that didn't come out wrong.

I just wanted to say that I agree with Piglet's comments and I have four children (one if which is a teenager).


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

FYI, the DSS of Gaston County, NC specifically identifies the withholding of food as an "investigatable issue" of abuse or neglect.

Quote:

A pattern of withholding water or food (with the exception of desserts, snacks, and candy) requires an investigative assessment. Forcing a child to consume excessive amounts of food or water can be dangerous. Forcing a child to consume an extreme amount of hot sauce, salt, pepper or nonfood item is not an appropriate form of discipline and depending upon the age and size of the child could be life threatening. Reports of this nature could be seen as meeting the criteria for a cruel/grossly inappropriate behavior modification investigative assessment, depending on the circumstances.

Pat


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
Dragonfly - please read my post - he wasn't "late" for the meal?? That is a complete mischaracterization of the post.

My post was brief - here is some more info: Ds is 3. DS began "not eating" at meal time - then declaring himself hungry as I am cleaning up. I re-offer the food, he doesn't eat it, then declares he is hungry as I am cleaning up again. This little game was fun for DS - because he got to push bath and bedtime back farther and farther. At one point, he even had his dad feeding him dinner after bath at 9:30 at night. This is not because he wasn't or was hungry - this is all in an effort to delay bedtime.

I never re-offered food. If they said they were hungry then I pointed to the cupboard that has the crackers, pb, dried fruit, and other ready-to-eat food.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
NC was a wonderful solution to this power struggle - which is a common problem with 3 yos. We set a clear time for the meal. We gave him a long time to eat. And gave him warnings that dinner was "almost over", etc. And if he didn't eat - NC was next time to eat was at the next meal - breakfast. No shaming. No I told you so. No "now your gonna be sorry". Just - "DS, I'm so sorry you didn't eat dinner. Should I make your favorites for breakfast?" Broke the power struggle/control cycle pretty quick.

But you stated earlier that the power struggle was bedtime, so how did it end up with him going hungry?
I see two very different things going on, and each needs it's own solution.


----------



## MsMoMpls (Oct 22, 2002)

Ok- lots of good discussion... here is my two cents.

I have a 21 year old son who never learned anything the easy way- who had serious behavior and legal problems as a teen and is turning out to be a pretty amazing adult. I also am a psychologist who works extensively with lots of different kinds of kids.

I don't do punishment. I don't believe in anything that seems to be attempting to "teach them a lesson." Kids learn things when they learn things. They figure out how the world works and how to get things that they want and how to make people happy and how to make people crazy. My 21 year old somehow has figured out how to cross the street safetly, how to stay out of jail and usually how to keep a job. I didn't exactly teach him that... he just lived in a life where lessons were available.

For example, once I was taking his two little brothers out hiking and he was hovering and worried about their safety. I told him that my philosophy was that letting them get into and out of trouble when I was watching was parenting them. I reminded him that people used to think I let him do way too many things that they considered dangerous and I would tell them that I was raising him to be physically confident. He got this amazing look on his face... he got it. My kids are allowed to do much more than most people's kids. They make bigger messes, fall often, break things, and likely are somewhat annoying in public. But I believe that they are making their mistakes where I can see them, that I am keeping them safe and building confidence.

So- having an older child has not changed my philosophy, if anything it has reinforced my beilefs.

I don't let them play in the streets, they wear seatbelts at all times and they climb all over the furniture...I guess I think life is punishing enough without me adding to it.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
I don't think it means "no consequences". I think those that advocate "no consequences" are really distorting GD. I've seen people post about GD and specifically say - its not the "absence of discipline" but discipline without shaming or hurting the child. I really hope some more senior members or maybe a senior mod can flesh this out a bit.

But discipline and punishment (or imposed consequences if you prefer) are not the same thing. You can teach discipline without punishment.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
Dragonfly - please read my post - he wasn't "late" for the meal?? That is a complete mischaracterization of the post.

I apologize. I somehow mixed your post up with someone else's.

Ds started doing the same thing - for him it's every night when he gets in bed. I remind myself of two things: 1) He may actually be hungry at bedtime and not hungry at mealtime. I'm not in his body so I can't be sure. 2) I can't control his actions, I can only control my response. So, I let him know that I wasn't willing to continue making food after mealtime. I also let him know that I was concerned about his teeth if he ate after brushing his teeth and went directly to bed (enter the "sugar bugs" - what we call them). We compromised with a piece or two of fruit. He can get it himself, there's no mess, and I'm not as concerned about his teeth.

Quote:

NC was a wonderful solution to this power struggle - which is a common problem with 3 yos. We set a clear time for the meal. We gave him a long time to eat. And gave him warnings that dinner was "almost over", etc. And if he didn't eat - NC was next time to eat was at the next meal - breakfast. No shaming. No I told you so. No "now your gonna be sorry". Just - "DS, I'm so sorry you didn't eat dinner. Should I make your favorites for breakfast?" Broke the power struggle/control cycle pretty quick.
I understand. And PLEASE don't take this as criticism. I just have to be honest and say that I think calling this NC is completely inaccurate. These consequences are cultivated and implemented by you.

Quote:

You don't think PD is "at all" GD? That seems like an exaggeration. From what I've read and seen on these boards - I think the 2 are very close, if not identical?
I may have been a little extreme in saying that. It was a reaction to the notion that telling a child he can't eat is okay. But I do know there's much in Positive Discipline (the book for preschoolers, anyway) that don't seem at all GD to me. And not especially positive either.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
FYI, the DSS of Gaston County, NC specifically identifies the withholding of food as an "investigatable issue" of abuse or neglect.
Pat

Thank you, Pat. My children have always had access to food and water.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Maybe non-physical punishments are *gentle discipline*, or even non-discipline to some segments of the population. Say the Dobson, Tripps, Pearls, Dr. Phil's, etc. But, they are not attachment promoting, relationship nurturing, advisory role enabling. Punishments, under the pseudonym of 'imposed' logical consequences distance, detach and damage the trusted advisor relationship.

I believe our son is much _safer_ without experiencing me as his adversary. When/if I lose the role of trusted advisor, no amount of imposed consequence is going to improve my position, nor facilitate my safety advisement as important. The safest path is to maintain and nurture the relationship of mutual trust. I am most able to advise a listening ear. Punishments don't eliminate the desire to do "unsafe" things. They just promote doing the "unsafe" thing *without observation* ("supervision"). Thus punishments just further drive a child away from advisement, not closer.

Nurturing connectivity develops from being a supportive advocate to meeting another's underlying needs and wants, not being an obstacle. Advocacy without control is mentoring. Controlling another against their will and desires, even in the name of "safety" doesn't meet their underlying needs. Children do not desire to be 'unsafe'; there are many avenues to meeting needs safely without coercion.





















Being a partner connects. Defaulting to coercion distances.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

And for the record, our son willingly chooses to wear his bike helmet, without supervision. Without coercion, without threats, without intimidation, without punishments, without "logical" or imposed consequences.....

And I, personally had a huge bike accident, sans helmet at age 12 and "I turned out just fine".














(flipped the bike, using the front brake only while speeding out of control on a West Virginia hill/mountain road, head landed on gravel, yada, yada. Stiches in my head after riding to the ER in the Ambulance, the works.)

And I have a friend whose husband, avid commuting bike rider, *with helmet* was left severely brain damaged after being hit by a truck.

No guarantees, but IMO an adversarial parental relationship is more damaging and more dangerous than most children's probable head injuries from bike riding. From the looks of the surrounding neighborhoods, bike helmets are more negotiable than tooth brushing appears to be.







Pick your battles, if you want to battle. But I trust my role as an advocate, not the role of adversary.

Pat


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
When my 3yo wrote on the wall, she was given a soapy rag to wash it off. I was not talking about making a child do something that is not child-friendly nor safe for a small child.

I disagree. A permanant marker has fumes that a small child could inhale and die from. The child could choke on the marker cap.
My friends 3 yo used the scissors to cut the baby's finger off.
If you don't want to go with age, then maturity level.

There are safer ways for children to develop their fine motor skills.

They were actually Crayola washable (yeah right) markers. In my house, the blue and green would not wash off with soap and water, which we tried first. Then we tried the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser, still wouldn't all come off. DH had to use this goo gone junk that smells terrible and took off half the paint with the marker. THe primer was showing when he was finished, so he had to paint the wall. I said permanent because they wouldn't come off and it was easier than going into this longer explanation.

Luckily, mine have only cut off each other's hair with the scissors.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
It is entirely possible to discipline without imposing consequences, but I don't think it's possible for children not to experience consequences.

I liked this a lot, so I had to repeat it. And FWIW, I am the mother of a teen...

I try to help my daughter avoid unpleasant natural consequences. I think that's part of my job as a parent.

Not imposing "consequences" (or punishemnts) does not mean doing nothing.

I meant to say more, but I have to go drive Rain's friends home now...

Dar


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Good point Dar. and I am human and sometimes I react...but then I rethink and do differently...thinking back to the day with the helmet...she comes home without it(it wasn't hanging on her bike, too much trouble to look for it), hubby sees her, asks her where her helmet, she says she "lost it" is just as I am walking out and I tell her put her bike in the garage, no bike for a week. No helmet, no bike. I tell her I will get her a new helmet but no bike until I get it. Then she comes back a while later and brings me helmet. It was in the garage, by then I am not as angry. Tell her to hang it on her bike. We talked about it later...then I told her that she could have her bike back. She actually didn't ride it again for a couple days. It rained.

All in all pretty reasonable I think. Not a typical reaction. I don't anger easily but was irritated for whatever reason that day. She's 11, she knows better. She knew better at 8 so I know she knows better at 11. But I am an adult and sometimes I do things and I know better.

Once they are older it's not about what they have learned it's about what they choose to forget.

My older daughter has lots of "consequences" She was doing very dangerous things for a while...she knew better, she was raised pretty gently, but she was making unwise choices. Now she is making better choices. She's not perfect. I don't ask for that. But she's better than she was yesterday and so am I.

I guess that's the thing. I am not perfectly GD, I am no better than anyone here and I don't care to be, I just need to be better than I used to be. And when I mess up I fix it up.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I just can't get over the withholding food from a THREE year old. This is NOT the cooperative, loving atmosphere that we hope to nurture in our home. Dh came home late. He had run errands, gone to the YMCA for a work out and arrived at 8pm+. Well after "dinner". But I still willingly offered to heat something up, cook something simple, pour a glass of wine, set about fixing him a plate. The whole atmosphere is one of helping each other to meet their needs in a mutually agreeable manner which doesn't include withholding access to desirable and nurturing food. And love.

But, I understand "it works" to change their attitude and "solve the problem". But at what cost to the relationship? To their trust? To their listening to the parent as an advocate and advisor?

Our son has always had access to facilitation for food AT ANY HOUR. Same with dh. Same with me. We help each other, we cooperate. We don't impose consequences. How does this 'teach' cooperation? How does this 'teach' mutual respect? How does this create connectivity?

Pat


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Scubamama,
I couldn't agree with you more. When I heard a very well respected child psychologist advocating withholding food at a parenting seminar, I couldn't believe my ears. I didn't even have the baby yet, but was pregnant with my first and I knew I would never do this to my child. He was telling a mom to let her child go hungry if she forgot her lunchbox. Yeah, she may learn from this, but it's not a lesson I want to teach.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Our son has always had access to facilitation for food AT ANY HOUR. Same with dh. Same with me. We help each other, we cooperate. We don't impose consequences. How does this 'teach' cooperation? How does this 'teach' mutual respect? How does this create connectivity?

Just to address this - in our home, we have a happy medium. I'm exhausted by the end of the day and it's all I can do to prepare meals. It's not okay with me to continue fixing food late at night. It actually bothers me quite a bit. So I'm not going to cook oatmeal at 10:30 pm and I feel as though my son pressing me every night to do so isn't respectful or cooperative. What I will do is make sure there are plenty of things he can access easily himself - fruit, cereal, etc. And if for some reason he needs my help getting to them, I'll certainly do that. That's how we respect and cooperate with each other.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
FYI, the DSS of Gaston County, NC specifically identifies the withholding of food as an "investigatable issue" of abuse or neglect.

Pat

Your quote referred to a "pattern of withholding food"
And this in no way characterizes what is going on.
This is neither a "pattern" nor "withholding food"
I am quite certain that even in Gaston county NC, a child refusing to eat dinner and then not being offered an additional snack before the next meal would not be "withholding food" OR an "investigatable issue"


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
FYI, the DSS of Gaston County, NC specifically identifies the withholding of food as an "investigatable issue" of abuse or neglect.

Pat


Yes, but telling a child that dinner will only be available between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m and if he does not eat it then it is not available until morning is not "witholding food" under the law.

I have had this issue actually come up as a child's gaudian ad litem and the judge practically laughed the person who tried to argue that this consitituted "witholding food" out of the courtroom. Extensive research also proved that this position was nonsense from a legal standpoint.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Extensive research also proved that this position was nonsense from a legal standpoint.

The law doesn't always make sense, unfortunately. Offering dinner at 6 or 7 pm and then nothing afterward would put the average child without food for over 12 hours. And if you've ever gone to bed with a hungry belly, you know that it's really no picnic.

I just don't get that. Why the need to exercise such control over a child's eating? I can understand not wanting to continue making and dishing out food and doing up clean-up, but to not allow any food when there are other alternatives?


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Well I have been thinking about my philosophy and it's like this. It's all about the connection, the relationship, the attachment. For example when we talk about parenting toddlers we talk about how it's not about stopping the behaviour, it's about figuring out what's happening in your child and keeping them safe until you can. With teens it's exactly the same thing but if you have not built the relationship with the child from the get go...ap,gd, whatever you want to call it, then the chances that you can reason with a rebellious child is much smaller when the time comes. They may rebel regardless of how you parented them, just as as a toddler they may hit although you taught them gentle touch etc. It's about them knowing you come from a gentle loving place because of your actions.

The thing with teens are they are bigger and stronger and look like adults. They also have more rights under the law. For example my dd can move out at 14 in this province and live anywhere she wants. I had to force her back home when she left...she could have chosen the streets. She threatened it and I called her bluff. If this were not a gentle home whose to say that wouldn't have been her choice. But she knew deep down she had a good, gentle home.

All of these things made me second guess the way I had raised her from the start. Had I spoiled her, been too easy on her etc. etc. but since we are coming through the bad times( I am still watching and wary but it's better) I am seeing that it was the opposite...we are coming through it because of the way I parented her. My actions the first 14 years was the right way to go. Even with all my mistakes, my darn humanity, my occasional loss of patience, my yelling occasionally because my actions were gentle and kind for the most part and my parenting well thought out and mindful.

ok..baby is going to cry any minute..must run

Carolyn


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
The law doesn't always make sense, unfortunately. Offering dinner at 6 or 7 pm and then nothing afterward would put the average child without food for over 12 hours. And if you've ever gone to bed with a hungry belly, you know that it's really no picnic.

I just don't get that. Why the need to exercise such control over a child's eating? I can understand not wanting to continue making and dishing out food and doing up clean-up, but to not allow any food when there are other alternatives?

Every family has different temperaments and different issues.
If the issue is truly not the child's hunger, having other food availible wouldnt be any type of solution.
Also I dont know about anybody else, but the types of food that my kids can get on their own are usually far less nutritious than what I made for dinner. I seriously WANT to encourage my child to eat dinner rather than snack on some dry cereal, crackers or a piece of cheese an hour later. And I see no problem in taking steps to encourage it.
WE all have different priorities. As such it can sometimes be difficult to understand somebody elses choices.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls*
All of these things made me second guess the way I had raised her from the start. Had I spoiled her, been too easy on her etc. etc. but since we are coming through the bad times( I am still watching and wary but it's better) I am seeing that it was the opposite...we are coming through it because of the way I parented her. My actions the first 14 years was the right way to go. Even with all my mistakes, my darn humanity, my occasional loss of patience, my yelling occasionally because my actions were gentle and kind for the most part and my parenting well thought out and mindful.

ok..baby is going to cry any minute..must run

Carolyn

Thank you for posting this. I had been thinking of asking you the same thing.
I am sometimes beating myself up wondering if I was too gentle. Too lenient. Did always explaining everything create a daughter who challenges everything? Did setting limits only when absolutely necessary create a child who pushes truly dangerous limits rather than artificially low ones which are safer to push? I am relieved to hear you are coming out on the other side still confident that this is the way to go.
With three toddlers still growing I sometimes wonder if I ought to change because of the problems i have had with my oldest.
Joline


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Joline,

You seem to be blaming yourself and GD for the difficulties that your daughter and your relationship have undergone. From the outside, we can see that your daughter had three new siblings after being an only child for 10 years. With a new parent?, new community, a move, a new school and having to make new friends. Any one of these major life changes can cause a lot of challenges and stress. Perhaps, looking at these choices that have impacted her life, may need to be examined in hopes of working together to address her underlying needs related to experiencing these dramatic changes.

It is so clear how much you love and care about her, focusing on connecting will get you through this time.

It's not the GD.









Pat


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

OK . . . I'm trying NOT to be offended that people are accusing me of basically starving my three year old? . . . . I am trying really really hard not to be offended that people are suggesting I am committing a criminal offense . .. . . and I am trying extra hard not to be offended that my post is so liberally taken out of context and mischaracterized and misquoted?? Thanks to Johub for pointing some of this out.

For those of you that are offended by the natural consequences scenario I described in PP . . . . it is straight out of the book "Positie Discipline" . . . as an example of Natural Consequences. If you do not believe in Natural or Logical Consequences . . . in other words, if you believe in "no consequences" . . . I do not believe you are practicing GD . . . your approach is to the left of that philosophy.

Finally . . . MDC is a forum for support. GD is a forum to discuss GD. You posts are not only mischaracterizations -- they are mean-spirited.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
Thank you, Pat. My children have always had access to food and water.

Now I'm denying water???


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Joline,

You seem to be blaming yourself and GD for the difficulties that your daughter and your relationship have undergone. From the outside, we can see that your daughter had three new siblings after being an only child for 10 years. With a new parent?, new community, a move, a new school and having to make new friends. Any one of these major life changes can cause a lot of challenges and stress. Perhaps, looking at these choices that have impacted her life, may need to be examined in hopes of working together to address her underlying needs related to experiencing these dramatic changes.

It is so clear how much you love and care about her, focusing on connecting will get you through this time.

It's not the GD.









Pat

It's not that I "blame GD" but when things go wrong you cant help but look around at everything.
Including new siblings and all of the things you mention. Those certainly have endured the closest scrutiny.
I would be lying if I said I didnt sometimes wonder if she wouldn't be more resilient to change (like having siblings). WOuld she be less argumentative if I didnt spend so much time listening to her POV? Would she be pushing boundaries that arent as dangerous if I had set more arbitrary boundaries like everybody else, and held them firm rather than renegotiated them as need presented itself?
I am not saying that I believe any of these things is "at fault"
But certainly when things go wrong. and you have always parented conscientiously, you didn't make a single decision without first weighing it and determining it was the "right thing to do" Anybody would wonder if they had gotten it all wrong. If their goals were wrong in the first place.
I think it is natural.
AFter reading "Hold on to your Kids" I have really come to believe that at least with some things, I was off base completely.

And of course there is experience. My parents were much more controlling than I am. Although they were kind and gentle in ways and werent spankers, they had higher expectations for behavior etc. . . Sometimes I thought I would get talked to death. . .
And yet I was much happier, successful and well adjusted than my dd.
How much is parenting style? How much is lifes other influences? How much is genetics and temperament? We know they are all involved but I doubt we will ever know how much.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
I may have been a little extreme in saying that. It was a reaction to the notion that telling a child he can't eat is okay.

OK - but did you read (or skip over) the part where that actually DOESN'T HAPPEN -- you know, the part of the post where while I start to clean up dinner, DS says he's hungry, he is re-offered the food, doesn't eat, I start cleaning up dinner again - and DS says he's hungry -- repeat this scenario 10x.

Or is it more difficult to be inflammatory toward another mother on these boards if we have to address the actual facts of what was posted?

Perhaps a more grandiose apology and editing of previous posts in order for this one?


----------



## MamaE (May 1, 2004)

TripMom, I was feeling your pain and was about to step in and and defend you. Some of the comments directed towards you were disrespectful and downright ludicrous, not to mention totally mistaken!

I can't believe that any mom here who claims to GD her children (as perfectly as some claim to) would speak to you that way or make such allegations. It's one reason why I don't often post in this forum. All too often, I've encountered a tone that is self-righteous, pretentious, even smug (not from everyone, but from a vocal minority).

I get *so* sad when I see (in the *GD*forum, no less) such blatant disrespect towards other mothers. It's completely uncalled for, and, as I've said, I just can't imagine how people who treat others that way can possibly raise their children in a perfectly GD manner.

*GD (to me) is about giving mutual respect and support, assuming positive intent, and guiding gently.* Why can't we do unto one other as we wish to do unto our children? It seems like this forum would be a great place to practice the way we want to relate to our children.

Another reason I often shy away from this forum is that, too often, people are left scrambling to prove whether or not they are GD and/or just how GD they or their methods are. Who cares???? I mean, really! I think it's a sad commentary on the direction this forum has taken that the OP even had to ask whether logical consequences were GD or not. (FWIW, I'd been wanting to ask the same question, though!)

So we don't agree on the definition of GD - OK. Can't we just agree to disagree instead of bashing each other for not fitting one another's definition of it? I used to come to this forum for advice and to learn. Lately, it seems I only come here to watch the drama! And, I'm too afraid to even post replies to some of the new threads for fear my gentle suggestions will be deemed "not GD".

And TripMom, FWIW, I never thought twice about your situation. I trust that YOU did what YOU knew was best for YOUR situation and YOUR child. I wouldn't presume to know any better than you in that regard.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaE*
And TripMom, FWIW, I never thought twice about your situation. I trust that YOU did what YOU knew was best for YOUR situation and YOUR child. I wouldn't presume to know any better than you in that regard.










Ditto!!!
Same goes for me!
And you know what else, you deserve so many KUDOS for being as gentle and positive and AP and all of that with TRIPLETS! For crying out loud! Few on this board could possibly have any idea on just the logistics of feeding everybody in your house at mealtime.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
Now I'm denying water???

Trip, please consider who said this.

Trust me.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I seriously WANT to encourage my child to eat dinner rather than snack on some dry cereal, crackers or a piece of cheese an hour later. And I see no problem in taking steps to encourage it.

ITA, but witholding food or letting a child go hungry is not going to create a loving, fun dinner time.

I would ask, "Why doesn't s/he want to eat dinner with us?" Is it the food? The company? The atmosphere? The time?

As a family, we have all sat down and agreed that we need to eat at least one meal together as a family. We work together as a family, there is no one boss or one rulemaker, we all decide.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
ITA, but witholding food or letting a child go hungry is not going to create a loving, fun dinner time.

I would ask, "Why doesn't s/he want to eat dinner with us?" Is it the food? The company? The atmosphere? The time?

As a family, we have all sat down and agreed that we need to eat at least one meal together as a family. We work together as a family, there is no one boss or one rulemaker, we all decide.


Allowing my children to snack all day and avoid meals isnt going to create a loving fun dinner time either.
As for the rest








To each their own


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
OK - but did you read (or skip over) the part where that actually DOESN'T HAPPEN -- you know, the part of the post where while I start to clean up dinner, DS says he's hungry, he is re-offered the food, doesn't eat, I start cleaning up dinner again - and DS says he's hungry -- repeat this scenario 10x.

Or is it more difficult to be inflammatory toward another mother on these boards if we have to address the actual facts of what was posted?

Perhaps a more grandiose apology and editing of previous posts in order for this one?

TripMom, I do think that the posts acusing you of abuse are inflammatory. I cringed when I read that. I'm not trying to call you out as a bad mother. My points are these: That your solution to the above scenario - i.e., telling your child that he has to wait until the next meal (breakfast) to eat - is not at all what I would consider gentle and it's hard to imagine any child perceiving it as gentle. It's also not natural consequences in that it's not something that's happening without intervention on the part of the parents. If Positive Discipline is giving that as an example of a natural consequence, then it's misusing the term.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

I'm sure no mommy that posts on this forum would actually starve a child. It sounds like the food is offered several times and is either a game or an attempt to put off bed time. By 10:30 pm, I'd be done with it too. Mine usually do eat dinner. If they don't for some reason, they are allowed a snack from the refrigerator before bed. Like yogurt, fruit or vegetables, rather than a less nutritious alternative. Otherwise, they'd probably eat crackers and cookies every night for dinner.







There's a big difference between what TripMom described and offering dinner one time and then that's it until breakfast. I don't recall the age of the child, but that's a factor too. An older child can go longer without food than a 2 year old.








to you TripMom, we know you aren't starving your ds.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*







to you TripMom, we know you aren't starving your ds.

ITA.


----------



## btlsmum (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaE*

*GD (to me) is about giving mutual respect and support, assuming positive intent, and guiding gently.*










Now this I understand. I even went so far as to look up the dictionary definitions of punishment and discipline after reading this thread as I believe that discipline and punishment are often used synonymously (I know I'm guilty of it).

I do respect and support my children but the fact of the matter is they can't always have what they want and they are not always happy with what I have to offer, be that a physcial object, and activity, etc. I cannot make everyone happy all the time. And when I read this forum that is what I'm seeing. Children who happily comply with alternatives, parents who are happy to let their children have whatever they want whenever they want it, people with infinite reserves of patience and time. It just doesn't ring true to my life experience. I honestly have an insane amount of patience, but obviously not enough.

Perhaps I am just not a person who should have had 4 kids in 5 years because frankly I'm pulled in a million directions 50% of the time. As much as I try to be calm and patient, to work with my children to help our lives run smoothly and with as little conflict as possible, it just doesn't happen. On a daily basis there are so many little fires to put out. I can't help but wonder if I have unrealistic expectations (In part fueled by message boards where it seems everyone is a perfect parent in their own mind. And I'm not speaking of this board, but most internet parenting boards.) or if I'm just an total screw up.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Valerie, having 4 kids in 5 years *is* alot.

Like you, i do have patience, just not an infinite amount. And my kids cant always have what they want, I do set limits and boundaries. I am not overly permissive.

And as much as I want my kids days to be totally happy, reality sometimes dictates that its not. Thats life.

I would not say you are a screw up. At all.

And as far as perfect parenting in all areas, perception is not reality. Some people are legends in their own mind.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

A THREE year old child who probably last ate at noon, or perhaps a snack around 3pm, who isn't "hungry" by 8pm, is purposefully not provided food (apparently no access, either) until the next meal, at approximately 6am?, 8am? That is somewhere in the range of 15-20 hours without food access.







Inflamatory, mean-spirited?

Shocked and sad.

Pat


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *btlsmum*
Now granted, I'm fairly new to this board and I am probably more punative than some others here but these two things seem more an arguement of semantics than discipline. If a child cannot do something (in these cases because it is unsafe or something may be broken) the message is the same regardless of the delivery. You are still removing the object that is the focus of the unsafe behavior until the child is able to use it appropriately. Removal of said object is still a form of "punishment".

I do see how it seems that what I said is a matter of semantics. And I'm sure it is to some. And I'm sure some people would use it just as that.
But, I do know this- When I say "lets put this up to take away the temptation" there is a good chance my ds will agree, and be quite happy to help me put it up. It's also giving him a way to help himself reduce temptation.
Ex- He was throwing fruit snacks. I said "If you're done eating these, let's put them up and save them for later." *HE* picked them up and wanted me to take him into the kitchen to put them up. That was done after explaining, redirecting, etc. Then we moved on to something else, neither of us having been unhappy. In that case, "taking it away" was not punishment. I think we can safely agree with that.
If I had said "If you throw that again, I'm taking them away." I sincerely doubt that would have created any feelings of cooperation or working together. And I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't have been happy with them being put up.

The semantics lie, I think, where ds doesn't *want* to cooperate. He doesn't want something to be put up. And to each his own there. But I know that how I do it (my words, tone of voice, posture, changing how/what I say based on ds's reaction, etc) FEELS different than "If you do that one more time, I'm taking it." It doesn't feel like a punishment at all. It may not be mutually agreeable, its not non-coercive. But it doesn't feel like punishment.
I know that most disagree with me there, and I'm ok with that.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Deva33,

How is your son's willing participation without threat of enforcement not a mutually agreeable alternative, or coercive? Is enforcement going to occur, whether he agrees or not? If you would continue to work to find an alternative which is mutually agreeable, without dictating the outcome, I would consider that 'finding a mutually agreeable solution'. However, the interaction which defaults to 'non-negotiable' (when not complied with) is coercive, because physical dominance would occur to get your way. But, to state a request which is complied with isn't coercive, unless there is an atmosphere of ultimate 'enforcement' of your will.

Pat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
A THREE year old child who probably last ate at noon, or perhaps a snack around 3pm, who isn't "hungry" by 8pm, is purposefully not provided food (apparently no access, either) until the next meal, at approximately 6am?, 8am? That is somewhere in the range of 15-20 hours without food access.







Inflamatory, mean-spirited?

Shocked and sad.

Pat

Pat you are intentionally misrepresenting the situation.
This child had access to food between 6 and 7. CHose not to eat and then went to bed.
Under no circumstances was anybody advocating withholding food from a child for 15 to 20 hours.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Pat you are intentionally misrepresenting the situation.
This child had access to food between 6 and 7. CHose not to eat and then went to bed.
Under no circumstances was anybody advocating withholding food from a child for 15 to 20 hours.

Now I'm confused. The way I read it, the child was allowed the opportunity to eat between 6 and 7 (so it's probably safe to assume that he hadn't eaten immediately before then) then, when he refused to eat, was not allowed access to any other food (even food he might get for himself) for the rest of the night until breakfast. How is that different than what Pat is saying? (And I'm not trying to be snarky. I truly want to understand how the situation is being misrepresented.)


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)




----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Seriously scubamama....(I bang my head frequently too







)

I am not advocating anyone being a short order cook, but at the same time, food should be available any time anyone in the family expresses hunger. Yes, that includes "fake hunger", "manipulation hunger", "stalling bedtime hunger" or any other kind of sentiment in which the word HUNGER is mentioned (for the record, I was being sarcastic in the quoted statements)

There are SEVERAL (read:endless) options for a child and a parent who doesn't want to cook a whole new meal --- cheese cubes, fruit, yogurt, crackers with hummus or similar, raisins, veggie sticks with our without dip, pb&j sandwich with milk (or soy or whatever), and the list goes on...

Speaking of things that aren't gentle (imo) withholding food....ever... to a child that you deem hungry or not...

Goodness.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
We have a different approach - and this is right out of Positive Discipline - if you don't eat your dinner during dinner time (which is a tactic in my household commonly used to delay bath and bedtime) - dinner ends at the appointed time - and you wait until the next meal to eat. Its not done with any shaming or any "I told you so" - and a lot of sympathy is given to the child and we try to focus on "OK DS - breakfast is the next meal - should we make your favorite pancakes for breakfast?" etc. etc. But the child is allowed to feel the natural consequences of not eating during mealtime - i.e. hungry.

The child is "allowed" to feel hungry until the next morning. It's right there, isn't it? What's to mis-represent? That some people think this is cruel and completely disturbing to read--esp. in a GD forum?

My opinion (and anyone is entitled to disagree or express thier's) is that what TripMom is advocating is disgusting and wrong. If that makes me insensitive, infammatory, or a shrieking harpee, then that's OK. But, I can't sit by and say that it's ok or defend this practice. And mom's who are on the fence or new to GD deserve to hear another side to this.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
The child is "allowed" to feel hungry until the next morning. It's right there, isn't it? What's to mis-represent? That some people think this is cruel and completely disturbing to read--esp. in a GD forum?

My opinion (and anyone is entitled to disagree or express thier's) is that what TripMom is advocating is disgusting and wrong. If that makes me insensitive, infammatory, or a shrieking harpee, then that's OK. But, I can't sit by and say that it's ok or defend this practice. And mom's who are on the fence or new to GD deserve to hear another side to this.









:


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
I'm sure no mommy that posts on this forum would actually starve a child. It sounds like the food is offered several times and is either a game or an attempt to put off bed time. By 10:30 pm, I'd be done with it too. Mine usually do eat dinner. If they don't for some reason, they are allowed a snack from the refrigerator before bed. Like yogurt, fruit or vegetables, rather than a less nutritious alternative. Otherwise, they'd probably eat crackers and cookies every night for dinner.







There's a big difference between what TripMom described and offering dinner one time and then that's it until breakfast. I don't recall the age of the child, but that's a factor too. An older child can go longer without food than a 2 year old.








to you TripMom, we know you aren't starving your ds.

Thanks Writermommy. I don't quite understand what is going on here. It seems that Scuba and MITB, etc. have some type of agenda? Unfortunately, its so easy to go in to someones post - pick out a line or 2 - pull it out of context or misquote it - and then put up post after post mischaracterizing that person. My only question is "Why"? Why would anyone want to do that on this forum?

Is there a moderator that could please read the posts and provide some assistance? MDC is full of healthy debate . . .but this is not healthy, it is extremely hurtful - and defamating.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I agree with Monkey's mom...

Natural consequences can be a form of cruel and mean punishment if there is something you could actively do to remedy the situation (like offer food if a child is hungry) yet refuse to do so to "teach them a lesson" that they will be hungry all night if they don't choose to eat at the mealtime that is designated by the clock and the parent and not by their own stomach.

I have no problem saying that I don't feel that is gentle or discipline in any way. It is just mean.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
The child is "allowed" to feel hungry until the next morning. It's right there, isn't it? What's to mis-represent? That some people think this is cruel and completely disturbing to read--esp. in a GD forum?

My opinion (and anyone is entitled to disagree or express thier's) is that what TripMom is advocating is disgusting and wrong. If that makes me insensitive, infammatory, or a shrieking harpee, then that's OK. But, I can't sit by and say that it's ok or defend this practice. And mom's who are on the fence or new to GD deserve to hear another side to this.

This post of course ignores the part where the meal is reofferred to the child, he refuses to eat it until I begin to clean up again (many times) - hence, my motherly instinct that this is just a game to the 3yo? Did you not see that part of my post? Or again - is it harder to mischaracterize me on this thread if you address my entire post v. just picking out parts that you can quote out of context?


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I agree with Monkey's mom...

Natural consequences can be a form of cruel and mean punishment if there is something you could actively do to remedy the situation (like offer food if a child is hungry) yet refuse to do so to "teach them a lesson" that they will be hungry all night if they don't choose to eat at the mealtime that is designated by the clock and the parent and not by their own stomach.

I have no problem saying that I don't feel that is gentle or discipline in any way. It is just mean.

Hi Captain -

Did you also miss the part about reoffering the food over and over again? The part where the 3 yo only asks to eat again at such time as his mother begins to clean up the uneaten food? That part? That sort of salient detail to fully understand the scenario at hand?

What is behind the need to mischaracterize my actions?


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Hello Moderators? Are you out there?


----------



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

What are you talking about? I quoted an entire paragraph of YOUR words, just so we COULD be clear. You clearly advocated letting a child feel hungry until the next day's meal.

Other people agreed with this tactic and said that it was in keeping with GD.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

If it was truly a situation where the child was ill or not hungry and just wanting to go to bed and defer eating until the morning, why would you have so clearly said that you allow him to experience hunger as a way to end a power struggle over eating at specific times???

I'm REALLY not understanding.

All I have to go by is what you've written. If what you've written is not accurate then maybe you want to fix that. I dunno....

I'm not trying to be mean, but BASED ON WHAT YOU WROTE I think it's cruel.


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

To lighten the mood a bit







I just wanted to share what has helped me - realizing that it is what I bring to each situation that defines it. When I bring joy and choose happiness then that is what grows. (Great book "Happiness is a Choice"). Some of our best memories and connecting times are of midnight pancakes feasts. Yes, I could get grumpy that they are hungry and say that they were provided a nutritious dinner and that they can go to bed hungry but instead I say 'alright, let's make pancakes' which is met with cheers and smiles and fun ensues. Even when I'm tired, their energy and joy is contagious. So for me, it's all about the energy - what type of energy do I want in our home. Love, acceptance and joy.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

So I am wondering, after bathtime and stories or whatever, do you ask if he is hungry and offer something before bed? Or do you "allow" him to be hungry? I am being serious, because that could solve some of the questions some of us have?

I don't know where the mods come into this, I don't think any of us are breaking the rules... we are only stating that we don't feel that this is very gentle:

Quote:

We have a different approach - and this is right out of Positive Discipline - *if you don't eat your dinner during dinner time* (which is a tactic in my household commonly used to delay bath and bedtime) - *dinner ends at the appointed time* - *and you wait until the next meal to eat*. Its not done with any shaming or any "I told you so" - and a lot of sympathy is given to the child and we try to focus on "OK DS - breakfast is the next meal - should we make your favorite pancakes for breakfast?" etc. etc. But *the child is allowed to feel the natural consequences of not eating during mealtime - i.e. hungry*.
(bolded mine)

That is what I interperet as withholding food. If the child is hungry, you make them feel hungry all night instead of giving them something to eat because they didn't eat at the "appointed" dinnertime. I know you said you offer again while you are cleaning up, but I imagine that is only about 15, 20 minutes after you get done eating. What if he is hungry like, right before bed? ...or he wakes up at say 1 am hungry and asking for something to eat? Do you give it to him? That is what I think we are wondering...


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
What are you talking about? I quoted an entire paragraph of YOUR words, just so we COULD be clear. You clearly advocated letting a child feel hungry until the next day's meal.


That's right. You excerpted 1 paragraph - and skillfully left other paragraphs??

Again - hard to be so brutal in your accusations when there are conflicting facts out there to deal with . . . .


----------



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

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm responding to exactly what you have written.

If there is something else where you have said, "No, in fact, my position is NOT that imposing hunger on a child is a good idea," then I would be most receptive to seeing it.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
That is what I interperet as withholding food. If the child is hungry, you make them feel hungry all night instead of giving them something to eat because they didn't eat at the "appointed" dinnertime. I know you said you offer again while you are cleaning up, but I imagine that is only about 15, 20 minutes after you get done eating. What if he is hungry like, right before bed? ...or he wakes up at say 1 am hungry and asking for something to eat? Do you give it to him? That is what I think we are wondering...

I guess you "imagined" what i might do - rather than reading what I said I did? If its not clear from pps - I'll say it again here. DS didn't eat dinner. Said he was hungry while I was cleaning up diner. I reoffered him dinner. He didn't eat . . . .but again said I was hungry when I began cleaning up dinner. This went on several times. At which point - I determined, this was a game for DS . . . then later that night . . . DS begged for food . . . he cried and cried through his whole bath . . . I said "no food for you" . . . "you will learn" . . . "I will show you who's boss with food DS" . . . DS cried some more . . .then we put on Pajamas . . . and DS cried again . . begging and begging and begging for food . . . and I said "I am a GD momma and I am going to show you who is boss with this food thing. If you don't eat when I say its time to eat . . . .well you aren't eating again until I SAY IT IS OK". . . Then I locked him in a dark room . . . his wails started to calm to a whimper by 3 or 4 in the morning . . . then I think he finally collapsed from the exhaustion and probably low blood sugar . . . then to really teach him a lesson . . . I just went to work the next day and let him stay locked in his room until dinner the following evening . . . at which point he willingly and happily ate dinner with the family at the appointed time.

Isn't that what you all want to believe?


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Wasn't the intent of this thread to debate whether or not certain consequences are GD? That's what I gathered from the title.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

You said he goes without food until the next day if he doesn't eat dinner at the appointed time....YOU said that!!! Cmon, we aren't saying you do what you quoted above....all I am wondering is if he is provided food before bed if he is hungry or in the middle of the night if he wakes up hungry or if you say (however gently) "sorry sweetheart, you didn't eat dinner"...which is what YOU SAID you would say (or similar, I think it was *breakfast is the next meal*)....

That is all I am asking geez....


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
Wasn't the intent of this thread to debate whether or not certain consequences are GD? That's what I gathered from the title.


I think the intent of some posteres is to ferret out child abusers that lurk here on MDC where they brag of the abuses they do to their children.

Honestly - these people are claiming that I am starving my child??? How would you react?


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
Now I'm confused. The way I read it, the child was allowed the opportunity to eat between 6 and 7 (so it's probably safe to assume that he hadn't eaten immediately before then) then, when he refused to eat, was not allowed access to any other food (even food he might get for himself) for the rest of the night until breakfast. How is that different than what Pat is saying? (And I'm not trying to be snarky. I truly want to understand how the situation is being misrepresented.)

It was my understanding that pat's 15-20 hours of being deined access to food was counting from lunch or an afternoon snack until breakfast. (as these were the times she mentioned)
WHich was not the case.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
Dragonfly - please read my post - he wasn't "late" for the meal?? That is a complete mischaracterization of the post.

My post was brief - here is some more info: Ds is 3. Its not like he is off on his own and not keeping track of his appointments on his blackberry. He comes to the table when the family eats - at a reasonable time for dinner - and is given a reasonably long time to eat -- and is served foods he likes. DS began "not eating" at meal time - then declaring himself hungry as I am cleaning up. I re-offer the food, he doesn't eat it, then declares he is hungry as I am cleaning up again. This little game was fun for DS - because he got to push bath and bedtime back farther and father. At one point, he even had his dad feeding him dinner after bath at 9:30 at night. This is not because he wasn't or was hungry - this is all in an effort to delay bedtime.

NC was a wonderful solution to this power struggle - which is a common problem with 3 yos. We set a clear time for the meal. We gave him a long time to eat. And gave him warnings that dinner was "almost over", etc. And if he didn't eat - NC was next time to eat was at the next meal - breakfast. No shaming. No I told you so. No "now your gonna be sorry". Just - "DS, I'm so sorry you didn't eat dinner. Should I make your favorites for breakfast?" Broke the power struggle/control cycle pretty quick.

You don't think PD is "at all" GD? That seems like an exaggeration. From what I've read and seen on these boards - I think the 2 are very close, if not identical?

This is your follow up post, in it's entirety. You again state that you told your child, who was asking for food, that he needed to wait until morning.

What part am I missing here?

This is really frustrating!


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I didn't say you starved your child either!! My goodness, starvation is a really strong word, one I did not attribute to you.....ALL I am suggesting is that allowing the "natural" consequence of being hungry instead of offering alternatives (which you wouldn't have to cook -- yogurt, veggie sticks, fruit, cheese cubes, whatever) is not my definition of what is gentle. That is just me. I wouldn't withhold food from my child who claimed to be hungry...even if she just ate 10 minutes ago.. it is her stomach, she knows when she is hungry or not...

I mean, how would I feel if I picked at dinner (or skipped it) and then went into the fridge an hour later looking for something and my hubby said to me "breakfast is the next meal sweetie, I am going to have to ask you to shut the fridge"...woah, I would go mental.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
That's right. You excerpted 1 paragraph - and skillfully left other paragraphs??

1 paragraph, 1 night of hunger
IMO, it is not GD, nor nice for a child to feel hunger in order to get them to eat a meal with the family or to eat the meal that is prepared by it's parent(s).


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
You said he goes without food until the next day if he doesn't eat dinner at the appointed time....YOU said that!!! Cmon, we aren't saying you do what you quoted above....all I am wondering is if he is provided food before bed if he is hungry or in the middle of the night if he wakes up hungry or if you say (however gently) "sorry sweetheart, you didn't eat dinner"...which is what YOU SAID you would say (or similar, I think it was *breakfast is the next meal*)....

That is all I am asking geez....

CC - Oh, well that's an honest mistake CC. I see - let me explain. DS often requests food - and he is always accomodated upon such requests. Often, while I'm tucking him in, he requests ice cream. So I go get him a bowl. Sometimes I don't have it in the freezer - so I load him up in his pajamas and we go to the grocery store to buy it - sometimes I have to leave my sleeping triplets at home alone in their cribs to do this - but I wouldn't want to withhold from DS and be accused of starving him here on MDC. But sometimes they are out of the flavor he wants, so we drive to the grocery store in the next county. Once, when we got to our neighborhood store, and they were out of the flavor he had politely requested, he then refused to get in his car seat. So we sat on the curb for 2 hours until he was ready to get in his car seat. Luckily, at that point he was no longer experiencing hunger for ice cream . . . and requested that we return home .. . so that time, it worked out. But to answer your question . . . of course, every request for food is responded to.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I didn't say you starved your child either!! My goodness, starvation is a really strong word, one I did not attribute to you.....ALL I am suggesting is that allowing the "natural" consequence of being hungry instead of offering alternatives (which you wouldn't have to cook -- yogurt, veggie sticks, fruit, cheese cubes, whatever) is not my definition of what is gentle. That is just me. I wouldn't withhold food from my child who claimed to be hungry...even if she just ate 10 minutes ago.. it is her stomach, she knows when she is hungry or not...

I mean, how would I feel if I picked at dinner (or skipped it) and then went into the fridge an hour later looking for something and my hubby said to me "breakfast is the next meal sweetie, I am going to have to ask you to shut the fridge"...woah, I would go mental.

Again . . .we are skipping over the part where the child was repeatedly offered food??


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Am I the only one who thinks that if a child is not hungry at 7 , then he is likely not particularly hungry at 7:30 or 8 before he goes to bed.
We are talking about 1/2 to an hour and a half (depending on the child's bedtime) without a snack after a child has claimed to be not hungry.
Not (as some have stated) 15-20 hours of food being "withheld" .
Tripmom, I've got your back!


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
This is your follow up post, in it's entirety. You again state that you told your child, who was asking for food, that he needed to wait until morning.

What part am I missing here?

This is really frustrating!

The part you don't seem to like to bring up -- is the part where he was repeatedly offered the food - and didn't eat? And only asked for more, when I began to clean up? The part where that cycle is repeated - until mother halts the game?

If you are suggesting that I should have repeated that obvious power-struggle cycle on into dawn - you should read a few of the books on the GD topic about how to exit power struggles with pre-schoolers.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

CC - Oh, well that's an honest mistake CC. I see - let me explain. DS often requests food - and he is always accomodated upon such requests. Often, while I'm tucking him in, he requests ice cream. So I go get him a bowl. Sometimes I don't have it in the freezer - so I load him up in his pajamas and we go to the grocery store to buy it - sometimes I have to leave my sleeping triplets at home alone in their cribs to do this - but I wouldn't want to withhold from DS and be accused of starving him here on MDC. But sometimes they are out of the flavor he wants, so we drive to the grocery store in the next county. Once, when we got to our neighborhood store, and they were out of the flavor he had politely requested, he then refused to get in his car seat. So we sat on the curb for 2 hours until he was ready to get in his car seat. Luckily, at that point he was no longer experiencing hunger for ice cream . . . and requested that we return home .. . so that time, it worked out. But to answer your question . . . of course, every request for food is responded to.
No need for snarky sarcasm...

If your method of teaching your child to eat at mealtimes is to "allow" (your words, not mine) him to go hungry all night... cool... but don't get offended when people disagree. I am one of those people.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
Again . . .we are skipping over the part where the child was repeatedly offered food??

Tripmom,
Those of us who can understand already do.


----------



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

But she says that the child had been requesting and taking meals at 9:30 before they implemented this system. THye just didn't think it was hunger; that it was "game-playing" and stalling tactics.

I would surmise that he was hungry.

But, even so, if someone tells me they are hungry, I'm gonna get them food.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Am I the only one who thinks that if a child is not hungry at 7 , then he is likely not particularly hungry at 7:30 or 8 before he goes to bed.
We are talking about 1/2 to an hour and a half (depending on the child's bedtime) without a snack after a child has claimed to be not hungry.
Not (as some have stated) 15-20 hours of food being "withheld" .
Tripmom, I've got your back!

Johub -

I am so at a loss. This forum should be a place for people to learn and discuss -- actual, real GD principles? I mean its one thing to advocate for extreme principles that likely fall fairly far to the left of GD (even considering GD as a "spectrum") -- it is quite another to do what is being done to me on this board.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Am I the only one who thinks that if a child is not hungry at 7 , then he is likely not particularly hungry at 7:30 or 8 before he goes to bed.
We are talking about 1/2 to an hour and a half (depending on the child's bedtime) without a snack after a child has claimed to be not hungry.
Not (as some have stated) 15-20 hours of food being "withheld" .
Tripmom, I've got your back!

No, Tripmom agrees with you. I am sorry, but as a n adult, I may not feel hungry at 7 pm, but by 7:30pm I can be quite hungry.
We are talking about a *3 yo baby*! Their stomach is the size of their fist! Even in the pediatric manual book thing, it says they need 5-6 small meals a day.

Also, as the adult who grocery shops, I never buy junk food, so there are always healthy, nutritious food for my children to choose from.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
Johub -

I am so at a loss. This forum should be a place for people to learn and discuss -- actual, real GD principles? I mean its one thing to advocate for extreme principles that likely fall fairly far to the left of GD (even considering GD as a "spectrum") -- it is quite another to do what is being done to me on this board.

I couldnt agree more, which is why I am sticking around. I have been in your exact position on a number of topics as well.
"Actual, Real" GD principles are starting to be determined by the most vocal posters I'm afraid.

We have a whole new thread going on this subject as we speak.


----------



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

TripMom, what exactly is being done to you?

People are disagreeing with what you are saying and asking you repeatedly to better understand your position. Rather than explain, you're being sarcastic and rude.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
Johub -

I am so at a loss. This forum should be a place for people to learn and discuss -- actual, real GD principles? I mean its one thing to advocate for extreme principles that likely fall fairly far to the left of GD (even considering GD as a "spectrum") -- it is quite another to do what is being done to me on this board.

Wow! People disagree with you. That is it. No one has _done_ anything to you.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I couldnt agree more, which is why I am sticking around. I have been in your exact position on a number of topics as well.
"Actual, Real" GD principles are starting to be determined by the most vocal posters I'm afraid.

We have a whole new thread going on this subject as we speak.

Whatever.

No one is "determining" anything. She asked if ppl thought what she was doing was GD. People are answering.

If being vocal about honoring kids' requests for food and not sending them to bed hungry on the GD forum of MDC makes me an extremist, than I probably am in the wrong place.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

If being vocal about honoring kids' requests for food and not sending them to bed hungry on the GD forum of MDC makes me an extremist, than I probably am in the wrong place
I agree.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I couldnt agree more, which is why I am sticking around. I have been in your exact position on a number of topics as well.
"Actual, Real" GD principles are starting to be determined by the most vocal posters I'm afraid.

We have a whole new thread going on this subject as we speak.

Yeah - I just emailed a moderator. If this is a forum for more extreme left approaches to discipline - its not for me - and I shouldn't waste my/or anyone elses time here. But if the board really is suppose to be a GD discussion board - I wish the mods would post a sticky and make some rules. I mean people come here wanting to learn/discuss this topic - fights about differing philosophies altogether is not helpful.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
TripMom, what exactly is being done to you?

People are disagreeing with what you are saying and asking you repeatedly to better understand your position. Rather than explain, you're being sarcastic and rude.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
No one is "determining" anything. She asked if ppl thought what she was doing was GD. People are answering.

No, I didn't "ask if ppl thought what I was doing was GD". I posted an NC scenario as an example of NC -- and people chose to jump on it and mischaracterize it as you and others have done. Never did I "ask" if it was GD - I know darn well it is.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
Yeah - I just emailed a moderator. If this is a forum for more extreme left approaches to discipline - its not for me - and I shouldn't waste my/or anyone elses time here. But if the board really is suppose to be a GD discussion board - I wish the mods would post a sticky and make some rules. I mean people come here wanting to learn/discuss this topic - fights about differing philosophies altogether is not helpful.

I have been thinking the same thing myself.
If you find a place PM me.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Extreme left approaches to discipline????????

Giving food to a child who is expressing desire and/or hunger for food is extreme???

Woah, where am I?


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Extreme left approaches to discipline????????

Giving food to a child who is expressing desire and/or hunger for food is extreme???

Woah, where am I?

I don't know where you are CC. I honestly don't. Because, in my scenario - the child was repeatedly offered food. If you honestly feel that the cycle I described should have been repeated ad infinitum . . . I am sorry, but that approach is somewhere left of most GD philosophy. And if this board is meant to discuss those approaches . . . please post a sticky to that effect so it is clear to all what the philosophy is here.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
No, I didn't "ask if ppl thought what I was doing was GD". I posted an NC scenario as an example of NC -- and people chose to jump on it and mischaracterize it as you and others have done. Never did I "ask" if it was GD - I know darn well it is.

The title of the thread is: "Are logical consequences GD or not?" You brought up a scenario you said is right out of Positive Discipline and said that it occurred at your home and that you thought it was GD.

Some people agreed with you and you seem to be welcoming their comments and support.

Other people have not agreed with you and you are being sarcastic and saying that we are missing something, but not pointing to where that something is.

I feel entirely lost in all of this and am trying to understand your position.

Johub, please show me where I've been sarcastic or rude and I will apologize immediately. I am very frustrated right now, so perhaps I'm not doing a good job of communicating. I have STRONGLY disagreed with TripMom's posts, and I stand by that. But, that's not the same thing as being rude.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
And if this board is meant to discuss those approaches . . . please post a sticky to that effect so it is clear to all what the philosophy is here.

There are three sticky's, so I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
Other people have not agreed with you and you are being sarcastic and saying that we are missing something, but not pointing to where that something is.

Oh my goodnes - there must be at least 5 posts "pointing out" that the child was repeatedly offered food?


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
Johub, please show me where I've been sarcastic or rude and I will apologize immediately. I am very frustrated right now, so perhaps I'm not doing a good job of communicating. I have STRONGLY disagreed with TripMom's posts, and I stand by that. But, that's not the same thing as being rude.

Monkey, I am not going to go through your threads to locate instances of you being rude.
Regardless the way Tripmom is being treated on this thread is abysmal and there have been almost countless instances of rude and inflammatory remarks made at HER expense.
And then you turn around and call her rude and sarcastic.
Regardless of who was being rude to Tripmom, I am not accusing you. ONly showing utter shock and disbelief that the horrible tone of this thread is being attributed to its victim.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Extreme left approaches to discipline????????

Giving food to a child who is expressing desire and/or hunger for food is extreme???

Woah, where am I?









Sounds like you are in the same place I am. Are you hungry? I'm getting ready to make stroganoff,string beans with a garlic and butter sauce, and mandarin oranges and blueberries.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
There are three sticky's, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

You are right . . . From the Sticky about "The Long Awaited GD Book List" - The scenario I posted about - is taken as an example of NC from this book - which appears on the GD book list.

Positive Discipline and Positive Discipline A to Z.
by Jane Nelsen, PhD

This is suppose to be a GD board? My scenario is straight from this book. Mild criticism of it would be one thing - a "spectrum" debate, as I've seen here before is tolerable. But calling the approach a "criminal offense" . . . is apalling. How are we suppose to discuss GD when we have posters taking core GD methods . . . and calling it child abuse?

So if Jane Nelsen's writings on Positive Discipline are NOT considered GD here - MODS, PLEASE SO STATE IN THE STICKY AND I WiLL GLADLY LEAVE.


----------



## MamaE (May 1, 2004)

TripMom, I'm still on your side. I suspect there are many more lurkers on your side too, but they're afraid to enter the fray lest they be pounced on as well.

It's really disappointing to me to watch mothers villify other mothers for their own self-satisfaction or to prove to them or anyone watching that they are are Master Mothers. Being the judge and jury of others is a lonely place to be.

The GD forum is looking less and less attractive to me with every post I read. Sad, but true. I agree with johub that the definition of GD in this forum is being determined by a radical, vocal, and judgmental camp. It's too bad because it will alienate those of us that don't consider TCS or Alfie Kohn to be the be-all/end-all of GD.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

To me, the whole point of food being offered is moot (though I am glad you did offer)...

My whole point is, when the child asked for food, at some point, it was denied with the comment of "breakfast is the next meal"....and also you said you are in favor of "allowing" the natural consequence of hunger...your words.

Now, I am reasoning that if there is a "consequence" at all, there must be a need or desire (the child must be hungry at some point) and that that need or desire is not being met to "allow" for the consequence of being hungry.

That is where I disagree, strongly.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
Oh my goodnes - there must be at least 5 posts "pointing out" that the child was repeatedly offered food?

But within a specific time frame, is how I understood it. And after that it was made clear to the child that essentially "time was up" and he would need to wait until the following day, right?

I disagree with this approach. I think it sucks and is mean. That's all I'm saying.

Johub, TripMom's posts were clearly sarcastic and rude and in violation of MDC's UA. I wasn't the only one who thought so, but I'll leave it up for a mod to make that call.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Wait... who called your actions criminal? Who said you were abusing your kids or starving them? Certainly I DID NOT....

...and also, I don't claim to be a "master mother" because I don't allow my child the consequence of feeling hungry when they don't eat dinner...


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
This is suppose to be a GD board? My scenario is straight from this book.

Okay, I'll admit I never read that book. I never read a book and follow it word for word.
I disagree with allowing a child to feel hunger as a discipline method.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:

I don't know where you are CC. I honestly don't. Because, in my scenario - the child was repeatedly offered food. If you honestly feel that the cycle I described should have been repeated ad infinitum . . . I am sorry, but that approach is somewhere left of most GD philosophy. And if this board is meant to discuss those approaches . . . please post a sticky to that effect so it is clear to all what the philosophy is here.
I think maybe CC and others are trying to say that there might have been other, gentler solutions to your problem (since you said yourself that going to bed hungry was the NC and part of the solution to your problem). How about, instead of repeating the cycle you had just said "you know where the food is" and let him get himself something. In my house we try to avoid making food a control issue by letting everyone eat when and what they want. It works out well for us.

This is from the GD forum guidelines:
_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._ I thought I'd post that, since there seems to be some debate about what is/is not a radical view point. I think if you are using "consequences" to try to curb your child's tendencies toward wrongdoing, then that does not fit the definition of GD above.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I don't understand why sentiments change when a child reaches toddlerhood. If the same situation would have been described in the breastfeeding forum, people would have gone nuts over it... I mean nuts.

Suppose the same situation was regarding a breastfeeding 6 month old. "I offered my breast and he just tweaked the nipple and played with them and didn't want any. He didn't seem hungry, but I offered the breast several times before I went to bed and he didn't seem to want any. I decided that he would have to wait until his morning feeding if he wanted to breastfeed"..... Look at it in that context...to me it is no different really. If a child expresses hunger, whether it is at 7 pm, 4 am, 7 am, or whatever... I will offer food or have it readily available. That does not change for me. Obviously as they get older they are more self sufficient in that they can help themselves to healthy snacks available or whatever, but it should always be available in my opinion.

Deciding a time where the kitchen is "closed" or telling a child that they must wait for the next meal to eat even if they are expressing hunger, is something I do not agree with and never will.

If that makes me "extreme" well, so be it. I have been called far worse I am sure, by people whos methods I respect far more.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
I think maybe CC and others are trying to say that there might have been other, gentler solutions to your problem (since you said yourself that going to bed hungry was the NC and part of the solution to your problem). How about, instead of repeating the cycle you had just said "you know where the food is" and let him get himself something. In my house we try to avoid making food a control issue by letting everyone eat when and what they want. It works out well for us.

This is from the GD forum guidelines:
_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._ I thought I'd post that, since there seems to be some debate about what is/is not a radical view point. I think if you are using "consequences" to try to curb your child's tendencies toward wrongdoing, then that does not fit the definition of GD above.

That's good for you Sunnyside. I really like Jane Nelson's approach in Positive Discipline. If this board is tending to be a forum for approaches to the left of Jane Nelson's Positive Discipline - I reiterate my request that be made clear in the Sticky - and I wil vamos for parts elsewhere.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I don't understand why sentiments change when a child reaches toddlerhood. If the same situation would have been described in the breastfeeding forum, people would have gone nuts over it... I mean nuts. .

You do not see a difference between the needs of a BFing infant and a 3 yo?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Deciding a time where the kitchen is "closed" or telling a child that they must wait for the next meal to eat even if they are expressing hunger, is something I do not agree with and never will.

If that makes me "extreme" well, so be it. I have been called far worse I am sure, by people whos methods I respect far more.

But that's just it CC - the child was not "expressing hunger" -- he was "expressing control". The NC was a very effective and GD way to handle a 3 yo power struggle.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Wait... who called your actions criminal? Who said you were abusing your kids or starving them? Certainly I DID NOT....


It was scubamom not you captain, who stated that in her county withholding food was a criminal offense.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

You do not see a difference between the needs of a BFing infant and a 3 yo?
Not so much when they are both hungry.

Quote:

the child was not "expressing hunger" -- he was "expressing control".
Sorry, that is your interpretation. When a child says "I'm hungry", I take that as them expressing hunger. Oh, but I get it now. You are of the variety of *gder* who comes form a place where children are manipulative and controlling.

Quote:

The NC was a very effective and GD way to handle a 3 yo power struggle
If you think so.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
I think maybe CC and others are trying to say that there might have been other, gentler solutions to your problem (since you said yourself that going to bed hungry was the NC and part of the solution to your problem). How about, instead of repeating the cycle you had just said "you know where the food is" and let him get himself something. In my house we try to avoid making food a control issue by letting everyone eat when and what they want. It works out well for us.

Indeed - this is a response I think a person could respond to - but again, because often online people say things in ways they might not necessarily mean to "sound", things can easily get blown out of proportion, especially with cross posting, etc.

Personally, I will not be a short order cook, either - but if a pattern emerges such as described by TripMom, I imagine my response will be to request that the child stay with us during meal time for 'faimly time', and then if they claim to be hungry right at bed time, they are more than welcome have a piece of cheese, a yogurt, or something else to tide them over until morning...but I also wouldn't tell them sorry charlie...they wouldn't get a full meal, but they wouldn't get nothing. I imagine that if it is true hunger then they would happily get something on their own - if it was a game or a stalling tactic and I didn't evgage in it (but still clearly offered them food if they were hungry), I imagin e it wouldn't be fun any longer and it would eventually stop. I would not get into the repeated hunger request and offering the meal over again after dinner - the first time the child said they were hungry after the meal, I'd offer the food. If they refused, that would be the end of the "game/power struggle" for me, and I would just tell them that they're welcome to help themselves to any of the healthy foods we have that are ready to eat. If they are really hungry, they will eat it - if not, they will not - and they will be welcome to eat it later if and when they do get hungry.

I do think, though, that the way that responses were represented (on both sides) that the actual thoughts and suggestions lost influence in the muck of verbal jousting.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*

This is from the GD forum guidelines:
_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._ I thought I'd post that, since there seems to be some debate about what is/is not a radical view point. I think if you are using "consequences" to try to curb your child's tendencies toward wrongdoing, then that does not fit the definition of GD above.

And yet I read the same paragraph and think that "consequences" Do fit in the definition to the above definiton.
The above paragraph is so vague it can be interpreted to suit each of us.
WHat i see is that "cooperation can be engaged" not "cooperation MUST be engaged"
WHat I see is that chlidren learn about limits and boundaries. Which is exactly what trip mom was doing. Setting a limit.
I also see that it presumes that children have reasons for their behavior, and she took initiative to discover that the child was rejecting food as a delay tactic, and not forother reasons.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

the first time the child said they were hungry after the meal, I'd offer the food. If they refused, that would be the end of the "game/power struggle" for me, and I would just tell them that they're welcome to help themselves to any of the healthy foods we have that are ready to eat. If they are really hungry, they will eat it - if not, they will not - and they will be welcome to eat it later if and when they do get hungry.
I can agree with that. What I disagreed with was the sentiment of "they are allowed to feel hunger all night if they don't eat [at the designated] time" and "breakfast is the next meal."

Both quotes from the OP.

I don't find those tactics gentle at all and that is where it crosses the line for me.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Not so much when they are both hungry.

Sorry, that is your interpretation. When a child says "I'm hungry", I take that as them expressing hunger. Oh, but I get it now. You are of the variety of *gder* who comes form a place where children are manipulative and controlling.

If you think so.

Many of us come from a place where we find our toddlers being manipulative and controlling. It kinda goes with toddler territory.
WHere most of us agree that an infant is not manipulative, experience tells us differently about our toddlers.
(With a few exceptions on this board. A child has no need to manipulate when he is not given limits to his behavior, as such it is obvious that it wouldnt come up)


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
And yet I read the same paragraph and think that "consequences" Do fit in the definition to the above definiton.
The above paragraph is so vague it can be interpreted to suit each of us.
WHat i see is that "cooperation can be engaged" not "cooperation MUST be engaged"
WHat I see is that chlidren learn about limits and boundaries. Which is exactly what trip mom was doing. Setting a limit.
I also see that it presumes that children have reasons for their behavior, and she took initiative to discover that the child was rejecting food as a delay tactic, and not forother reasons.

When reading that paragraph you're referring to - I got the same thing out of it you did Joline.


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
I really like Jane Nelson's approach in Positive Discipline.

I don't care for the book BUT I've been reading it for the past 30 minutes and from what I am seeing she is NOT advocating letting the child go without food in fact here are some quotes:

"When children eat is not as important as what they eat" pg 239

"Young children see no reason to get hungry on anyone's schedule but their own. Infants nurse on demand, toddlers want food when they are hungry, and preschoolers often just can't make it from one meal to the next without something in between. " pg 239

"If your children aren't eating full meals, their snacks should provide them with the nutrients they need. A pile of carrot sticks or even a baked potato, for instance, is much better than french fries and a soda - especially when followed by a dinner skirmish over peas" pg 239

These quotes are from Positive Discipline for Preschoolers. There is no mention in this book of the wait until next meal. Pat has two others and did notice it BUT it was a tiny piece in the midst of a myriad of decent suggestions the woman puts out there. From what I read her solution to your situation would be for you to clean up dinner but for the child to get his own snack whenever he was hungry. The only question that hasn't been answered here is that if your ds asked or went to get a snack at a later time would he be "allowed" to do that. That is really the only question that is out there that hasn't been answered.


----------



## Chicky2 (May 29, 2002)

Wow. See, this is why, as someone earlier pointed out, there are probably a ton of lurkers (like myself) sitting in front of our computers w/our mouths hanging wide open. I'm ashamed for those of you who feel the need to flame, or be rude to anyone simply because of a miscommunication/misunderstanding/whatever you wish to call it. It is very clear to me that no one has been starving a child. It seems that many of you who are attacking Tripmom don't have a clue what she likely goes thru in a day w/triplets and another child to boot. Several of you don't even have more than one child. Apparently there is much to be said for mothers of many. Those with one child are just starting to figure this parenting thing out. When there are a number of children in a household, there must be many more rules and boundaries and the parents absolutely must stick to them, or the whole household can easily fall apart. Mothers of many will learn very quickly what works and what doens't for their individual situations. It is very easy for me, as an experienced mother of 3 (17, 7, 5) to see that what Tripmom did was necessary in order to keep a sense of order in the house. Letting one child completely walk all over you is not healthy. A parent is there to teach, to love, to direct and guide. We each do this in the way we see fit for our own family. That is our job. That is what we must do. There have to be boundaries or the children will not thrive. I applaud you for sticking up for yourself, Tripmom, and I hope these other MDCers will find something better to do with their time. I know I'm certainly off to do something more productive! Maybe taking a break from the computer is in order for many of you mamas. I know here it is a beautiful day, my lunch has been eaten, and my horse needs some love. This has been my entertainment enough for the week, thank you.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I can agree with that. What I disagreed with was the sentiment of "they are allowed to feel hunger all night if they don't eat [at the designated] time" and "breakfast is the next meal."

Both quotes from the OP.

I don't find those tactics gentle at all and that is where it crosses the line for me.


and I agree with you about not feeling it is very gentle, but my impulse when something crosses a line I have is to share alternatives such as this with theposter, instead of just pointing out that I disagree, or that it's not what I consider gentle - I'm not saying that's what you did I just saw the tone of the thread degrading (on both sides), when it could have just as easily been a spirit of offering helpful solutions.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Many of us come from a place where we find our toddlers being manipulative and controlling. It kinda goes with toddler territory.
WHere most of us agree that an infant is not manipulative, experience tells us differently about our toddlers.
(With a few exceptions on this board. A child has no need to manipulate when he is not given limits to his behavior, as such it is obvious that it wouldnt come up)


I agree...toddlers can be manipulative. I try to keep in mind that they aren't doing it because they are "bad" and must be controlled, I try to remember that they are new and don't know how to compromise, give and take, and that they need to learn these lessons from us. In the meantime though they engage us in power struggles and throw tantrums and scream and scream and scream







to get us to do things their way which doesn't always coincide with the needs of the rest of the family, particularly the mother/primary caregiver. I have peed while my toddler screamed and screamed to nurse because I had to pee before I could nurse her. She has had to wait while I nurse her baby sister and she is crying and screaming at me that she's hungry too. I felt then like I was withholding food. No I wasn't punishing her but I am sure it felt that way to her









I assume that Tripmom knows her kids best. She knew what he was about. She knew what she needed, she knew what he needed. She chose a method that she felt was best. She chose it from a book listed as recommended on this GD board(looks like I'm swearing there







) and it worked. Maybe it's not what I would have done. I try to avoid food power struggles in any way I can. And done is done.

Plus she has triplets(did I read that right?)...I can't even begin to imagine that. I remember the saying "walk a mile in my shoes" and apply it here.

Cheers
Carolyn


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Many of us come from a place where we find our toddlers being manipulative and controlling. It kinda goes with toddler territory.

I appreciate you saying this. It tells me a lot about this board. I'm not here too much. I have NEVER felt that my girls were controlling and manipulative - that is a really different paradigm and I can see how it would lead us all to different solutions.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
I imagine that if it is true hunger then they would happily get something on their own -

If there are no restrictions on access to food, I could see a child doing this, but when food is controlled then what? Do you punish the child for stealing food? Do you punish them for waking in the night because they are hungry?

I am sad to see ppl who think a child wants to be manipulative and controlling.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Many of us come from a place where we find our toddlers being manipulative and controlling. It kinda goes with toddler territory.
WHere most of us agree that an infant is not manipulative, experience tells us differently about our toddlers.
(With a few exceptions on this board. A child has no need to manipulate when he is not given limits to his behavior, as such it is obvious that it wouldnt come up)

I have to agree that toddlers can have the desire to control the situation. I don't get really that upset about it but sometimes it gets annoying. Sometimes dd will want to control all of my actions. Like she'll want me to be in some impossible position to nurse and I won't do it and she'll get upset. I think it's a part of being so little and unable to influence the world around you to want to have some aspect of control and a little at a time I try to teach my dd that she can control her actions but not mine or others (i.e. when kids play together and one wants to control everybody else). I don't think they know they're trying to manipulate, they're just trying to get their way which is natural, but I guide my dd that it is not ok to treat others certain ways.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
I am sad to see ppl who think a child wants to be manipulative and controlling.


You must either be sad often or have children whose motives and desires always automatically align with your own. If that is the case I am happy for you.
I for one think it is perfectly natural that when we set a limit for a child that they will try to bend it or get around it in any way they can to see if it is real. And our job is to show them that it is.
I guess I just think the whole term "manipulate" has gotten a bad rap. After all, all it means is to do what you can to get what you want in an indirect manner.
If your children have never tried to get what they want in an indirect manner. Well that's ok too.
But I dont think any less of my children that they do. After all, I gave birth to human beings, and I am glad for them to be so (human that is)


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ambdkf*
I appreciate you saying this. It tells me a lot about this board. I'm not here too much. I have NEVER felt that my girls were controlling and manipulative - that is a really different paradigm and I can see how it would lead us all to different solutions.


I really don't feel they(children)are controlling and manipulative either, at least not in the sense that an adult could be.

Toddlers/small children are new...so many things are out of their control...they often exhibit behaviours that are their very new attempt to gain some control, this is what "I" would mean by controlling. It's very innocent but it's there. They also want things to happen to make them happy. They have no sense of "later" but want them now. So they try to make things happen for them "now". My kids might have thrown a tantrum to try to get things they want when they want in an attempt to "manipulate" the world around them so that they are happy now. It's again innocent and just "new". There is no malicious intent at all and that's how it differs from an adult who is controlling and manipulative.

I think those two words have strong negative connotations to them because adults who have these qualities are viewed negatively. Toddlers who have these qualities are just toddlers being toddlers, children being children.

I wish there were better words to use. We need a new language for children.

It's often so much about the language we use and what a word means to one person as opposed to another person..we have no way of getting into another persons frame of reference.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ambdkf*
I don't care for the book BUT I've been reading it for the past 30 minutes and from what I am seeing she is NOT advocating letting the child go without food in fact here are some quotes:

"When children eat is not as important as what they eat" pg 239

"Young children see no reason to get hungry on anyone's schedule but their own. Infants nurse on demand, toddlers want food when they are hungry, and preschoolers often just can't make it from one meal to the next without something in between. " pg 239

"If your children aren't eating full meals, their snacks should provide them with the nutrients they need. A pile of carrot sticks or even a baked potato, for instance, is much better than french fries and a soda - especially when followed by a dinner skirmish over peas" pg 239

These quotes are from Positive Discipline for Preschoolers. There is no mention in this book of the wait until next meal. Pat has two others and did notice it BUT it was a tiny piece in the midst of a myriad of decent suggestions the woman puts out there. From what I read her solution to your situation would be for you to clean up dinner but for the child to get his own snack whenever he was hungry. The only question that hasn't been answered here is that if your ds asked or went to get a snack at a later time would he be "allowed" to do that. That is really the only question that is out there that hasn't been answered.

I'm referring to "Positive Discipline" not the version "Positive Discipline for Preschoolers" - that is where this exact scenario was discussed and suggested. If it would be helpful - I'll quote chapter and verse when I get home and find the book.

i really took to it because at the time DS had tried this tactic often - in other scenarios too - and it is really difficult to get out of in a GD way. DS would ask for "X" - I'd give him "X" and he would say "NO, I Don't want "x" - then I'd take it away, and he'd say, "I want "x"". This cycle would repeat - and kind of escalate. It was like DS was testing control - and my "giving him what he wanted" - actually made him kind of panic'd - and he'd get more and more upset. So by stopping the control cycle - by withdrawing from it - it actually calmed DS and extinguished the power struggle he was setting up.

It was like DS was testing boundaries and control with me -- and when he sensed he had no boundaries or that "he" was in control - it actually scared him. Once I read PD and found a few GD ways to exit this situation - it really helped me out.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

MITB~I don't think children "want" to be controlling or manipulative. They just can be at 3 or 4 years old. It's not bad or good, it just is.

See previous post for my definition of control or manipulation in toddlers/young children as opposed to adults.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicky2*
Apparently there is much to be said for mothers of many.

I have six children. I still disagree with using hunger as a means of discipline or punishment.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
The part you don't seem to like to bring up -- is the part where he was repeatedly offered the food - and didn't eat? And only asked for more, when I began to clean up? The part where that cycle is repeated - until mother halts the game?

So what's the problem with saying, "I'm cleaning now so I'm not able to make you any more food. You're welcome to grab an apple/yogurt/etc. out of the fridge for yourself."

I find that the easiest way to exit power struggles is not to get into them. And food should never be a power struggle.

Honestly, it seems to me as though you're determined that your child has foul intentions and you're going to teach him a lesson. There's a non-combative way to deal with this, though. Why not try it?

And again, not giving a child food when he says he's hungry because he wouldn't eat the dinner you gave him is not a natural consequence. It just isn't. It's contrived.


----------



## Chicky2 (May 29, 2002)

>It was like DS was testing boundaries and control with me -- and when he sensed he had no boundaries or that "he" was in control - it actually scared him.

I go thru this w/my teen, too. It does not stop as they get older, the scenarios just change. My teen is definitely old enough to know the rules, what is expected of her, how to do her chores, etc. But biologically speaking, she is suppose to try to get around her boundaries, testing them to make sure they are still there, still the same, is mom still watching? When she sees that yes, they are still there, still the same, and that of course I'm still watching, she is very, very relieved.

btw, someone want to tell me how to quote? LOL!


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
So what's the problem with saying, "I'm cleaning now so I'm not able to make you any more food. You're welcome to grab an apple/yogurt/etc. out of the fridge for yourself.".

I did. That is the part where I re-offer food and he doesn't want to eat it - until I start to clean it up.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
I find that the easiest way to exit power struggles is not to get into them. And food should never be a power struggle.

Honestly, it seems to me as though you're determined that your child has foul intentions and you're going to teach him a lesson. There's a non-combative way to deal with this, though. Why not try it? .

That's what I get - you seem to think I have ill-will toward my child. I don't. I just have a normal little 3 yo who is dealing with control issues. To withdraw from the ask/give cycle was the only exit. He was not expressing hunger. He was trying to exert control.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
And again, not giving a child food when he says he's hungry because he wouldn't eat the dinner you gave him is not a natural consequence. It just isn't. It's contrived.

And again, I gave him the food when he said he was hungry - he didn't eat it -- thus my conclusion, he is not hungry, he is interested in control. It wasn't a matter of "what" I gave him - that's a new little fact pattern addition from you. It had nothing to do with only offering him the dinner I made - I actually offered other choices.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
So what's the problem with saying, "I'm cleaning now so I'm not able to make you any more food. You're welcome to grab an apple/yogurt/etc. out of the fridge for yourself."

I find that the easiest way to exit power struggles is not to get into them. *And food should never be a power struggle.*
And again, not giving a child food when he says he's hungry because he wouldn't eat the dinner you gave him is not a natural consequence. It just isn't. It's contrived.









: ITA with the bolded part. Some things should never be a power struggle.


----------



## Chicky2 (May 29, 2002)

```
I have six children. I still disagree with using hunger as a means of discipline or punishment.
```
I think I figured it out (quoting).

I think your children are beautiful, btw. I didn't see it as it even really being a hunger issue. I saw it as being what Tripmom said it was--a game. I think everyone sees it a different way. What really matters is that Tripmom does what she feels is best for her family.

I'll have to check back on this discussion later, but this has really been too much computer time today, lol. Off to crochet and maybe take down my Holiday tree finally.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
I just have a normal little 3 yo who is dealing with control issues. To withdraw from the ask/give cycle was the only exit. He was not expressing hunger. *He was trying to exert control*.

And again, I gave him the food when he said he was hungry - he didn't eat it -- thus my conclusion, he is not hungry, *he is interested in control*. It wasn't a matter of "what" I gave him - that's a new little fact pattern addition from you. It had nothing to do with only offering him the dinner I made - I actually offered other choices.

I am speechless. What do you think he was trying to control? Why does he feel the need to control?

I guess I have never felt that way with my children and I haven't a clue what to say.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
If there are no restrictions on access to food, I could see a child doing this, but when food is controlled then what? Do you punish the child for stealing food? Do you punish them for waking in the night because they are hungry?

I am sad to see ppl who think a child wants to be manipulative and controlling.

While I agree that controlling food and not allowing the child to have access to other food at bedtime when they say they are hungry is not a solution I would use, and not one that I consider to be particularly gentle, I also feel that emotional statements regarding people's parenting styles and techniques are not very productive either; perhaps better would be somethign like:
"I don't agree that children are manipulative and controlling; maybe if you think of it as them as testing their independence and individuality and trying to learn to negotiate and navigate through their world", and offering a alternative solution would be more helpful and less fuel for 'retaliation'....this is I think the reason that threads degrade sometimes, we sometimes become more concerned with stating our opinions than offering help and solutions. AND, I'm NOT singling you out MITB, because I have been guilty of this same thing myself - it's some thing I'm working on!!


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicky2*
>It was like DS was testing boundaries and control with me -- and when he sensed he had no boundaries or that "he" was in control - it actually scared him.

I go thru this w/my teen, too. It does not stop as they get older, the scenarios just change. My teen is definitely old enough to know the rules, what is expected of her, how to do her chores, etc. But biologically speaking, she is suppose to try to get around her boundaries, testing them to make sure they are still there, still the same, is mom still watching? When she sees that yes, they are still there, still the same, and that of course I'm still watching, she is very, very relieved.

btw, someone want to tell me how to quote? LOL!

Chicky2 - nail on head. In these circs, the more I gave DS what he was asking for - the more panic'd and anxiety ridden he became. It was like he was saying "oh no - am I in control? I'm just a little DS? I need my mommy." Before I found a way to exit (which believe me is hard, if giving the child what he is asking for does not defuse, but accelerates the situation) - I had a few of these episodes that just escalated into a 3 yo complete meltdown. One time we were in a restaurant and DS said - I want to go potty. I took him to the potty and he said "no potty - I want to wash my hands" - I walked him over to wash his hands and he said "no - I want to go potty" - this cycle went around for a while and he got more and more upset each time he asked for the other thing and I gave it to him. I was starting to freak out - like how do I get this kid out of this bathroom in this crowded restroom? I had to go get DH to help - DS was starting to completely melt.

In retrospect - the bathroom scenario was born out of a tired DS out for sushi with mom and dad instead of going to bed on time - but rooted in the same type of control issues . . . .

anyway . . . thanks for your post


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
I am speechless. What do you think he was trying to control? Why does he feel the need to control?

I guess I have never felt that way with my children and I haven't a clue what to say.

Ummm. Because he's three years old?


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
And again, I gave him the food when he said he was hungry - he didn't eat it -- thus my conclusion, he is not hungry, he is interested in control. It wasn't a matter of "what" I gave him - that's a new little fact pattern addition from you. It had nothing to do with only offering him the dinner I made - I actually offered other choices.

Okay, so here's what I'm puzzled about. When he said later (after you had cleaned up) that he was hungry - after you had finished re-offering him food - was your response that he could get something for himself or that he couldn't eat until breakfast?

Btw, I completely agree that children are sometimes controlling and manipulative. It's part of who they are - they explore cause and effect and part of that is determining how they can affect the things and people in their universe with their actions. Where I'm uncomfortable being controlled, I let ds know. Where I'm not (like if we're playing a game and he wants to make up rules as he goes along), I let it slide. Except on my exceptionally impatient days, I do my best to see these things as natural, not negative, and address them in a way that doesn't create adversity in our relationship.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
I did. That is the part where I re-offer food and he doesn't want to eat it - until I start to clean it up.

That's what I get - you seem to think I have ill-will toward my child. I don't. I just have a normal little 3 yo who is dealing with control issues. To withdraw from the ask/give cycle was the only exit. He was not expressing hunger. He was trying to exert control.

And again, I gave him the food when he said he was hungry - he didn't eat it -- thus my conclusion, he is not hungry, he is interested in control. It wasn't a matter of "what" I gave him - that's a new little fact pattern addition from you. It had nothing to do with only offering him the dinner I made - I actually offered other choices.

I guess my only observation and question here then TripMom, and this is in a *genuine* spirit of helpfulness, is that if he did say he was hungry again at bedtime, and you said, "I'll go get you some cheese (or yogurt, or whatever small tidbit to tide him over)" that would literally take 2 minutes to run downstairs and do (so I am not suggesting preparing him a meal, just a ready to eat snack) - and I assume is something you would do for yourself, your husband, or a family member or friend visiting - and add in the 5 minutes it takes for him to eat it and then not be hungry, ends the power struggle and maybe makes food not a control issue for him and gets him to start eating dinner again. Woudl he eat the cheese, or whatever you offered or he asked for, or just keep asking for diferent things? I guess it comes down to trying to not make food a control or power issue for me, either, so I would probably find some way to diffuse it.

We have nipped the 'one more drink' thing at bedtime in the bud by ALWAYS supplying DS with a sports bottle full of cold water each night at his bedside - so there's no need to get up, he gets to drink when he's genuinely thirsty, and there is no "stalling" bedtime over it. It just automatically happens.

Maybe you could automatically bring up a plate of cheese and a couple crackers and say, I know you weren't hungry or couldn't decide what to eat at dinner - so I brought you this to tide you over until breakfast tomorrow - that way he has the opportunity to eat whatever it is if he really is hungry; if he then insists on other things, or doesn't like anything you siggest and cannot come up with his own solution, then I would wager that he really is in fact not hungry and by not engaging in it, you're doing the right thing.

That's the ONLY suggestion I would make. to automatically bring something healthy that he likes up to bedtime, and then it's his choice to eat it or not.

Actually, come to think of it, DS only had about 2 bites at dinner last night....so at bedtime, I brought a granola bar to bed in addition to his usual water, and told him, "since you hardly ate any dinner I thought you might be hungry now, you can have this to keep you until breakfast", and he ate it - so he was hungry. And he's not even 2 years old yet.

Anyway, hope this helps. Sorry it has gotten out of control.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
I guess my only observation and question here then TripMom, and this is in a *genuine* spirit of helpfulness, is that if he did say he was hungry again at bedtime, and you said, "I'll go get you some cheese (or yogurt, or whatever small tidbit to tide him over)" that would literally take 2 minutes to run downstairs and do (so I am not suggesting preparing him a meal, just a ready to eat snack) - and I assume is something you would do for yourself, your husband, or a family member or friend visiting - and add in the 5 minutes it takes for him to eat it and then not be hungry, ends the power struggle and maybe makes food not a control issue for him and gets him to start eating dinner again. Woudl he eat the cheese, or whatever you offered or he asked for, or just keep asking for diferent things? I guess it comes down to trying to not make food a control or power issue for me, either, so I would probably find some way to diffuse it.

We have nipped the 'one more drink' thing at bedtime in the bud by ALWAYS supplying DS with a sports bottle full of cold water each night at his bedside - so there's no need to get up, he gets to drink when he's genuinely thirsty, and there is no "stalling" bedtime over it. It just automatically happens.

Maybe you could automatically bring up a plate of cheese and a couple crackers and say, I know you weren't hungry or couldn't decide what to eat at dinner - so I brought you this to tide you over until breakfast tomorrow - that way he has the opportunity to eat whatever it is if he really is hungry; if he then insists on other things, or doesn't like anything you siggest and cannot come up with his own solution, then I would wager that he really is in fact not hungry and by not engaging in it, you're doing the right thing.

That's the ONLY suggestion I would make. to automatically bring something healthy that he likes up to bedtime, and then it's his choice to eat it or not.

Actually, come to think of it, DS only had about 2 bites at dinner last night....so at bedtime, I brought a granola bar to bed in addition to his usual water, and told him, "since you hardly ate any dinner I thought you might be hungry now, you can have this to keep you until breakfast", and he ate it - so he was hungry. And he's not even 2 years old yet.

Anyway, hope this helps. Sorry it has gotten out of control.
























Now this was a thoughtful considerate and informative post. It shared concern, asked questions, showed a pretty accurate understanding of what she was saying and offered an alternative which had the actual events in mind.
I think the crackers by the bedside is an ok solution if you arent overly concerned about cavities. Of course if it is about the power and not about the food, my guess is it would just turn into another power struggle "but I dont WANT crackers!!!!"
In the end if crackers are the final offer, it really isnt any different than any of the other final offers. Because the end result is not offering anything else and the child chooses to accept or decline.
I for one cant imagine going through several episodes of offering my child one thing after another and having those things rejected, then having something else asked for ad nauseum.
I think it shows exemplary patience to even try the give him what he is asking for and hope the struggle ends there approach so many times before deciding "no more".


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
Ummm. Because he's three years old?

Sometimes kids do use food to control or game playing for whatever reason. My dh went through this with my step dd before we were married. I watched a scene one day where she asked him for soup, he made the soup. As soon as it was finished she told him she didn't want soup, she wanted eggs and toast. He made eggs and toast. She took one look at it and said she didn't want it, but wanted a grilled cheese sandwich. He made her the sandwich. She said I don't want that I want cereal. He made the cereal. SHe said I don't want that I want........

This is where I stepped in. I asked him if he was out of his @&*!#@$ mind. The child now had four different lunches sitting on the kitchen counter. I gently told her she had four foods to choose from and we would leave them on the table. She could eat them or not eat them it was up to her. We went in the living room and sat down. After a while passed, I peeked into the kitchen and she was eating.

I don't know why she did this. My MIL would jump at every command and so would dh, so I don't know. She and her mother had attachment issues and still do at 19 years old. But, she did seem to think it was very funny.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I for one cant imagine going through several episodes of offering my child one thing after another and having those things rejected, then having something else asked for ad nauseum.

Me neither. After mealtime, if my kids say they are hungry, I remind them that the cupboard has plenty of food to choose from.

In my home, food is eaten at the table, so offering to let them eat in their room is not an option, as it is a sanitary and safety issue (the neighbors upstairs and downtsairs have roaches and I do not even want to see one, tyvm ). I have no problem with children getting up and getting something to eat or drink and then going back to bed.
And, we co-sleep, and I don't care for crumbs in the bed, kwim?


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I think the crackers by the bedside is an ok solution if you arent overly concerned about cavities. Of course if it is about the power and not about the food, my guess is it would just turn into another power struggle "but I dont WANT crackers!!!!"
In the end if crackers are the final offer, it really isnt any different than any of the other final offers. Because the end result is not offering anything else and the child chooses to accept or decline.

Right, but the difference to me would be that the offer "was" there at bedtime, one 'final chance' for the kid to eat if he was really hungry, as opposed to being told at bedtime if he said he was hungry - "I'm sorry, but since you didn't eat dinner, you have to wait until breakfast" (or however it is phrased). That last option of yes, being able to eat *something*, makes the difference to me. If the struggle engaged again, I wouldn't get involved, and at that point would let it go. This is where we each have to come up with what our own "limit" is. For me would be to offer the food one more time at dinner, then drop it. Then one time offer a food that I *know* he likes at bedtime if he says he's hungry, that I'm comfortable with him eating, and if he decided to not have that, then that was his choice. If he tried to ask for 7 other things and negotiate again, I'd tell him that this was already here and ready for him, and is just to tide him over so he's not hungry in the middle of the night, and it's his choice to eat it or not. If he was old enough to go downstairs and grab whatever for himself, I'd offer that to him as an alternative too, but as he's not 2 until the end of the month, that's not happening for us yet.

Anyway, just more of my random babblings....


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
Me neither. After mealtime, if my kids say they are hungry, I remind them that the cupboard has plenty of food to choose from.

In my home, food is eaten at the table, so offering to let them eat in their room is not an option, as it is a sanitary and safety issue (the neighbors upstairs and downtsairs have roaches and I do not even want to see one, tyvm ). I have no problem with children getting up and getting something to eat or drink and then going back to bed.
And, we co-sleep, and I don't care for crumbs in the bed, kwim?

Even with full free access to food it does not prevent or stop the control cycle.
My dd had full access to food and did this anyway. She woudl get a granola bar, open it. Then discard it. Get an apple, take a bite, throw it away.
The exact same power struggle can exist regardless of how the child gets the food.


----------



## Chicky2 (May 29, 2002)

I guess I"m sucked in, lol....

The PP(by donosmommy) makes me think of something else. It is a good example of how everyone has different views about what is right and wrong for their own families. I personally would NEVER leave food by the bed and let them eat it anytime they wanted. I would be completely freaked out by the fact that all that food would just sit in their little mouths all night long, promoting cavities. That said, i don't think it's a 'wrong' solution, either. It is just not one I would consider for my family. If, after offering a snack (and a reminder that breakfast is a long ways away) my children still didn't want what was offered (they always have at least 3 choices--2 food choices and the 3rd choice is to not eat), I would tuck them in and that's just gotta be it. If, however, they woke up hours and hours later hungry and asking to eat, I would offer exactly one food item, and that's it. If that child isn't hungry enough for that (remember, it's during the night), then I would be justified in saying 'well, I'm sorry then, you really must not be that hungry afterall'. If it started happening over and over in the middle of the night, I would march the child back to bed, explain that no one is getting any sleep, and go back to bed, or if my child needs it/wants it, I'll lie down w/them, but I'm going back to sleep!. I would do that because it would show me that my child is simply trying to exert control over this. We would sit down and talk the next day about how they have lots of choices, and that if they need to have more control over an area, let's talk about it, and find an appropriate time for them to exert their control.

Yes, children absolutely do feel the need to have control. This is a normal human feeling. I will give my children plenty of choices when it is appropriate to do so. They will respect my decisions more in the long run because of it too. There are simply some times when children have to understand that when mom or dad says x, y, or z, that that is just the way it needs to be. I'm also one of those parents who doesn't feel that I owe my children an explanation for every single parenting decision that is made. Sometimes it is appropriate to say that it is so 'because it is the decision mom and dad feel is best'. Does that mean I don't practice GD? I don't believe so. I'm sure some of you see it differently, and that is ok too.


----------



## Chicky2 (May 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Even with full free access to food it does not prevent or stop the control cycle.
My dd had full access to food and did this anyway. She woudl get a granola bar, open it. Then discard it. Get an apple, take a bite, throw it away.
The exact same power struggle can exist regardless of how the child gets the food.

Exactly, and it doesn't even have to be about food! That's why I can't understand why the food issue was made such a big deal in the first place??? The food just wasn't the point!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I wanted to add that food is often an area where control issues come up with children. Even when parents try not to let food be an issue, kids can make it an issue because eating is almost always a hot button in almost any family. Moms care a lot whether children eat or not. what they eat, how much, what the nutrient values are, how often they eat. ETC. Even if we offer food and try to make it a non issue, many children do pick up on food as the issue to challenge and control.
As mentioned before, the real purpose of the child was to delay going to bed. It is no accident that he chose dinner time to meet this end.
Parents are usualyl pretty willing to not worry about a missed book or if teeth arent brushed or if a bath never happens. But not eating dinner causes anxiety. We want our children to go to bed with a nice full belly.
WE might try to act neutral about food but it is a bigger challenge to actually be neutral. And kids pick up on this.
We feel that this is one area in our kids lives that we cannot or should not set limits. We must feed them if they say they are hungry. (bathroom is the other, we must take them to teh bathroom when they say they have to go) Kids are super smart. And they know that while "I want to play a game" might not always get a response "I'm hungry" almost always does. Mom's anxiety about food coupled with a child's desire to exert control can create power struggles over food even in homes where every attempt is made to avoid power struggles over food.
It isnt always about hunger. And there is no shame in taking a stand and saying enough is enough.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Even with full free access to food it does not prevent or stop the control cycle.
My dd had full access to food and did this anyway. She woudl get a granola bar, open it. Then discard it. Get an apple, take a bite, throw it away.
The exact same power struggle can exist regardless of how the child gets the food.

I am sorry, but I am just not 'getting' it. The above sounds like the child is wasting food. It does not sound like a power struggle.

Okay, if my child does not want to go to bed, then I realize that and solve that issue. I do not turn it into a food issue.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
I am sorry, but I am just not 'getting' it. The above sounds like the child is wasting food. It does not sound like a power struggle.

Okay, if my child does not want to go to bed, then I realize that and solve that issue. I do not turn it into a food issue.

YEs the child is wasting food. WHich is why it is appropriate for parents to draw a boundary. It isnt a power struggle if the parents are ok with this much food being wasted.
And it is the CHILD who chooses if it is a food issue by choosing that situation to exercise control. Not the parents.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
I guess my only observation and question here then TripMom, and this is in a *genuine* spirit of helpfulness, is that if he did say he was hungry again at bedtime, and you said, "I'll go get you some cheese (or yogurt, or whatever small tidbit to tide him over)" that would literally take 2 minutes to run downstairs and do (so I am not suggesting preparing him a meal, just a ready to eat snack) - and I assume is something you would do for yourself, your husband, or a family member or friend visiting - and add in the 5 minutes it takes for him to eat it and then not be hungry, ends the power struggle and maybe makes food not a control issue for him and gets him to start eating dinner again. Woudl he eat the cheese, or whatever you offered or he asked for, or just keep asking for diferent things? I guess it comes down to trying to not make food a control or power issue for me, either, so I would probably find some way to diffuse it.

We have nipped the 'one more drink' thing at bedtime in the bud by ALWAYS supplying DS with a sports bottle full of cold water each night at his bedside - so there's no need to get up, he gets to drink when he's genuinely thirsty, and there is no "stalling" bedtime over it. It just automatically happens.

Maybe you could automatically bring up a plate of cheese and a couple crackers and say, I know you weren't hungry or couldn't decide what to eat at dinner - so I brought you this to tide you over until breakfast tomorrow - that way he has the opportunity to eat whatever it is if he really is hungry; if he then insists on other things, or doesn't like anything you siggest and cannot come up with his own solution, then I would wager that he really is in fact not hungry and by not engaging in it, you're doing the right thing.

That's the ONLY suggestion I would make. to automatically bring something healthy that he likes up to bedtime, and then it's his choice to eat it or not.

Actually, come to think of it, DS only had about 2 bites at dinner last night....so at bedtime, I brought a granola bar to bed in addition to his usual water, and told him, "since you hardly ate any dinner I thought you might be hungry now, you can have this to keep you until breakfast", and he ate it - so he was hungry. And he's not even 2 years old yet.

Anyway, hope this helps. Sorry it has gotten out of control.

Hey thanks - even though I wasn't really soliciting a suggestion on what I was doing - I like your idea. I already bring a water bottle up with us so he has something to drink if he's thirsty - I could also bring up a cheese stick or something. But honestly - the power struggle usually ends in the kitchen when I withdraw from the cycle. I don't recall DS ever asking me for food during the bath/bedtime part of the night. Its usually just at the dinner table that this happened - as part of the effort to delay bath/bedtime. Once we've actually started bath/bedtime - he lets this topic go.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicky2*
I guess I"m sucked in, lol....

The PP(by donosmommy) makes me think of something else. It is a good example of how everyone has different views about what is right and wrong for their own families. I personally would NEVER leave food by the bed and let them eat it anytime they wanted. I would be completely freaked out by the fact that all that food would just sit in their little mouths all night long, promoting cavities. That said, i don't think it's a 'wrong' solution, either. It is just not one I would consider for my family.

Yes!! THIS is what I'm talking about!! Respectfully discussing what works for each of our own families, saying why it would or wouldn't work for you, offering up other suggestions, and then either taking it or leaving it. No disrespect, no judgment, just talking about personal experiences. I LOVE it.









OK ladies, I need to go make dinner - but I knew we could get this back on track.







Wonder what tomorrow will hold for all of us?!?!?!?!?!


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
Okay, so here's what I'm puzzled about. When he said later (after you had cleaned up) that he was hungry - after you had finished re-offering him food - was your response that he could get something for himself or that he couldn't eat until breakfast?

I don't recall him asking me to eat during bath/bedtime. It ends in the kitchen. At somepoint I say - OK DS, then dinner is over -- and Once I diffuse the ask/reject cycle - by withdrawing from it - he hasn't really brought it up again. We just go through the rest of our nightly routine. Its not like all thru bath and bedtime he is begging me for food and I am denying it? Not at all.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
YEs the child is wasting food. WHich is why it is appropriate for parents to draw a boundary. It isnt a power struggle if the parents are ok with this much food being wasted.
And it is the CHILD who chooses if it is a food issue by choosing that situation to exercise control. Not the parents.

Maybe I don't understand because I have never felt the need to control another human being.
The only control/power a person has is over themselves.
It is, imo, a set-up for failure to even think it's possible to control another human being.

I will, also, admit that I have never had many of the problems ppl speak about on these boards or parenting books, etc.

I know I am not a perfect parent, but something must be working.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
I don't recall him asking me to eat during bath/bedtime. It ends in the kitchen. At somepoint I say - OK DS, then dinner is over -- and Once I diffuse the ask/reject cycle - by withdrawing from it - he hasn't really brought it up again. We just go through the rest of our nightly routine. Its not like all thru bath and bedtime he is begging me for food and I am denying it? Not at all.

LOL. well you might have gotten everybody off of yoru back sooner if you had mentioned that he wasnt asking for food at bedtime and being denied!
I think the opposite was the assumption made by most.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Even with full free access to food it does not prevent or stop the control cycle.
My dd had full access to food and did this anyway. She woudl get a granola bar, open it. Then discard it. Get an apple, take a bite, throw it away.
The exact same power struggle can exist regardless of how the child gets the food.

You are so Right Johub - because its not about the food - its about the power/control issue.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
Maybe I don't understand because I have never felt the need to control another human being.
The only control/power a person has is over themselves.
It is, imo, a set-up for failure to even think it's possible to control another human being.

I will, also, admit that I have never had many of the problems ppl speak about on these boards or parenting books, etc.

I know I am not a perfect parent, but something must be working.









I am very surprised to hear you say this because in this very thread you said your kids arent allowed to eat in their bedrooms or in bed. Which IS control.
You have mentioned many things that your children arent allowed to do. (ride bicycles without helmets. Play with magic markers etc. . .)
All of these things are your attempts to control your children.
Perhaps though you and I have different working definitions of the word control.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
LOL. well you might have gotten everybody off of yoru back sooner if you had mentioned that he wasnt asking for food at bedtime and being denied!
I think the opposite was the assumption made by most.

LOL me too! I just figured that out! I am amazed - but I guess people thought that he was begging for food from his bed - and I was denying it? That's not actually what happened. He disengages in the kitchen when I break the cycle. However - I can see this power struggle continuing in the bedroom (i.e. "I want food", "Here is a snack", "I don't want a snack", "OK, good night" "I want a snack", repeat) -- if so, I'd handle it the same way I handled it in the kitchen.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I am very surprised to hear you say this because in this very thread you said your kids arent allowed to eat in their bedrooms or in bed. Which IS control.
You have mentioned many things that your children arent allowed to do. (ride bicycles without helmets. Play with magic markers etc. . .)
All of these things are your attempts to control your children.
*Perhaps though you and I have different working definitions of the word control*.









Yes, perhaps that is it.
Making sure my children are safe, that they live in a cockroach-free home when it is a very real threat, are not issues I see as "controlling my children".

ETA: I do not think the city planner or government is trying to control me by making it clear that vehicles are only allowed to be driven on streets and not through ppl's yards or through the park, etc.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I am very surprised to hear you say this because in this very thread you said your kids arent allowed to eat in their bedrooms or in bed. Which IS control.
You have mentioned many things that your children arent allowed to do. (ride bicycles without helmets. Play with magic markers etc. . .)
All of these things are your attempts to control your children.
Perhaps though you and I have different working definitions of the word control.

















:

I have seen more than a few contradictions from MITB .. . .


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
LOL me too! I just figured that out! I am amazed - but I guess people thought that he was begging for food from his bed - and I was denying it? That's not actually what happened. He disengages in the kitchen when I break the cycle. However - I can see this power struggle continuing in the bedroom (i.e. "I want food", "Here is a snack", "I don't want a snack", "OK, good night" "I want a snack", repeat) -- if so, I'd handle it the same way I handled it in the kitchen.


My DS who is 2 has just started with a struggle like this at bedtime/naptime. it isnt food related but it is the SAME struggle! He used to always want his blanket pulled up over his head and over the headboard "like a tent". so I would kiss him goodnight and he would say "like a tent" while I pulled his blankets up like a tent.
Now after that he screams "no, not a tent", so I lay the blanket across his chest and say goodnight and he shouts "like a tent" he will do this ad nauseum if I dont just be the mean guy and say "if you dont want a tent you can pull it down yourself" or something like that.
Like a special, lets see mom jump game.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
Yes, perhaps that is it.
Making sure my children are safe, that they live in a cockroach-free home when it is a very real threat, are not issues I see as "controlling my children".

ETA: I do not think the city planner or government is trying to control me by making it clear that vehicles are only allowed to be driven on streets and not through ppl's yards or through the park, etc.


Yes but isnt that all any of us are trying to do? Keep our children safe healthy and happy? And in a roach free home?
In my house that requires an element of control.
As traffic laws are also a form of control.

eta. to delete OT subject of definitoin of "control" my apologies. This thread doesnt need any more baggage.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Now after that he screams "no, not a tent", so I lay the blanket across his chest and say goodnight and he shouts "like a tent" he will do this ad nauseum if I dont just be the mean guy and say "if you dont want a tent you can pull it down yourself" or something like that.
Like a special, lets see mom jump game.

I do not think you are being the "mean guy" when you are allowing your child to decide for himself if he wants the tent thing or not.
I, too, would not sit there all night making the tent. Now, I might ask my child if they needed my attention. Do they need some snugglin' and huggin' time?

The best parenting advice I got was to teach my children the difference between their wants and needs and how to effectively communicate those needs/wants.
Whether it's sign language or verbal, they all have been quite good at communicating their needs and wants, which helps all of us stay away from power struggles.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
It was scubamom not you captain, who stated that in her county withholding food was a criminal offense.

Please see post #63:

Quote:

FYI, the DSS of Gaston County, NC specifically identifies the withholding of food as an "investigatable issue" of abuse or neglect.

_A pattern of withholding water or food (with the exception of desserts, snacks, and candy) requires an investigative assessment. Forcing a child to consume excessive amounts of food or water can be dangerous. Forcing a child to consume an extreme amount of hot sauce, salt, pepper or nonfood item is not an appropriate form of discipline and depending upon the age and size of the child could be life threatening. Reports of this nature could be seen as meeting the criteria for a cruel/grossly inappropriate behavior modification investigative assessment, depending on the circumstances._
As I am now seeing this on another thread







Just to clarify, I never used the the words "criminal offense". Neither in this post, nor in relation to anyone at MDC. I referenced the DSS document to highlight that withholding food is a serious issue, even according to the law. I am sorry that so many feelings were hurt by the misunderstanding. I believe it is a serious issue that is important to explore and to look for alternative solutions that meet both the needs of the child and the needs of the parent. My intent is not to judge, but explore the issue and advocate for the child.

Pat


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
As traffic laws are also a form of control.
So I guess I really dont understand what control means to you if not these things.

Okay, if I am driving and no one is looking, I do not rip off my sealtbelt and proceed to drive on the beach just because i felt that I finally had control over my own actions, feelings, thoughts, and words.
I would not take my seatbelt off because that is risking my life, and I think that is termed 'suicidal'.

I value my life and I value my children's lives. IMO, if you do not value your own life, how can you value another's?


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Please see post #63:

As I am now seeing this on another thread







Just to clarify, I never used the the words "criminal offense". Neither in this post, nor in relation to anyone at MDC. I referenced the DSS document to highlight that withholding food is a serious issue, even according to the law. I am sorry that so many feelings were hurt by the misunderstanding. I believe it is a serious issue that is important to explore and to look for alternative solutions that meet both the needs of the child and the needs of the parent. My intent is not to judge, but explore the issue and advocate for the child.

Pat

You are right the term was "investagable issue" . My apologies I was indeed too lazy to go back and find the exact post. I dont see a significant difference betweent he two however.
Your "intent" aside. TO even bring up "withholding of food" in a circumstance when food was not being withheld in any way which would be legally recognized by even the very authority you quote is to equate apples with oranges, and imply abuse when none exists.
Offensive and judgmental to many of us I am sure.
Misunderstanding? no I dont think so. I think you were loud and clear.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

eta- deleted post, no need to go off on yet another tangent.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
eta- deleted post, no need to go off on yet another tangent.

Me too . . .


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Yes you are a grown up with self control. IS that what you are saying? you equate control with self control?

No. It is not self-control to want to preserve your life. IMO, human beings want to live. Learning how to stay safe is not even about control.

Taking a child's bike away is about control.
Teaching your child that a helmet is to be worn when riding a bike, is not about control, but about learning how to be safe.
Not giving the 13 month old a marker is not about control, but about not putting the baby in danger of choking or ingesting harmful chemicals.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

You could also give the baby a washable marker and sit with her, rather than just not letting her have it at all. Little ones naturally want to do what the older ones are doing and are allowed to explore in my house.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Clearly, there is nothing to say.

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Clearly, there is nothing to say
Well, I wanna say something. The OP gave a CLEAR description of a "natural consequence" in that she was okay with her child going hungry the rest of the night because he wouldn't eat during dinner or when food was offered shortly after because she believed he was engaging her in a power struggle and manipulating her to control her.

Quote:

We have a different approach - and this is right out of Positive Discipline - *if you don't eat your dinner during dinner time* (which is a tactic in my household commonly used to delay bath and bedtime) - *dinner ends at the appointed time - and you wait until the next meal to eat.* Its not done with any shaming or any "I told you so" - and a lot of sympathy is given to the child *and we try to focus on "OK DS - breakfast is the next meal* - should we make your favorite pancakes for breakfast?" etc. etc. *But the child is allowed to feel the natural consequences of not eating during mealtime - i.e. hungry*.

(Emphasis mine)

Cool. NOW, it is being spun like oh, he didn't request food at all or even mention it, so he didn't go to bed hungry, I just didn't cook him another meal. Clear spin doctoring going on. Obviously there must have been some cues of hunger, or requests for food, otherwise the "natural" consequence imposed would be moot...you can't have a consequence when there is no action or inaction to produce on (i.e. the child not being hungry or requesting food). The OP said clearly that she said to her son "the next meal is breakfast" and something along the lines of "the result of not eating at the designated time is that you have the natural consequence of being hungry until morning (to us not her child).... so that would lead any reasonable person to believe that if there is a consequence, there must be a need or want that isn't being met (ie: hunger or request for food) ...

Now it is being magically spun like food was offererd, he didn't eat, he was happy as a clam and went to bed without another word. That may be true, but then there was no "consequence" if he wasn't hungry or requesting food. Obviously, he must have been asking and/or hungry for the comments of "the next meal is breakfast" and for the OP to say the consequence of not eating at mealtime is hunger til morning.

To me, that is withholding food. I am not saying she is starving her child, but withholding food until morning is still something I would never do if my child expressed hunger and wanted something to eat. Obviously the OP is cool with it, so that is her business I guess.

...So what were we supposed to take from that quote? Namely the bolded parts???


----------



## Chicky2 (May 29, 2002)

I think this thread should be printed out by you mama's who have only one child so far. Read it again every 3 yrs or so and see how your views change.

Disclaimer.....not in any way, shape, or form trying to offend anyone or say you are any less of a parent just because you are only in the beginning of your parenting. I was there once myself.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
You could also give the baby a washable marker and sit with her, rather than just not letting her have it at all. Little ones naturally want to do what the older ones are doing and are allowed to explore in my house.

I threw all the markers away and each child, including the ten month old, has their own Magna doodle. Saves paper, saves trees, and I have a digital camera to take pics of their drawings, again, saving paper and unecessary chemicals.

I am not saying that is how every house should be, just sharing what my home is like.









There are park programs here that offer paints, clay, markers, etc. for artists. Some things I don't need to have in my home. Doesn't mean they don't have oppportunities to learn elsewhere.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I think this thread should be printed out by you mama's who have only one child so far. Read it again every 3 yrs or so and see how your views change
Being a mama of an only doesn't change certain strongly held beliefs...sure if I had 3 or 4 kids I may not be able to do everything...like sling them all at once, I get that... but there are a few things I wouldn't ever do. Withholding food until morning is one....

Spanking and such is another. I have heard that before too. "Oh it is easy to not spank when you have one child... wait until you have another..."


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
I threw all the markers away and each child, including the ten month old, has their own Magna doodle. Saves paper, saves trees, and I have a digital camera to take pics of their drawings, again, saving paper and unecessary chemicals.

I am not saying that is how every house should be, just sharing what my home is like.









There are park programs here that offer paints, clay, markers, etc. for artists. Some things I don't need to have in my home. Doesn't mean they don't have oppportunities to learn elsewhere.


We have magna doodles too. And an Aqua Doodle. This dd #3 got for Christmas. You fill the "marker" with water and it draws blue on the mat. When the mat dries, the picture disappears. The mat is large and we spread it on the kitchen floor to draw.

Mine would see getting rid of the markers as a punishment. THey love to draw with all different colors and mail pictures to their grandfather in Florida. Sometimes they have school projects that require using markers, crayons, colored pencils, etc. They have it all, just about every art thing you can imagine, we have. I love to encourage their creativity. They also have a 19 year old half sister, who is quite a talented artist. She would freak out if I didn't let them have all that stuff.







(She'd probably buy it for them, if I didn't)


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I am an artist too, and I have everything you can imagine in my *tool kit*...markers, pens, colored pencils, charcoal pencils, oil pastels, paint, watercolor, clay... the list goes on...

I really hope our daughter likes art because she will have a field day (me too, I love art!)

I couldn't imagine my daughter only having a magna doodle for her artistic outlet...but to each their own!


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
We have magna doodles too. And an Aqua Doodle. This dd #3 got for Christmas. You fill the "marker" with water and it draws blue on the mat. When the mat dries, the picture disappears. The mat is large and we spread it on the kitchen floor to draw.

Mine would see getting rid of the markers as a punishment. THey love to draw with all different colors and mail pictures to their grandfather in Florida. Sometimes they have school projects that require using markers, crayons, colored pencils, etc. They have it all, just about every art thing you can imagine, we have. I love to encourage their creativity. They also have a 19 year old half sister, who is quite a talented artist. She would freak out if I didn't let them have all that stuff.







(She'd probably buy it for them, if I didn't)

















That's cool! We are not very big on art, but huge on music. We have just about every musical instrument you can think of, including Aboriginal and NA instruments. My kids put on concerts.







Complete with hair-do's, outfits, and sequenced dance moves. They even include the baby, it is too cute!
They write all their own music, songs, and do all their own choreography. One of these days I am gonna figure out how to get video on the computer and share.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

It just goes to show how different we all are.
I have no qualms about telling my 3 year old that his next meal is breakfast if he refuses to eat anything at dinner (providing of course that I always serve at least one thing he likes) But I would consider them ill used indeed if they didnt have markers/crayons, paints, playdoh etc. in addition to their magna doodles. (although in the car, we do limit art to magna doodles)
It takes all kinds to make the world go round.
And none of our brains are wired just the same.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
It just goes to show how different we all are.
I have no qualms about telling my 3 year old that his next meal is breakfast if he refuses to eat anything at dinner (providing of course that I always serve at least one thing he likes)











Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
But I would consider them ill used indeed if they didnt have markers/crayons, paints, playdoh etc. in addition to their magna doodles.
It takes all kinds to make the world go round.
And none of our brains are wired just the same.

Just because they are not in the home, does not mean they never use them. They are extremely gifted artists and come from a long line of famous artists.
I would not call a family "ill-used" if they did not have several different musical instruments, as music is the heartbeat of my very culture.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
It just goes to show how different we all are.
I have no qualms about telling my 3 year old that his next meal is breakfast if he refuses to eat anything at dinner (providing of course that I always serve at least one thing he likes) But I would consider them ill used indeed if they didnt have markers/crayons, paints, playdoh etc. in addition to their magna doodles. (although in the car, we do limit art to magna doodles)
It takes all kinds to make the world go round.
And none of our brains are wired just the same.


We have the magna doodle only in the car rule too. This had to be instituted after daddy found melted crayons in the car in the summer! Mommy was in trouble that day!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*








Just because they are not in the home, does not mean they never use them. They are extremely gifted artists and come from a long line of famous artists.
I would not call a family "ill-used" if they did not have several different musical instruments, as music is the heartbeat of my very culture.

Indeed Mamaintheboonies. I do not consider YOUR family Ill used at all.
I only consider that MINE woudl be if that was the case.
I had hoped I had made the distinction clear that I was distinguishing my values as different from, yours, but no more or less valid.
This was not an attempt to debate but to accept that we are all indeed different, and have different values and what a splendid thign for the world that that is.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicky2*
I think this thread should be printed out by you mama's who have only one child so far. Read it again every 3 yrs or so and see how your views change.

Oh good grief. That is the most condescending, ridiculous remark.









Parenting is parenting. I've taken care of 4 children 4 and under full-time. It didn't change my style that much. This idea that you have to suddenly start denying your child food because he's 1 of 4 instead of 1 of 1 is just silly.

Tell you what: Those of you with many children who don't work outside of the house, why don't you print this out for when you get a job, go to graduate school, and parent all at the same time.

Silly, right? I think so, too.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
This idea that you have to suddenly start denying your child food because he's 1 of 4 instead of 1 of 1 is just silly.

Honestly . . . . . . . . we are still on the tripmom starves her children bandwagon . . . ?


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
"Oh it is easy to not spank when you have one child... wait until you have another..."

OMG! I would never use the fact that I had more than one child as a reason to justify spanking them? Please read the stickys . . . spanking discussion is not allowed here.

. . . . how does it feel?


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*








Just because they are not in the home, does not mean they never use them. They are extremely gifted artists and come from a long line of famous artists.
I would not call a family "ill-used" if they did not have several different musical instruments, as music is the heartbeat of my very culture.


MITB - how on earth were you able to criticize this post by Johub - so clearly intended to try and bring us all together after a very polarizing thread . . . .?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

. . . . how does it feel?
Wow, a nerve was struck eh?

Quote:

MITB how on earth were you able to criticize this post by Johub - so clearly intended to try and bring us all together after a very polarizing thread . . . .?
The same way you just did? I was responding to someone else about something completely different...oh and by the way, I did quote your ENTIRE post concerning you *discipline* techniques... I would appreciate you quoting my whole post if you want to make some kind of *point*.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
Honestly . . . . . . . . ???

Yes, honestly. I don't understand this idea that your child's quality of life has to go down because you choose to have more children or that your basic principles of child-rearing (i.e., core ideas pertaining to respect, etc.) have to shift. I'm sure there are growing pains, things will get out of whack for awhile. But to justify certain less than gentle practices as necessary just because you have more than one child?

For the majority of the past few years, I've been working 2 to 3 jobs at any given time, going to law school, and doing various volunteer and community projects. I also went through a divorce last year and have had some health problems that have made life more stressful. All those things have thrown us off and all have made parenting more difficult. But it's my #1 priority to make sure I continue to treat my son with respect and raise him in a manner consistent with my principles. I guess it would be easier to say, "Sorry kid, I've got too many other things to contend with, too many other things demanding my attention... I just can't give you what you need." I just can't imagine doing that. And I'd hope that if I did, someone would remind me that my job as a parent is to make sure that my child has 100%, even if it means I have to give 557% total.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Wow, a nerve was struck eh?









To say the least . . . . ?


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Wow, a nerve was struck eh?

The same way you just did? I was responding to someone else about something completely different...oh and by the way, I did quote your ENTIRE post concerning you *discipline* techniques... I would appreciate you quoting my whole post if you want to make some kind of *point*.

The point I was making about spanking. You should keep your spanking inclinations to yourself. This is a GD board and we do not want to engage in any discussions about spanking.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
MITB - how on earth were you able to criticize this post by Johub - so clearly intended to try and bring us all together after a very polarizing thread . . . .?

It was not clear that she was speaking of just her family. it sounded like she thought that *any* family who did not provide drawing utensils was "ill-used".

Some families cannot afford such items and their children have grown to be quite famous artists.









I have learned that if a child wants to draw, they will no matter what is or is not available. Same with music, writing, and creating art.

For a long time pots, pans, spoons, doors, walls, rubberbands on shoeboxes, were all my children had for instruments.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Wow, I know you can read because you sure post like you can. For your reference....

Quote:

Being a mama of an only doesn't change certain strongly held beliefs...sure if I had 3 or 4 kids I may not be able to do everything...like sling them all at once, I get that... but there are *a few things I wouldn't ever do. Withholding food until morning is one....*
*Spanking and such is another.* I have heard that before too. "Oh it is easy to not spank when you have one child... wait until you have another..."
...is what I actually typed. It doesn't change what YOU actually typed. Your son will have the natural consequence of going hungry until morning if he chooses not to eat at dinner and *controls you* by asking for food while you are cleaning up. Yes, I still believe that is wrong and no amount of sarcasm or insult or misquotes will change that.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicky2*
I think this thread should be printed out by you mama's who have only one child so far. Read it again every 3 yrs or so and see how your views change.

Disclaimer.....not in any way, shape, or form trying to offend anyone or say you are any less of a parent just because you are only in the beginning of your parenting. I was there once myself.

Why would having only one kid have anything to do with being at the "beginning of your parenting"? I have one kid, but I've spent 13 years parenting...

dar


----------



## Chicky2 (May 29, 2002)

Dragonfly said:


> Oh good grief. That is the most condescending, ridiculous remark.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

