# Is child punishment ever necessary?



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I'm a big fan of Alfie Kohn and I really try to avoid punishment in any circumstance. I say "try to" because I don't intentionally punish but life seems to punish from time to time and it isn't always practical or possible to stop it, and I feel like by not intervening more there's still some punishment going on. I do intervene when I can and it isn't impractical, but I don't go crazy trying to keep anything bad from happening. I do feel like "natural consequences" if I could easily keep them from happening are still a kind of punishment I guess and I work to avoid that but I have mixed results.

But anyway, I do try not to punish, at least I actively try to avoid it and look for other ways to handle problems. Does anyone else try to avoid punishing? Do you think it's unrealistic to not punish? Do you think it's possible? Is punishment necessary in some circumstances?


----------



## Nightwish (Sep 9, 2008)

For our family, it was not necessary.
I go by the principle that children are people, and I wouldn't treat them any differently than I would want to be treated.
So I don't do naughty step, 1, 2, 3 magic, stickers, or any method that would put me in control of their behaviour.

Agree with you mamazee, sometimes it's difficult to see the difference between punishment and consequence. Consequence seems to be the new trendy word in child rearing books; I even read recently instructions on how to "issue" a consequence... obviously, if you have to "issue" one, we're talking about punishment.

When i'm in doubt, i think of Barbara Coloroso's definition: punishment is used to control kids' behaviour and make them mind.

But conequences are necessary, sometimes it's the only way they learn. "No dinner until you wash your hands!" My 3 y.o. refused today and I just put an empty plate in front of her, so she ran to the bathroom to wash her hands.


----------



## alexisfaye (Mar 8, 2010)

short of sending me to Kohn's website, can you explain the premise? I'm big into respecting my kids. I think of them as little people, but punishment is inherent in my life as an adult… if I pick my nose in public, nobody will shake my hand, and they will tell other people I am gross. If I speed, I get a ticket. That statement about punishment versus consequence may be the linchpin here. But I feel that part of parenting is to "create" consequences. If I don't do so, or punish for unacceptable behavior, the punishment that the world at large hands out will be much less respectful and measured… and at some point I can't intervene.


----------



## Cathlin (Apr 4, 2012)

For us it's "discipline". It can't be an arbitrary "you behaved contrary to my will and now you will be punished!". It's "This is what I expect of you. This is the reminder of what I expect of you. This is what the consequence will be." *then* there's the consequence. Especially for things like staying out of the street, don't touch the stove, so on. That's loving them.


----------



## HilaryB (Aug 1, 2013)

Communication is key and I have found that the tools for loving communications are in Positive Discipline from Dr.Jane Nelson. Her methods are respectful, attached, kind and firm.

There are 6 session classes all over the world and they make a difference. Worth checking out.


----------



## vermontgirl (Aug 15, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nightwish*
> 
> But conequences are necessary, sometimes it's the only way they learn. "No dinner until you wash your hands!" My 3 y.o. refused today and I just put an empty plate in front of her, so she ran to the bathroom to wash her hands.


That is brilliant. Thanks so much for that.


----------



## vermontgirl (Aug 15, 2006)

I am somewhere inbetween mindsets. Definitely interested in hearing more mama thoughts on this. This is a great topic to discuss!

I will say that I am painfully aware of children who obviously are allowed to do whatever they want with no consequences. I don't think that is to be admired, and I find those children to be incredibly unappealing. I don't OVER discipline, but there are definite consequences to negative choices. I am an if_____than_____ parent. If you can't use table manners, you will leave the table. If you cannot speak to me with respect, you will go sit on your bed. If you don't help me to clean up the toys, you will not get to choose a story for me to read. If you don't keep your hands off of your sister, I will have to separate you. That sort of thing. I also really believe in talking about feelings. "You know, when you told me that I was stupid, it really made me feel frustrated because I really don't like that word." And there are definite consequences to using a word like stupid that we have decided does not belong in our home. And of course, there is some behaviour (unless it hurts others) that is ok to ignore because it is meant to get negative attention and I would MUCH rather give them positive attention. I love randomly grabbing my children and hugging them tight and saying, "Do you have any idea how incredibly special you are? Mama loves you SO much!"

P.S. an above poster said that they don't use sticker charts because they like to treat their children like people. We have used sticker charts for things and given rewards and you know what, it worked WONDERFULLY to work towards better habits. Children are people, but they are at a different level in life than grownups, and I think it is perfectly fine for a child and a grownup to have a different way of reaching goals. We are different. I think it is important actually for children to know that children and adults are different.

It is a fine line. I don't want my children to walk on egg shells or feel angry because they are being punished all the time, but I do want them to grow up to know that there are consequences, and that I do expect positive behaviour and good manners and that in life they will always get better results with positive behaviour.


----------



## Racecarma (Oct 26, 2004)

I agree with consequences. In life, there are always consequences for bad behavior and to avoid teaching this is to leave them ill prepared for the real world.

Today my 4 year old son (who knows right from wrong and not to hit) deliberately took his sand shovel and whacked another younger child right on his head. To have done nothing at all would be wrong . 1. The other mom was mouth-wide-open; "OMG" 2. My son is standing there about ready to do it again 3. In the real/adult world, if you whacked your co-worker on the head with a shovel or say, your stapler....well let's just say that would NOT fly.

So, he was told to apologize and he was removed from the play area to sit for a while. Not being able to participate in play and do what he wanted for a few minutes. I explained to him that he was removed from play as a consequence of hurting someone. After a few minutes of "thinking time" he was reminded that we don't hit other people and if he did this again we would have to leave the playground and go home immediately. So, call it whatever trendy word-of-the-day you want to call it but this "punishment or consequence" is necessary to raise good children.

Sorry if it offends people but I am "old school" when it comes to preparing kids for reality. While I do not believe we should engage in corporal punishment of any kind, I do think we must show them right from wrong and sometimes that means they must be disciplined.

We are not doing justice to our kids by ignoring or glossing over poor behavior. While we do need to raise children with positive self image and to be happy, we don't need to raise children to think that they can do anything they please and not have a negative consequence. That will only create children with an entitlement mind set ("it's my right to do anything I please") and add to the ever growing population of FB/Twitter-maniacal, self-centered, egotistical behavior that has become all too rampant today.


----------



## vermontgirl (Aug 15, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nightwish*
> 
> For our family, it was not necessary.
> I go by the principle that children are people, and I wouldn't treat them any differently than I would want to be treated.
> So I don't do naughty step, 1, 2, 3 magic, stickers, or any method that would put me in control of their behaviour.


I just wanted to interject and say that a sticker chart definitely gives a child in control, which is why it is effective in some cases. I don't know about the other methods you mentioned but I have used a sticker chart for nighttime choices and got great results with children who felt great about the outcomes. In fact, they designed it. We took a piece of black construction paper and for each child there was a line with boxes. They cut out yellow moons (some full moons and some half) and they were in control of it. I didn't make a big deal either way. In the morning we would check in and they would tell me what they earned for themselves. If they slept through the night in their beds without waking us (unless they needed help changing their sheets or something big like that) they got a half moon and if they had good morning manners (let everyone else sleep) they got another half moon. So some mornings they rewarded themselves a half moon, sometimes a full and rarely none. They were in charge of glueing the moon on in the morning, and they chose the reward. After ten moons they got an icecream sunday night. I will tell you, we only did it twice, and we never shamed them if they didn't get a moon.


----------



## HilaryB (Aug 1, 2013)

Sometimes there is an immediate action that you desire to achieve and sometimes you can ask questions.

The empowerment opportunity exists in the form of asking for what you want , instead of telling your kids what to do.

For example, ask your child: What do you need to to before you eat so your hands are not icky and dirty?

And if your kiddo needs a little connection before you "ask, not tell" maybe say something like...

'I bet you had fun playing in the dirt -- What do you need to do before eating so your hands are ready to use for dinner?"

Even though these questions are not as quick and easy as just telling our kids what to do, there are long term benefits to using coaching questions when conditions are safe and daily skills are desired.


----------



## jemmaserene (Jan 17, 2013)

Tis is an idea that I have been struggling with recently. I just finished the book P.E.T. Parent Effectiveness Training by Thomas Gordon. I really felt good about his take on parent/child relationships. My upbringing of course gets in the way all the time. I want to treat my children with respect and trust that they will make decisions that are socially acceptable, but I find myself getting frustrated and lecturing, yelling, reprimanding at certain times of the month and during tired, stressful times. I work on this every day as I believe in peaceful parenting.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alexisfaye*
> 
> short of sending me to Kohn's website, can you explain the premise? I'm big into respecting my kids. I think of them as little people, but punishment is inherent in my life as an adult&#8230; if I pick my nose in public, nobody will shake my hand, and they will tell other people I am gross. If I speed, I get a ticket. That statement about punishment versus consequence may be the linchpin here. But I feel that part of parenting is to "create" consequences. If I don't do so, or punish for unacceptable behavior, the punishment that the world at large hands out will be much less respectful and measured&#8230; and at some point I can't intervene.


Alfie Kohn believes that punishment and rewards (as rewards are like the flip coin of punishments, a punishment in reverse) teach children to do things for external reasons rather than internal reasons, and that they can make children feel like our love for them is conditional. He has a book called Unconditional Parenting that I read and I enjoyed.

I don't personally feel like they are NECESSARY to create children who are pleasant to be around (and mine are quite nice, even the younger one although she has a pretty easy personality anyway) but I don't think using punishment necessarily makes children feel that they aren't unconditionally loved either. Maybe harsh and frequent punishments, but not punishment the way I've heard moms here talk about them.

He writes a great deal about schools and education, and also doesn't like competition in schools or praise of the "good job" sort.

I guess overall his idea is that we should always "work with" kids rather than "do to" kids. Look at what is happening behind the behavior instead of focusing on the behavior.


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

I have a question: I always try to not use punishment, but yesterday my son punched the TV with his fist! He's three. My husband really wants to tell him he can't watch TV for the rest of the day if he hits or throws anything at it because it is so dangerous. I'm not comfortable with this. I spoke with our DS and so did my husband. He seemed to grasp why it's not a good idea to hit the TV and he said he was sorry. What do you guys think? I don't want to hijack the thread but this is along the same lines we are discussing here. I'm happy to start a new thread if you think I should, mamazee.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Didn't it hurt his hand? It seems like that would keep him from doing it again. With one of my kids, we put a bit of a barricade in front of the TV for a while when she was rough with it, but we didn't punish.

I think it's fine to ask here but you might get more responses if you start a fresh thread. Go with what feels right as far as that goes.


----------



## akgirls (Feb 10, 2008)

We've always had three house rules posted on the wall: Be kind, Be truthful. Show respect. If there is a behavior that is repetitive and goes against one of these rules the person with the behavior writes the behavior they would like to practice for the week (with help if too young) and what they are going to do if they're having trouble following the behavior. An example:

"I will speak calmly when I'm angry."

if I can't I will...

"Go sit in my room until I'm calm."

This is literally what my 5 year old has written for this week. She's had to come back to this behavior a few times in her life, but it works because she is in control of the change, not me. The child has to come up with the plan for this to work.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alexisfaye*
> 
> short of sending me to Kohn's website, can you explain the premise? I'm big into respecting my kids. I think of them as little people, but punishment is inherent in my life as an adult&#8230; if I pick my nose in public, nobody will shake my hand, and they will tell other people I am gross. If I speed, I get a ticket. That statement about punishment versus consequence may be the linchpin here. But I feel that part of parenting is to "create" consequences. If I don't do so, or punish for unacceptable behavior, the punishment that the world at large hands out will be much less respectful and measured&#8230; and at some point I can't intervene.


The difference between your example (getting a ticket for speeding - which is indeed punishment) and punishing your child for "misbehaving", is that I don't have (nor do I want to have) a relationship with the policeman who fines me, but I do have and want a relationship with my child. A better example would be: would I want my husband to punish me because I didn't do something he asked - even if it's a reasonable request... Let's imagine, for the sake of comparison that he asks me to pick him up from work, as he's not driving, and I refuse. A punishment would be that he takes away my computer or locks me in my room (which is silly and/or disrespectful). A consequence would be that next time when I want a favour from him, he won't be so happy to oblige.


----------



## Nightwish (Sep 9, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vermontgirl*
> 
> P.S. an above poster said that they don't use sticker charts because they like to treat their children like people. We have used sticker charts for things and given rewards and you know what, it worked WONDERFULLY to work towards better habits. Children are people, but they are at a different level in life than grownups, and I think it is perfectly fine for a child and a grownup to have a different way of reaching goals. We are different. I think it is important actually for children to know that children and adults are different.
> 
> It is a fine line. I don't want my children to walk on egg shells or feel angry because they are being punished all the time, but I do want them to grow up to know that there are consequences, and that I do expect positive behaviour and good manners and that in life they will always get better results with positive behaviour.


To respond to your observation, stickers and rewards don't sit well *with me*. I have NO DOUBT that they work. Many things work as far as discipline is concerned, but I still wouldn't do them. What I mean by treating them as people, is that I wouldn't give a sticker or a reward to my dh or my parents or my friends for behaving in what I deem acceptable manner, so I wouldn't do it to my children.

(Not saying that I find the method reprehensible. I tried once or twice but quickly gave up *because* it worked. I didn't like the feeling that ds was so excited to please me and make sure that I saw he was behaving the way I requested. I wanted him to do the right thing because it's right, not because I'm watching or he gets a golden star for it.)

Again, not saying that what I do is the right and only way to discipline. Just my point of view.


----------



## pixieprincss (Jul 11, 2011)

.


----------



## pandd06 (Feb 3, 2011)

First off, let me clarify that the unconditional/gentle parenting model is not a permissive model. Aha Parenting has a great article on this.

Let's take the sandbox situation above. In Alfie Kohn-land you absolutely would intervene and not allow the boy to hit the baby. But, rather than forcing an apology or a secluded time-out, the caregiver would take a "time in" with the child and find out the reason behind the action and then coach the child to address that appropriately, for example: use words like, "You are in my way. Please move," ask adult for help if the baby doesn't respond, take a deep breath to calm down, move yourself since we cannot move others, etc.

My 2.5 year-old just finished up a nasty aggressive phase. Bad. Like biting and shoving strangers, as well as his baby brother. When we dug at the issue we discovered several things: his baby brother is teething and demonstrating biting and crawling and getting into his stuff, he is going through an oral phase although he has all of his teeth and he just needs something to chew on, he has been feeling angry (normal for the age) and did not know how to articulate it. Rather than punish him, we kept both he and his brother safe when the angry moments welled up while we talked it through. We got some kids' book on anger and read them together. We practiced using words to ask an adult for help to calm down. We sent him to playdates with "biting keys" so he could bite those instead of others, we practiced yelling, "I'm angry," we practiced deep breathing, etc. Eventually he chilled out.

In all honesty, the biting phase may have taken 2-3 weeks to get through with spanking, or time outs, or gentle discipline. But, with our method we walked away with a little boy who is growing life skills that he can use on his own rather than needing an adult to patrol him. He can now recognize and articulate his feelings a bit better. He knows that even when he messes up, we'll still face life together. In watching me stay calm, he saw a real-life example of what it looks like when we deal with anger through articulation instead of force. (I assure you, it was VERY hard to stay calm! I grew a lot, too.) Also, we got to experience the joy of hearing genuine, unprompted apologies--another skill he got to learn.

When I first started reading Kohn, I couldn't palate him. But, the more I see his method work not only on my kids but the kids I work with professionally, I get more and more on board.


----------



## breastbabyclc (Aug 2, 2013)

I love natural consequences but they aren't always effective or practical in every situation. My 2 year old absolutely hates holding our hand when we are walking outside. We don't usually make her if we feel like it's a safe enough environment but if we are in a busy shopping center parking lot we simply cannot allow her to make her own choice in this context. She has to either hold our hand, or be carried, or sit in the shopping cart. She may not roam freely about the parking lot (which is the ONLY choice that she is happy with). I'm not sure if it's considered "punishment" to make her do something she doesn't want to do (she is all the while kicking and screaming and throwing a tantrum because we don't allow her to walk freely) but that is what we have to do in that situation.

We did start giving her the freedom to walk down the driveway on her own and climb into the car seat on her own, she was doing really well with it but recently she got a wild hair and decided to take off running as fast as she could possibly run, she bolted into the street and we were literally chasing her down the middle of the street. When I caught her she had her freedom taken away and had to get carried (kicking and screaming) to her car seat. That is the kind of behavior where we cannot rely on natural consequences...We have to enforce a consequence (which is that she has lost the privilege of walking independently to the car until we decide she should have another chance to show that control). Yes, we still had a calm discussion with her (once she calmed down) and told her that she scared mommy and that she needs to always stop when mommy says stop so that mommy can keep her safe...but that talk alone isn't going to keep her from doing it again, she's not there yet. She's not ready to handle that kind of freedom (I've heard some people say things like "listen to your child and they will tell you what they want, what they need, what they are ready for etc..." well, I'm sorry but a 2 year old does not have the capacity to know when they are mentally and developmentally ready to walk with discretion out into the middle of the street--when they take off running down the middle of that street as you are telling them to stop--they are telling you that they aren't ready for that kind of responsibility).

In my opinion that is one of the core principle's of parenting...yes they deserve to be treated with love, respect and kindness but they are also immature and irresponsible (we all start out that way, it's not a flaw or an insult-it's simply they way we start out) and until they can exercise certain amounts of self control and good judgement we have to keep them safe and lovingly enforce boundaries and yes sometimes even consequences. I don't see that as crushing their spirit or treating them as "lesser" beings than ourselves. It's preparing and equipping them for the world that we live in. It's the same for adults...there are certain boundaries and limits that we are expected to live by and if we choose not to, we will have consequences (some natural, others enforced) and that's just the way it is and the same goes for rewards. If my husband is respectful to his boss, shows up to work on time, & performs his responsibilities to the best of his ability he will probably get to keep his job and likely be rewarded with a pay raise at his annual review. If he decides that he doesn't feel like being around people this week because he needs some "me time" and doesn't show up to work, or if he decides that he wants to stay up until 2:00 a.m. and then the next day realizes that he really needs to catch up on his sleep and shows up to work at 11:00 a.m. he won't be working there very much longer. And I do believe he wants to have a relationship with his boss. A professional one, but still a relationship indeed. If that relationship is terminated then it would be a trickle effect of consequences (loss of job for him, not a good reference making it difficult to find another job, financial hardship on his family which in turn can create stress in the marriage....you get the idea....and all because he acted on his feelings rather than doing what he was "expected" to do from an authority figure)


----------



## NikkiLeeHealth (Aug 2, 2013)

After raising two daughters, I say NO.

What is important is to give children consequences of their actions, so they have real learning. Examples: "You took your seat belt off. I don't drive unless every one is wearing their seat belt. I have stopped the car and will wait until you put your seat belt on to keep driving." "I told you that if you slammed your bedroom door one more time, I would take it away. As you just slammed your bedroom door again, I am now taking it off the hinges." "I don't feel like going out now, because the kitchen is a mess. If you help me clean it up, we can go out sooner."

No threats. No punishments. Real consequences.

Always keep in mind that small children need lots of good food often, because they are growing and their metabolism is faster than adults. No one behaves well when hungry or tired or thirsty.

@NikkiLeeHealth

www.breastfeedingalwaysbest.com


----------



## breastbabyclc (Aug 2, 2013)

What if you can't stop the car and wait for them to make the right choice? I can't always pull over in our metro area. We have tollways that cost money to get on and off of, traffic jams, and other circumstances where you literally cannot just pull over.

In the situation where I "Could" pull over, I don't always have the time to wait for my children to choose safety over fun. If we are going to the doctor, or to another appointment that we are expected to be at promptly I doubt my kids would care if I started driving again anytime soon. Just saying, it can't always be about them and their "right to choose". I for one would not have the respect of anyone in my life if I constantly made it "all about my kids" and showed a disregard for other peoples valuable time. And I would feel like the only thing that I was teaching my kids would be that they are in control of not only themselves but of me as well.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

I try to avoid punishment. But that doesn't mean I let my kids do whatever they want. I often insist that they do what I want them to do (brush their teeth, pick up their clothes, take a shower.) Sometimes when I'm trying to get my kid to do something he doesn't want to do I find myself saying, "Do X or Y will happen" because it feels like I need that threat to motivate the kid. But actually, I've found that it works just as well if I leave off the threat and just continue to insist that I need the kid to do X.

If my kid does something I find unacceptable, I may not punish him but that doesn't mean I just ignore the behavior and let him keep doing it all he wants. If my kid hit another kid with a shovel, you can bet I'd stop that right away, let the kid know it was totally unacceptable, and do what I could to make sure it didn't happen again. But I can do all that without imposing any punishment. I think punishing a kid often just makes him feel sorry for himself and/or angry about the punishment and takes the focus away from the wrongness of what he did and how it affected other people.

Of course, when my kid does something like hit another kid, he does usually end up getting punished in a way, even if I don't deliberately impose a punishment like timeout or leaving the park. If I get mad, or act shocked or disappointed, that's a punishment. And that kind of punishment is really unavoidable. Some of the things your kids do are going to make you mad and you're not always going to be able to hide it. You probably wouldn't want to hide it even if you could. Kids need to learn how other people feel about being hit, or having their things broken, or being lied to. I suppose you could say your angry reaction is a natural consequence and not a punishment, but it has the same effect as a punishment.

For anyone who's skeptical about the no-punishment, no-reward idea, but interested enough to want to read more about it, I highly recommend Unconditional Parenting. It made a lot of sense to me.


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *breastbabyclc*
> 
> What if you can't stop the car and wait for them to make the right choice? I can't always pull over in our metro area. We have tollways that cost money to get on and off of, traffic jams, and other circumstances where you literally cannot just pull over.
> 
> In the situation where I "Could" pull over, I don't always have the time to wait for my children to choose safety over fun. If we are going to the doctor, or to another appointment that we are expected to be at promptly I doubt my kids would care if I started driving again anytime soon. Just saying, it can't always be about them and their "right to choose". I for one would not have the respect of anyone in my life if I constantly made it "all about my kids" and showed a disregard for other peoples valuable time. And I would feel like the only thing that I was teaching my kids would be that they are in control of not only themselves but of me as well.


In circumstances like that, when I feel that something *has* to be done I offer the choices "do you want to do it or shall I do it for you?" It still gives them some control but makes it clear that the action is not a negotiable one. And I only ask the question once, I don't spend 5 minutes asking her. If she says "do it myself" then I say "ok, off you go" or some similar prompt. If she doesn't do it then I immediately do it for her, no further discussion.


----------



## NikkiLeeHealth (Aug 2, 2013)

Teaching consequences also means respecting your feelings as well as theirs. "I don't want to go to the movie anymore; I don't feel like it after our last discussion. Go find something else to do this evening. I want to do other things."

It also means children seeing you upset with consequences. "Why is daddy in a bad mood?" "He got a speeding ticket."

On one of our neighorhood streets, I did stop on the road instantly. Cars piled up behind us. Tension rose. "I can't drive unless everyone has their seatbelt on." She eventually put hers on, although it felt like it took hours, it was probably 60 seconds.

There is nothing easy or perfect about raising little humans; humans are complex, no matter what their age. Child raising is about bringing children into a social structure; they have to be supported in this (making sure they are fed, watered, and rested).

I insisted that my toddler hold my hand in the parking lot, otherwise she could end up like "mashed potatoes". Having seen me make mashed potatoes, this analogy made sense to her, and she made a little song, "No mashed potatoes Vanessa" as she reached for my hand.

With my oldest, and my nearly obsessive desire to be the perfect mother that my own mother was not, I believed that if I met her needs, she would naturally grow up to be perfect person. I thought if I set boundaries, she would feel about me the way I felt about my own mother. HAH! We are still both recovering from that, decades later. With my second, I learned to be comfortable setting boundaries, and reacting appropriately if they were broken.

When boundaries are clear and reasonable, there are consequences for breaking them. This is different to punishment for not breaking them. I drive at a safe speed through neighborhoods because I value safety, not because I am afraid of a ticket.

I think that homeschooling also helped with my second; my first went through the school system that adds a degree of tension, worry, and lack of respect to life. With my oldest, I gave her a mental health day every month. She could choose to stay home one day a month if she felt like it. I didn't pretend that her teachers were wonderful and that all the work made sense.

Speaking truth with a loving heart makes relationships easier. And, I have to say, there is a degree of luck.


----------



## NikkiLeeHealth (Aug 2, 2013)

As parenting is so individual, there is never one recipe. You evolve your own style, based on so many things. I am sharing some of the things that I did.

When I made a mistake, I took responsibility for it. That is important for children to see. I also referred to myself as "I" when I was talking with my children, because it always bothered me when a mother would say to her chlild "Give it to mommy" when she meant "Give it to me". I never understood the value of speaking about one's self in the 3rd person as part of daily discourse. Perhaps this is confusing to a child?

Picking battles is important. I only ever disagreed enough to protest about a few outfits my daughters wanted to wear. 99% of the time, they wore what they wanted from the clothes I bought them. They were the ones that had to deal with the consequence of how they were perceived, not me. I would fight about the seat belt though.

Maybe fighting for an important principle is different to punishment?

I've seen a mother buffalo kick her calf away from her when it kept banging its head on her udder. There was no punishment, just a swift and proportionate reaction. My second baby kept biting me when nursing. She was about 7 months old. She wouldn't stop. I tried everything that La Leche League and all my friends suggested. It didn't work. Finally, one day I swatted her on the thigh after a bite, like swatting a fly away. No threat, just immediate and appropriate reaction. This got her attention. She never bit me again. I was desperate to get her to stop because I wanted to keep our breastfeeding relationship going and nothing was working. My reaction worked and we nursed for over 5 years.

Maybe we need a definition of punishment in this dialogue, because the words "never" and "always" are such extreme ones?

@NikkiLeeHeatlh


----------



## mary934 (Mar 9, 2011)

a teen kicked a ball that hit a teacher in the face and the teacher fell . the teen ran away , why

parents and teachers are the last to know if kids screw up - why

because punishment teaches kids to be immoral and not be caught - moral behavior means offering the teacher help , the fear of punishment teaches otherwise

in a world of values , parents and teachers should be there for kids to help them get back on track , solve problems in a collaborative way and encourage them to engage in an autonomous way in the moral act of restitution or making amends instead of imposing consequences on them . Punishment does not help kids to ask what type of person I want to be , instead what's it it for me , what pays - the real world is full of people - enron - etc who think of the consequences for themselves , usually a quick buck . How do you want to prepare your kids for the real world - give them the skills to articulate their concerns and perspectives, engage in collaborative problem solving finding mutually satisfying solutions or being compliant because of punishment . Imho giving kids cps skills and how to foster trust and relationships would help them in the real world more than teaching compliance.


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *breastbabyclc*
> 
> What if you can't stop the car and wait for them to make the right choice? I can't always pull over in our metro area. We have tollways that cost money to get on and off of, traffic jams, and other circumstances where you literally cannot just pull over.
> 
> In the situation where I "Could" pull over, I don't always have the time to wait for my children to choose safety over fun. If we are going to the doctor, or to another appointment that we are expected to be at promptly I doubt my kids would care if I started driving again anytime soon. Just saying, it can't always be about them and their "right to choose". I for one would not have the respect of anyone in my life if I constantly made it "all about my kids" and showed a disregard for other peoples valuable time. And I would feel like the only thing that I was teaching my kids would be that they are in control of not only themselves but of me as well.


If it's a safety issue, it would be all about my kids. Buy anyway.....

First I would try to pull over, or stop, even in traffic if it's safe enough. If not, then I would channel my grandfather and not mince words. "If we get into an accident with you unbuckled you will fly through the front window and be dead." Assuming, of course, it is the likely scenario, not stop-and-go or slow traffic in which case I would use equally dire but more likely scenarios. AND you will not get to ride in the car next time. However inconvenient it is for me, I will wait until I can drive without you in the car to do my errands.

This is probably "punishment" because it's being threatened and not a direct consequence. ??? But it is absolutely genuine and connected. It doesn't matter to me whether semantics fall on the side of "consequence" or "punishment" here. Certainly making momma scared enough to shriek her lungs out has to be a natural consequence! But if this scenario is punishment, well, I'm OK with that.

Is it ever necessary? First you would have to parse out the definition with exactness, and I personally doubt that's possible.

ETA: In the park scenario mentioned, I would absolutely fall on the side of a time-in. But what if the behavior doesn't stop after mommy so lovingly steps in? I'd leave the park. With the kid, of course. But what if she doesn't want to come and physically protests? It's all about what to do when they don't comply and don't comply and then... don't comply!


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I think it's worth noting again that not punishing doesn't mean not having any boundaries. It just means not enforcing boundaries with punishment. "We will eat after you wash your hands" isn't a punishment, but "If you don't wash your hands you won't get any dessert after dinner" is. You can see why I said that what is a punishment gets confusing though, which is why I said I try not to punish and don't set out to punish, because just living life includes stuff happening kids don't want and I'm sure they feel punished by things I don't intend as punishment.

But my kids don't run free. They have plenty of expectations. I just don't enforce those expectations by punishing when they don't do what I want, or threatening a punishment, or even rewarding when they do something I do want. I don't drive the car if someone's seat belt isn't fastened. That is simple safety. If I said, "If you don't fasten your seatbelt by the time I count to three, we won't go to the movie" then it would be a punishment. But I'd feel fine just waiting until a seatbelt was fastened. I certainly wouldn't drive a car if one of my kids wasn't safe in it.

I wouldn't swat a kid for biting when nursing either. But I have a natural reaction to being bit and I'm sure my "Ouch!" and taking a baby off my breast to see how bad the bite is feels like a punishment even if I don't intend it to be one.

"I don't feel like going to the movies anymore because of your behavior" does feel like a punishment to me. Yes, kids' behavior might make me feel upset, but acting upon it in that way isn't a natural consequence, it's a choice.

I guess the difference between punishing and not punishing is intent, because when it's done, if I didn't want it to happen and it happened anyway I remain on my kids' "side" the whole time. "Oh, that's disappointing. We don't have time to get to the movie now. I wonder if there's time to get to a later one, or if we can go another day." Where a punishment puts you and your child on different "sides." It's about your choice to do something negative to them, or to allow something negative to happen to them.

I don't think choosing not to intentionally punish is the only option, but I do think it's a viable way of parenting.


----------



## Marmee (Jan 17, 2013)

I struggle with explaining the way "no punishment" works. It is a hard concept to verbalize for me (not sure why). My children are now 14 and 10 and we have been at this for a long time. We lived through the all the early stages of child dev. and stuck to the Alfie Kohn-ish method. We set up boundaries in the form of a prepared environment when they were small. We very much expected that a 2 year old would act 2 and planned accordingly. For example, having a bedtime that was reasonable, having protein snacks available, having age appropriate expectations and toys.

We also learned a lot about "emotional coaching" and worked with them to express "big feelings" without hurting themselves or others.

The early years were VERY physically tiring. I remember being tired a lot.

We also had "house rules" - nothing posted or anything, but I might respond to a child being "harsh" to a sibling with things like, "In our house, we talk kindly to each other. Let's think about what you need to say and say it with kindness and respect." This is how we would respond when someone did something that needed course correction. It was more "coming alongside" to assist than being over a child demanding.

I worked to make our house a pleasant place, a peaceful place, to live together. This is not always easy - and we had hard times that were not as peaceful as others, but I am well pleased with the results to date.

My children today are very self-regulating. They are polite, respectful, and easy to get along with. They will now mirror back language to us when things get sticky. Like the other day when I was very crabby, my 10 year old son approached gently and said, "Mom, do you think you need a protein snack?". I laughed and realized that I did, indeed, need a protein snack. When you live in a house with people whose blood sugar has some issues, protein snacks can help improve behavior. 

I have been a no-punishment mommy for 12 years now - we started out using a more traditional approach, but switched when my oldest daughter was almost 3. I saw an immediate positive change in her and have been delighted over the years to see the results of no-punishment. It has changed my life for the better in many ways - even in my dealings with my husband.

Just a few thoughts on the topic - I am so happy that I found out about this method when mine were young. It has made a HUGE difference in all of our lives for the better.


----------



## luckiest (Apr 29, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marmee*
> 
> I struggle with explaining the way "no punishment" works. It is a hard concept to verbalize for me (not sure why). My children are now 14 and 10 and we have been at this for a long time. We lived through the all the early stages of child dev. and stuck to the Alfie Kohn-ish method. We set up boundaries in the form of a prepared environment when they were small. We very much expected that a 2 year old would act 2 and planned accordingly. For example, having a bedtime that was reasonable, having protein snacks available, having age appropriate expectations and toys.
> 
> ...


What a great testimony! Although I don't (yet) have teenagers, I often use the coming teenage years to justify our non-punitive Kohn-esque way of parenting.

In a lot of ways, the teen years are a lot like the toddler years - experimenting with independence, vacillating wildly from hugs and kisses to I-hate-you-get-away, testing boundaries, etc. It's easier to see the effect of punishment on a teen than a toddler - you give a teen their version of a time-out: grounding. We can all probably remember being grounded. It sucks. It's isolating, it causes you to resent your parents, it teaches you how to not get caught in the future. It strains the parent-child relationship. Savvy teens will just sneak around the punishment anyway. During a time when you REALLY need to have trust in a relationship, very open lines of communication, and mutual respect, punishment becomes a wedge.

Another really great example of why not to punish - I can't find the original source, but I don't think this statistic is off-base at all - an article mentioned that 90-something percent of American kids, when asked why they shouldn't hit/hurt someone, responded, "Because you might get caught/get in trouble." Nothing mentioned about the other person at all - punishment drives self-centeredness and impedes empathy.


----------



## kallah22 (May 8, 2011)

Punishment is necessary. If we don't discipline our children someway they will be disobedient and will end up being criminals. Our justice system and our jails are full of people who weren't disciplined by their parents and that's why they are there. If children don't learn consequences they will not have a shot at being moral human beings and at having a bright future. Obedience is necessary not only in childhood but as adults. If we don't obey our bosses at work we get fired. And we are the only ones as parents that can teach them obedience and the only way they will learn it is through discipline. Natural consequences don't always happen. If you child steals a candy bar from a local store and he doesn't get caught there are no consequences. So we as parents need to make those consequences happen, in this case, go back to the store, apologize to the manager/owner and pay for what he stole.


----------



## Lexylou (May 31, 2013)

@NikkiLeeHealth - is there a book you recommend? Thanks for sharing. You seem to have balanced things well.


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kallah22*
> 
> Punishment is necessary. If we don't discipline our children someway they will be disobedient and will end up being criminals. Our justice system and our jails are full of people who weren't disciplined by their parents and that's why they are there. If children don't learn consequences they will not have a shot at being moral human beings and at having a bright future. Obedience is necessary not only in childhood but as adults. If we don't obey our bosses at work we get fired. And we are the only ones as parents that can teach them obedience and the only way they will learn it is through discipline. Natural consequences don't always happen. If you child steals a candy bar from a local store and he doesn't get caught there are no consequences. So we as parents need to make those consequences happen, in this case, go back to the store, apologize to the manager/owner and pay for what he stole.


It would be great if things were this simple, but they just aren't. I have worked a lot with children and adults in the justice system. Trust me, they were all punished as children. No one here, who doesn't punish, is going to end up with kids in prison. The parents here are paying great attention to their children's needs and thus creating adults who will care greatly for others as well.

Criminals, depending on what kind of criminal they are, are born from children who were neglected, shamed, abused, and/or severely punished. They are also born from untreated mental illness. And sometimes, criminals just happen. They can't find themselves in the world and so they find themselves in prison.

I could go on but I need to get up and do some things. Perhaps I'll have more later. I am so grateful for this thread because it has just validated my non-punitive parenting style.


----------



## starling&diesel (Nov 24, 2007)

I'm going to ignore Kallah's response because I have WAY too much to say about it and I doubt it would change her thinking.

.....

Oh geez, can't ignore it.

ARGH.

Okay, as for 'no punishment' resulting in packed jails and such, I'll just say that those people's parents did/didn't do a whole lot more than simply 'not punishing.' And I bet that the majority of folks in prison were indeed punished as children ... harshly, even.

And as for their parents, they may have been dealing with mental health issues, addiction, poverty, PTSD.

They may have had no idea how to meaningfully connect with their children.

They may have been recovering from their own wretched childhoods.

They might have neglected their children, hit them, shamed them, ignored them, raged at them, assaulted them ... all in the name of 'punishment.'

Sigh. Moving on.


----------



## starling&diesel (Nov 24, 2007)

With regards to punishment/no punishment and the discussion ...

I've been thinking about consequences a lot lately, and how I can sometimes spin a consequence when really I feel an urge to punish. I need to be careful to keep the consequences as natural as possible, and not to conjure or cajole one into being to serve my own purpose.

We do a lot of 'waiting for the bus' parenting in our family. As in, asking or expecting something from the kids, and then waiting for them to do it. The waiting looks pretty boring, as if you are in fact waiting for the bus. I don't make eye contact, and I don't comment, or nag, or even sigh. I just wait.

This works well after I've asked them to do something, and it's not happening.

ie. toothbrushing: my 2 yo likes to avoid it, so I invite him to the sink with the toothbrush ready to go, and start the song we sing while brushing his teeth. He balks, turns away, laughs, takes off. I stand there and wait for the bus. It doesn't take long, perhaps because my kids have a sense that the rhythm of the day stops while I'm waiting for the bus. No bedtime snuggles or nursing, no stories, no sleeping. He comes back, lets me brush his teeth, and then we move on.

ie; cleaning up: we clean up together as family before bedtime, but sometimes the kids don't want to. I give them the usual choices ("Are you going to put away the dominoes or the blankets?"), they choose, and if they don't follow through, I wait. Pretty much freeze in place and wait. When they're ready, I might hand them the thing they agreed to put away, but they do it.

For issues involving safety (ie. seatbelts), I'd be the parent to pull over and wait. I don't care if we miss the doctor appointment or play or what have you. I bet it'd be only once, and then they'd know the deal.

For holding hands whilst crossing the road, I expect that of my 2yo, but not my 4yo. She's traffic-savvy. If the 2yo can't do it, I carry him across. If he does it, right on.

My 4yo is testing the waters recently, and finding her power (read: 'talking back' or whatever), and when it becomes disrespectful, we offer her an out. For example, my grown neice was over for supper last night and the kids were crawling all over her and being quit rough. Which was fine until my niece asked them to stop. The little one did, but my 4yo got quite rude and insistent, so I told her she could take some space if she wasn't able to be gentle. She refused. So I said I'd help her take some space to calm down, if that would help. She refused. So I said, "Let's go up to your room and cuddle and calm down together. Shall I carry you or will you walk?" She refused to bug and started begging to be allowed to stay downstairs. But by then, she was quite wound up and she did need to calm down. So I put her on my hip and carried her upstairs and we sat together in her room, snuggling until she could calm down.

Once she was calm, I did tell her that's she needed to check in with her cousin before she could stay downstairs again. To see if she was okay, and to apologize.

She did, and that was that.

All that to say that I need to be careful to keep the consequences on an even keel, which I'm not sure that I'm always doing.

And as for 'waiting for the bus' ... we've set up a family rhythm that allows for that. We're unschoolers, we don't have outside classes or lessons at the moment, and I'm not opposed to cancelling obligations if moods are going to make it unpleasant. That also means not committing to things unless I know that we'll be into it. Today for example. The city's **** march and pride festivities are this weekend, but my 4yo is exhausted from a week of camping and being outside 24/7 and so she's into laying low. I haven't told her about the events, and so she doesn't have to feel like she's 'missing' them if we don't go. We'll play it by ear and see how the weekend progresses. We avoid minor disappointments by not setting ourselves up for it. Makes sense? There are enough natural disappointments to learn and grown from, I don't think we need to add more just because. When my 4yo does experience a natural consequence, I always tell her that she can try again, and I never make a big deal about it.


----------



## foreverinbluejeans (Jun 21, 2004)

My 3 sons are now adults and I avoided using punishments. They never even had time-outs or any kind of being grounded (other people find that hard to believe). Because of an individual child's maturity, ability, previous behavior, ect. there are times it parent's responsibility to limit what they can or can't do especially when the dhild's or other people's safety is involved. Being an effective parent involves building a repertoir of parenting skills. Some well-meaning parents have read a lot of parenting philosophy but don't have any parenting skills. They have no role models and they don't know how to learn skills.

Not using punishment doesn't mean you are permissive. Sometimes natural or logical consequences are in our child's best interest and sometimes not. For each situation you need to decide. For example you could let you child ride a bike without a helment and have the natural consequence of a coma if they have a bad fall. It happened to a relative of ours. I choose to let the boys pick out their helmets, educated them about why they had to wear them, and told them "helmets before you ride" from the time they were little. This was not common in the 80's. They wore helmets and then that translated to other safe behaviors like seat belts. I avoided situations that could lead to punishment by shaping behavior from the time they were young. That translated to other behaviors.

I did rarely use consequences. Since it was rare it made an impression on them. My 16 year old really wanted to take my station wagon on a Boy Scout campout. I told him to leave the car in the parking lot because it was muddy at the camp. He drove the car back into the camp, slid off the road, and hit 3 trees. No one was hurt (he had his seat belt on) but the car had minimal insurance that wasn't going to cover the accident. He couldn't work (health insurance reasons & an expensive genetic medical condition) so he couldn't pay for car repairs. The car was important but I was more concerned about his life. I didn't feel comfortable with him driving my car out of town any more - for years. He said he wished I was a punishing mom and he would have just been grounded for a month. I didn't trust him (horrible of me to say - or insightful). The desire to do what he wanted with a car was stronger than his will to do what he had been told. His younger brothers were allowed to drive the car out of town and there were no problems with them. Limiting his driving was a logical consequence.

In the TV punching situation above, not allowing the child to watch TV would be a punishment. Moving the TV where the child can't reach it would be a safe idea for the child and the TV and would solve TV punching problems. Understanding why the child punched the TV may be important.

Elizabeth Crary can be a good place to start with building parenting skills. I don't agree with giving children stickers for rewards but that is just one part of her STAR system. Her book Without Spanking or Spoiling is very good.


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *starling&diesel*
> 
> I'm going to ignore Kallah's response because I have WAY too much to say about it and I doubt it would change her thinking.
> 
> ...


This is everything I wanted to say but I'm not as eloquent!


----------



## vermontgirl (Aug 15, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kallah22*
> 
> Punishment is necessary. If we don't discipline our children someway they will be disobedient and will end up being criminals. Our justice system and our jails are full of people who weren't disciplined by their parents and that's why they are there. If children don't learn consequences they will not have a shot at being moral human beings and at having a bright future. Obedience is necessary not only in childhood but as adults. If we don't obey our bosses at work we get fired. And we are the only ones as parents that can teach them obedience and the only way they will learn it is through discipline. Natural consequences don't always happen. If you child steals a candy bar from a local store and he doesn't get caught there are no consequences. So we as parents need to make those consequences happen, in this case, go back to the store, apologize to the manager/owner and pay for what he stole.


I don't think anyone here is saying that they don't discipline, I think there is just a range of ideas of what that means. Your ideas seem to be very black and white, which is not the way that I choose to view the world...especially the way I choose to view my children. They are bright, capable people who will someday choose their own directions. I would like to hope that I will have set the stage for my children to feel loved and valued, and to feel capable of making wise decisions on their own. Hopefully they will have some natural empathy, and hopefully my empathy will also be modeled some. I don't think that forcing artificial consequences on a child will be the key to making sure they are moral human beings with bright futures. I see myself as their guide while they are little, someone who models good behavior for them and gently guides them to see things with clarity on their own. If they choose to be criminals, then they choose to be criminals. Making them stand in the corner is not what will stop them from choosing that someday. Actually, I think it will cause much anger and confusion. Does it make sense to assume that if children are disciplined in this way, they will someday feel more comfortable with this sort of negative choice/unfitting consequence..and then in turn commit crimes and go to jail because it is most familiar to them?

I am raising 3 good people. I cherish them, value them, and I have faith in them. I will continue to love them unconditionally and guide them, but not punish them. Someday this sort of parenting should foster a confidence and independance that will come naturally because...they are human beings with empathy and brains.


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

Foreverinbluejeans, I would LOVE to move the TV but its not possible. It's huge. And there is a whole entertainment center attached to it. I think he understands from our talk that he can't hit the TV. We're working on it...


----------



## Nightwish (Sep 9, 2008)

Re: grounding; I don't have teenagers yet, but I read somewhere (I think it was Hold on to Your Kids) that grounding can be used positively. To my understanding, it means that the kid can't go out, which is a great oppotunity for the parent to reconnect with the kid.


----------



## Lazurii (Apr 1, 2011)

I really think that "punishment," "discipline," and "consequence" defined differently for everyone. Someone can say "punishment" but actually mean what most people think to be a consequence.

Can anyone truly define the differences for me? Because I'm feeling a bit lost here.

And maybe it has a lot to do with the fact that I have two extremely strong-willed and spirited children and I have life-impacting anxieties and child abuse PTSD I'm dealing with, but I have used punishments to get a handle on the situation. Giving my children "choices" or "consequences" only doesn't always work, and I know I'm always working with a limited reservoir of patience and inner calm. Sometimes punishing my children can ward off something nastier when we get into a battle of the wills.

I really do think that most mothers, especially the ones that frequent Mothering, are doing the best they can. Not everyone can do Unconditional Parenting because they themselves are crawling out of a horror hole. And that's okay.


----------



## demeter888 (Jan 18, 2013)

Mamazee,

I just think outside the box when it comes to the choice of words, for starters. I think kids need to learn consequences of their behavior, good or bad. I think this is part of teaching them. If my toddler throws his toy on the floor when he is in his high chair more than once, he doesn't get it back while he is in his high chair. Some might call it a punishment. I call it preparing him for the real, cruel world I can't shield him from forever and try to clue him in on as gently and reasonable as possible.

Off-topic::thanks for the hug in the other thread nice.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

i tried.

i finally thought at 10 its time to punish her.

well i did (there was a LOT going on and i was at the end of my tether) and dd completely ignored me. she was unpunishable.

after a week i realised it wasnt working.

i had to think differently.

so dd and i sat and had a long conversation. and i discovered there was a lot going on for her and punishing her wasnt helping.

we became even more closer. dd is a good kid. i have from babyhood set up boudaries for her and she has mostly always followed them.

but the definition is so arbitrary. a lot of things mentioned in this thread as 'not punishment' ARE punishments in my book. when dd was younger what i needed to read up on was what was age appropriate behaviour. there was no point in punishing her for doing things when it wasnt appropriate for her to learn yet.

however i have an only. she and i have always had a very close relationship.

for me i find life is so hard for our kids. esp. in our single family where her father struggled to coparent. life was already so hard for dd. i could never add punishment to that list. she got it enough at her dad's and daycare.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lazurii*
> 
> I really think that "punishment," "discipline," and "consequence" defined differently for everyone. Someone can say "punishment" but actually mean what most people think to be a consequence.
> 
> Can anyone truly define the differences for me? Because I'm feeling a bit lost here.


Most of the time, when people talk about "consequences," they really mean punishments, even if they feel there's a difference. People often use "consequence" to mean "fair, appropriate response to bad behavior" and contrast it with "punishment" which they use to mean "excessive, unfair, or illogical response to bad behavior." A punishment is just something the child finds unpleasant that you do after a behavior in the hope that it will make the child want to avoid the behavior in the future. Most of the time, when people describe "logical consequences" they use, they're really talking about punishments.

One type of consequence that isn't the same as a deliberate punishment is a natural consequence - something that just naturally happens as a result of a child's behavior that can act like a punishment in making the child less likely to repeat the behavior. If your kid leaves his toys outside and they get stolen or ruined by rain, that's a natural consequence. A natural consequence isn't something you make happen; it's something that happens on its own. Sometimes the line between natural consequences and punishments is a little fuzzy. If your baby pulls your hair and you yell, "Ow!" and startle him, is that a natural consequence or a punishment? Maybe it depends on whether or not you feel you could have stopped yourself from yelling if you had wanted to. If your child won't eat the dinner you cooked, is going hungry a natural consequence? Probably not, unless you have no other food in the house. What if you see the child has left his toys out and it's starting to rain, and you don't pick them up or say anything to him about it, because you want him to learn a lesson? Some people would argue that's really a punishment, but some would disagree.

I think most consequences that are deliberately imposed are really punishments, but there are some exceptions. I'd say that if you're making the consequence happen because you want the child to learn a lesson from it, then it's a punishment. If you're making it happen for some other reason, like keeping everyone safe, and you don't care whether or not the child finds it unpleasant, then it might be reasonable to distinguish it from a punishment (though it may end up acting as a punishment to the child.) For instance, if your child is throwing a heavy toy and you take it away so he doesn't break anything or hurt anyone, you could call that a consequence that isn't a punishment. I think it's how you feel about it that makes the difference. If the child doesn't even seem to care that the toy is gone, but simply moves on to playing with something else, is that fine with you, or are you a bit disappointed that he isn't learning a lesson about throwing? If you're disappointed that he doesn't care, you probably meant it as a punishment.


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
> 
> One type of consequence that isn't the same as a deliberate punishment is a natural consequence - something that just naturally happens as a result of a child's behavior that can act like a punishment in making the child less likely to repeat the behavior. If your kid leaves his toys outside and they get stolen or ruined by rain, that's a natural consequence. A natural consequence isn't something you make happen; it's something that happens on its own. Sometimes the line between natural consequences and punishments is a little fuzzy.


I would argue that this example is a bit fuzzy, too. A parent would probably have made a purposeful decision to not go out and collect the toys so they wouldn't get rained on or stolen. For me, because the parent manipulates a situation, then it ceases to be a simple, natural consequence. I'd say more appropriately that a child who keeps dropping a teddy bear for the parent to pick up finally drops it off a bridge. Irretrievable. That's a natural consequence, unmanipulated by the parent.


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

ETA: conversely, some obvious "natural" consequences are too unbearable to consider-- what parent is going to let their kid run out into the street without looking and let them get hit by a car because they didn't?-- then "natural" consequences aren't always the go-to solution. Some parental manipulation of the situation is in order, whether it is a loving talk or grounding from playing in the front yard.

In the previous example, how the parent handles the situation is key. Are they saying that the toys"will" get stolen? Hope not, because if they don't, or if they don't get rained on and ruined, or if the kid just doesn't show any signs of caring, then that takes a really grounded parent to let it go (and to learn not to prophesy outcomes). I am not the parent that allows bikes to get rusty as a natural consequence of leaving out. However, I might tell them when it comes time for their next bike that I am considering a budget cap especially because of the poor treatment the bike received. Or insisting they pay for the new bike themselves? Is that punishment? Seems like it could be seen that way.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

The concept of "unconditional parenting" doesn't involve not having any parental manipulation at all. That's more Taking Children Seriously or something - a parenting philosophy that I find interesting but I also personally find impractical. I don't think keeping your child safe by the street is punishment, in part because I'd try to find a safety solution that my child most liked, whether it be holding hands, a leash, or whatever. With a punishment you're trying to make it feel negative, but in that situation I'd try to have there be as little negative feeling for my child as possible, and I'd be happy if my child were not bothered or unhappy at all by whatever safety measure we found worked best.

And no, taking into consideration whether to, say, get a used or new bike based on how long the last one lasted is just simple economics. I'm sure you could make it feel very punitive if you wanted to, by adding some shame into the mix, like saying, "You were so irresponsible with the last bike that I'm not willing to spend more." But if you're responding to an economic reality and present it as that, I don't think it's fair to consider it a punishment as punishments are intentional, which is why I've specified "intentional punsihment" upthread - to make that aspect of punishment clear.

If your child suffers due to an economic reality, how do you present it? Do you use it in a way to make your child feel bad so they're learn from it? If you intentionally use it in a punitive way to teach, then yeah I'd see it as punitive. But if you try to lessen the blow or come up with alternatives that will make it as good as possible, then I don't see that as punitive.

Punishing assumes that you are intending to teach through the consequence. If the consequence simply exists and you aren't using it to teach, then it isn't a punishment. If you intentionally use it as a teachable moment, then I'd personally consider it a punishment.

I usually find the discussion about "what is a punishment" to be the most interesting part of this whole issue when it comes up at Mothering. I do think it's somewhat subjective.


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> Punishing assumes that you are intending to teach through the consequence. If the consequence simply exists and you aren't using it to teach, then it isn't a punishment. If you intentionally use it as a teachable moment, then I'd personally consider it a punishment.


I preferred the condition that punishment intends to make a child "feel bad". I don't see anything particularly negative about using a consequence as a teachable moment. It could be simply that the parent is using the consequence in the sense of connecting "A" to "B", something that children often miss and a parent finds the lesson important enough to make children aware of it. I disagree that intentionally using it as a teachable moment is the dividing line between punishment and consequence. And, as I said, I could agree for the sake of semantics, but then would have to say that I don't see it as negative. There is an entire spectrum of shaming punishments that I would vehemently disagree with, and I intensely dislike lumping what we just talked about with those.

Also, by broadening the definition of punishment, you increase the likelihood that the answer to your question about EVER, would be "yes, for some kids in some situations, yes, punishment is sometimes necessary."

ETA (Then you are in danger of having to explain yourself to people who think you mean "punishment" as purposefully shaming or physically harming a child to drive home a lesson.)


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

The simple definition of punishment is that something bad is experienced and you learn from it. So making a child feel bad in some way is what punishment. Teaching without creating any kind of negative feeling isn't punishment.


----------



## starling&diesel (Nov 24, 2007)

We have 'teachable moments' almost constantly here ... Not in a "now-listen-as-i-pontificate" kind of way, but certainly in ways that we all learn and grow from. You spend your money on LEGO and then want to go see a movie? Spent money = no movie. Reality. Kid might perceive that as a punishment, but I see it as a consequence. Especially if i know that my child understands that money only goes so far and choices needed to be made. I'm not going to lecture her before every money decision she makes ...


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Well, that's another variable: what children perceive. They can see it as a punishment when a parent chooses to not step in and help, whereas the parent would see it as consequence.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Yes, sometimes a kid might perceive something as a punishment that we don't intend that way, but I think intent matters quite a bit too.


----------



## lilitchka (Jan 19, 2012)

very interesting discussion.

I don't punish my kids. It doesn't fit, in my head, with ''teaching a person I love''. the word ''punishing'' rally makes me feel uncomfortable. why would I do that to innocent little people that are learning?

I am deeply convinced that children are born nice, and they don,t do anything to be mean.

their ''missbehavior'' is often not one. it is just our vision of it.

I just came back from work at and adult only hospital. on my way out of on patient's room, I see his 3 granddaughters , age 4 to 8 probably, trying to wash their hands with the alcohol based disinfectant (Purel) on the wall. they where having so much fun with that automatic dispenser and trying to cover all their fingers with the foam, then letting it dry.

it was the most mood boosting, smile inducing moment of my work day.

yes, their was some Purel on the floor. but not much.

Yes, they where a little bit too happy and too noisy for a hospital. and so what?

kids, with their ''bad'' behavior are part of life. part of us. they are the beautiful part of us.

if they where my kids, what would I have done?

probably just enjoyed the scene first. then I would remind them where they are and show them what happened to the floor. then I would ask them for ideas of what could be done, to fix the little mess. probably one of them would suggest we should clean it. And they can go see the nurse in charge, and say they did a mess.the nurse might just send a cleaner, or give the girls stuff to clean the few drops of purel on the floor.

this is discipline. they would learn much more from this kind of interaction, then if I told them: no dessert tonight!

discipline is simply teaching.


----------



## EliteGoddess (Aug 5, 2013)

I would almost agree with this approach, except that I would make sure it's not a one-sided conversation. I'd ask questions to see what led to that behavior to see what I could do to help eliminate future instances of that behavior. Plus, to become violent shows a very real frustration and hurt inside that needs to be identified and addressed, so asking questions can help figure that out and then, hopefully, alleviate it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Racecarma*
> 
> I agree with consequences. In life, there are always consequences for bad behavior and to avoid teaching this is to leave them ill prepared for the real world.
> 
> ...


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I'm loving this thread! Joining in late to say that we haven't found punishments to be all that useful a tool. Funny story...

My DC was 6 when we moved from the west to the east coast. It was a hectic time and she was acting out a bit and I was struggling with finding a way to deal with it. One evening I kind of snapped and said, "That's it! You're getting a punishment." And she stopped! I was AMAZED. A few hours later DC came and asked me when she could get her punishment. She didn't know what one was and I think thought it was something fun. So much for rewards and punishments being the same to kids. ;-)

I agree with a lot that's being discussed on the last page of this thread - that some of this is a semantic issue, which takes me back to the good old TCS days!

I think Daffodil did a nice job of explaining the natural/logical consequence thing. I think that when some of us say they feel they have or strive to parent without punishments, that they probably do employ some logical consequences.

I do think a lot of it comes down to intentions from the parent. I think something that seems very punitive could well be a kind thing to do for a child and something that seems pretty mild could in actuality feel very harsh and unreasonable. The exact same action can either be a harsh punishment or a peaceful natural consequence or not a consequence at all - depending on parent intentions.

ETA: and of course I strongly disagree with the assumption that if we don't punish by conventional definitions that we are not addressing behavior. Even people who are fine with punishments know that they aren't the only trick in the book. And, for me, those alternatives have always seemed far more convincing to my DCs.


----------



## Lazurii (Apr 1, 2011)

IMO this comes down to semantics. It seems this board uses "punishment" to mean something punitive, to shame the child. It may also mean to use a reaction against the child that does not logically fit with the action.

I can easily see how the words "punishment" and "consequence" can mean similar things. It really comes down to how the person defines those words.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lazurii*
> 
> I really do think that most mothers, especially the ones that frequent Mothering, are doing the best they can. Not everyone can do Unconditional Parenting because they themselves are crawling out of a horror hole. And that's okay.


I was skimming so I could join the conversation and I missed this. I totally agree!! I took a class from an author of a wonderful parenting book and she talked about family culture being really important here. Being authentic is equally important as whatever label or ideal we're interested in as parents. I think that if you are punishing your kids because everyone knows you have a short fuse and that's the best way you have found to indicate that to your kids then you have found an ok solution to a problem. It's one that your kids can predict, that they understand, that is true to yourself, and that honors your humanity as a mother.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lazurii*
> 
> I can easily see how the words "punishment" and "consequence" can mean similar things. It really comes down to how the person defines those words.


And, yes, I do agree. I don't think there is a big enough difference between, "That's it!! We are putting the lego platform in the attic when we get home because I simply can not listen to more arguing over who gets the good platform piece," and, "Listen loves, I notice that we only have one platform and that you both really like to play with it. It has been creating tension in our family and I can not think of a solution that doesn't involve buying a new piece, which is not possible right now. I want you both to be able to focus on the joy of playing with legos so I have decided to put the platform piece away for now," to create a situation where parents feel like they are so different in how they parent/discipline.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Finishing up the thread...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jemmaserene*
> 
> Tis is an idea that I have been struggling with recently. I just finished the book P.E.T. Parent Effectiveness Training by Thomas Gordon.


I took a class on this book and it was very well done! Very good explanations for how to communicate and function with mutual respect as a family.

Also, the "adult world" comparison and rush to teach children about what they will face when they are older never resonated with me. It's just not how I understand development. IMO, you don't teach people about something they will face in the future by teaching it "now". You teach them what they need to know now, and continue to do that for the rest of their childhood and that is the way that they will understand the ways of the world.


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> Also, the "adult world" comparison and rush to teach children about what they will face when they are older never resonated with me. It's just not how I understand development. IMO, you don't teach people about something they will face in the future by teaching it "now". You teach them what they need to know now, and continue to do that for the rest of their childhood and that is the way that they will understand the ways of the world.


I hear "that is what a boss would expect" often when referring to discipline (and I hear it often when talking about schooling as well). I refuse to frame my child's world according what behavior a boss would expect. (I don't have any words on hand for how that makes me feel, but perhaps some Klingon would suffice...."Kerplaaaahhhh!!!!" Sounds about right.







)


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Automatic obedience is not at all the appropriate response to a boss's expectations, anyway. Sometimes your boss asks you to do something that doesn't make sense and the appropriate response is to explain why you have a better idea. Sometimes your boss asks you to do something illegal or unethical and the appropriate response is to refuse. Sometimes your boss has stupid, pointless rules for the workplace and the appropriate response may be to ignore them when you can get away with it. Sometimes your boss's expectations make the job unpleasant for you and the appropriate response is to look for another job.


----------



## erigeron (Oct 29, 2010)

An interesting discussion for sure. I grew up with being punished all the time, and it didn't help with whatever the supposed problem was. I never understood what I was doing wrong or how to fix it, so I couldn't improve my behavior. I have the distinct sense, looking back, that my mother just did whatever she could to get me to toe the line until she was no longer responsible for me. My "bad behavior" was basically not reading her mind or doing what she wanted me to do, and also some impulse control stuff. The punishments were stuff like being confined to my room (for hours or days), not being allowed to go to activities, having my stuff taken away, etc.

It doesn't teach your child not to (for instance) hit their sibling if you take away a toy or a privilege. If you don't address why they're hitting their sibling, the behavior will likely repeat. Maybe they need help with impulse control, or maybe the sibling is baiting them and they both need some help with how to interact with each other. If you discuss and analyze the situation and it turns out your kid can restrain himself and it is real fighting not "play fighting" and he knows that hitting hurts and his brother isn't picking on him that much and he just likes hitting his brother because he thinks it's funny to get a rise out of him, but when you tell him he can't watch TV for the rest of the day if he does and that actually stops him... well, then maybe that's best to leave that punishment in place for the brother's safety, but I would also think some work would have to be done on that kid's total lack of empathy! The punishment doesn't fix the situation even if it stops that specific behavior. That kid is going to do something else and it's not going to be good.

As for what qualifies as natural consequences vs made-up consequences vs. punishment... I think a lot of this stuff needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and there are probably multiple approaches that are viable. Some of my "consequences" stem from what I am and am not willing to do. I do think that it's appropriate for parents to set age-appropriate boundaries with kids as to what the parent will and will not do. For instance, I do have the rule that if she drops something more than a couple of times I will put it away for later, because my boundary is that I don't want to get sucked into that she-drops-it-I-pick-it-up game. There are other rules that we have because she has not demonstrated the ability to handle the situation. She is not allowed to play with toys while eating because they get messy--she can choose between eating, or getting down and playing with the toy. She has to either hold hands with an adult in a parking lot or be carried because I don't want to take the risk of her running out in front of a car. Does she get upset when I enforce these things? Yeah, sometimes, but part of life is that there are rules that are there for a reason, and you may not like them but that doesn't mean you don't have to follow them.

My daughter is 2, so a lot of this more complex reasoning has not yet come into play for us.


----------



## Aletheia (Oct 20, 2005)

No. Punishment is not necessary. Punishment is doing something to a child to make them feel badly about themselves. Consequences, on the other hand, are any actions that need to be undertaken by the child to make a situation right again. When a child has finished with a punishment, he/she feels worse about him/herself. When a child has finished with a consequence, he/she feels reconciled with those he/she loves.

Just floating that. Still trying to figure out where the limits to this viewpoint may be.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> Yes, sometimes a kid might perceive something as a punishment that we don't intend that way, but I think intent matters quite a bit too.


yup yup!!! and our kids can see through us EASILY!!!! that's why i think they can tell.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
> 
> Automatic obedience is not at all the appropriate response to a boss's expectations, anyway.


Yes, and more common than some sort of civil disobedience is the likelihood that in the real world adults will need to find solutions to problems without relying on punishments.

I think some people confuse no discipline with GD. I know as many parents who do not focus on "GD" as I do parents who do and, IME, there are as many lax parents or ineffective disciplinarians in both sets. It's just not every parent's strong suit.

Picture this scenario...

Two toddlers from different families. One is struggling with sharing and is put in punitive time-outs for poor behavior. The other also struggles with sharing but the parents have decided to closely observe and intervene rather than punish.

One could argue that the parent willing to punish will also closely observe and intervene but...IME there would be no need to punish if the parent were to do that. It is possible to be a very "strict" and dedicated disciplinarian without relying on punishment (which gets us back to the whole semantic thing, I suppose).

I think the OP phrasing is interesting. It says, "Is punishment ever necessary", not "Is punishment ever OK". These two things are very different.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama* a mother.
> 
> And, yes, I do agree. I don't think there is a big enough difference between, "That's it!! We are putting the lego platform in the attic when we get home because I simply can not listen to more arguing over who gets the good platform piece," and, "Listen loves, I notice that we only have one platform and that you both really like to play with it. It has been creating tension in our family and I can not think of a solution that doesn't involve buying a new piece, which is not possible right now. I want you both to be able to focus on the joy of playing with legos so I have decided to put the platform piece away for now," to create a situation where parents feel like they are so different in how they parent/discipline.


I see both your examples as consequences.

A punishment would be: I'm taking away your lego platform because you didn't finish all the food on your plate or you got an F at school.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Another good definition to differentiate between punishment and consequence is: does it leave your dk's and your own dignity intact? If not, it's punishment.

For example, if my ds becomes angry and starts yelling at me, I could say:

- "You're being disrespectful, and you're going to bed without supper/going to get a spanking" - which will affect his dignity

- "You're being disrespectful; you need to go to your room and calm down / or I'm not in the mood of reading you a story right now" - which is a consequence

- or I can just ignore him and let him yell at me, which wouldn't leave much of my dignity intact


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *transylvania_mom*
> 
> I see both your examples as consequences.
> 
> A punishment would be: I'm taking away your lego platform because you didn't finish all the food on your plate or you got an F at school.


Yes, this is the semantic issue. How we define punishment is kind of key and it helps us see that we are all probably way more similar than it may seem on this thread. So, for me, it is not enough to have the consequence relate to the behavior issue. To me, that consequence isn't addressing the behavior the way I would like in an ideal situation.

For me, I do try to avoid parent imposed consequences, even if they are closely related to the behavior problem. But, that is NOT to say that I am always successful. It is just to say that I have not found those times that I have "punished" (IMO, there is not much of a difference between what we are talking about - though I do understand that for some people there is), I have not found it to be the highest form of discipline.

In the Lego example, a higher form of discipline would be to help the kids find their own solution to the problem, whether that be to figure out a way to share, get another piece, or to decide for themselves to put the other piece away.

But, yes, this takes time and energy that we don't always have and YES it is harder depending on the temperament of the child(ren).


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Posting again to be sure that I'm not being divisive...

After 12 years of parenting, I have not ruled out parent imposed consequences that do not relate well to the behavior issue - not for either of my children.

For my toddler, I do not know yet whether some sort of time-out will end up being a good solution to problems for her. Time-outs would have been a disaster for my older DC but I think some of that is temperament. Also, with my older DC I had the privilege of being home with her all the time. With my toddler, she will need a form of discipline that can be used by care providers. So far, she's well behaved but I do not take for granted that she will always be so easy.

With my older DC who is 11 I have not ruled out grounding, which has some weird old-fashioned appeal to both of us, I think. I honestly think my DC1 would think it was SO COOL if she got grounded. ;-) Grounding is sort of the archetype for punishment, no? It may well be that my older DC will prefer grounding at some point and so long as it serves the purpose of driving a point home about some behavior problem (rather than doing the whole "I did my time" cycle, which is a pit-fall of punishment, IMO), I'd be happy to take this route because it's so easy and because I imagine the teen years being a time where parents and teens to crave time together.

Also, when it comes to making the punishment fit the crime -- I suppose I'm skeptical about that because I am a master at that as a parent. I feel like I could make any infraction fit whatever punishment I wanted. On a particularly low-energy day, I have been known to make the punishment for irritating behavior be cleaning the house because mama is irritated and a clean house will fix that problem. ;-) And, I do think that's OK!


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Something can be both a consequence and a punishment. In fact, really all punishments are consequences, as they happen because of an initial behavior. Punishment is specifically a negative consequence created intentionally to try to make someone learn not to do something again. It's a part of behaviorism.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> Something can be both a consequence and a punishment. In fact, really all punishments are consequences, as they happen because of an initial behavior. Punishment is specifically a negative consequence created intentionally to try to make someone learn not to do something again. It's a part of behaviorism.


I can see the value in wanting to go to psychology to define punishment as a way to frame the discussion, especially when one gets to down to the specific meaning of words. That said, I'm not sure that the behaviorist definition of punishment is that well applied to how regular parents interpret the word.

The trouble with this type of conversation is that one parent says that they never punish and another parent is like, "WHAT!!" and then a whole thing happens where there is this debate over how that is even possible...only to find that both parents use consequences in almost the exact same way but the way they define words is different.

That is something I remember from the time we had a bunch of TCS folks here. I was the more conservative "strict" one and I struggled with TCS (Taking Children Seriously) but mainly I think I was just more willing to or perhaps more sensitive to where I, as the parent, was being coercive. Often times we were describing VERY similar parenting (as I think we are doing on this thread) but how the parent sees the situation or defines words is different.

Even me, I am saying that I do try to parent with limited parent imposed consequences but I certainly haven't achieved that. And I do accept and think it's totally OK to fall short of our own personal ideals. Maybe someone else is just not interested in having that as a goal if they know they will not achieve it. So, in the end, we have the exact same parenting/discipline style but how we talk about it is different.

ETA: So, why say that I try to parent without imposed consequences if I know that I will not be able to do that or even if I know that sometimes a parent imposed consequence is the simple solution...?

Because experience has told me that the times where problem solving is a much better approach has been a bit random so I want to at least try to do that first without having the option of a consequence always hanging over the situation. Sometimes the non-consequence solutions are.just.so.easy and SO effective and so respectful and just domino into this mutual respect love fest.


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


I would love to agree with you, but my younger daughter absolutely melts if she doesn't get her way and she knows it's in my power to change things. So, if I can change it into something she prefers but don't, then it is a punishment no matter my intentions. I would agree with the comments about intentions in theory, but in practice I think it can become a meaningless delineation. I mean, even parents who do clearly punish, or those of us who strive for less punishment might have the similar intentions. Too subjective.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

BTW, I poked around around a little about what Kohn would say on the topic of language, specifically the differentiation between the term "consequence" and "punishment" and a few articles indicate that he does not especially value the distinction. For Kohn (according to a few articles) it seems we can't just make a punishment logical and call it a consequence and say we've moved away from punishment. Not that Kohn is the end all be all but since he was a focus of the OP, I thought I'd read a bit on what he would have to say on the subject.

This is a good quote but there are several others out there:

Quote:


> First, let's make sure we agree on your first premise, which is that punishment is destructive. A number of people seem to think if we call it "consequences" or insert the modifier "logical," then it's okay. "Logical consequences" is an example of what I call "punishment lite," a kinder, gentler way of doing things to children instead of workingwith them.


----------



## Backroads (May 4, 2013)

I studied Kohn in college (particularly his classroom situations) and while I did like some of his concepts, for the most part I didn't agree with him. And I still don't. Granted, my baby is only 4 months so there's been no disciplining yet, but I do believe discipline is a necessary part of life and of growing up. As adults, we experience discipline in the form of consequences.

I do believe parents have the job to be parents. It's old-school, yes, but one of a parent's job is to teach the child right and wrong.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> I studied Kohn in college (particularly his classroom situations) and while I did like some of his concepts, for the most part I didn't agree with him. And I still don't. Granted, my baby is only 4 months so there's been no disciplining yet, but I do believe discipline is a necessary part of life and of growing up. As adults, we experience discipline in the form of consequences.
> 
> I do believe parents have the job to be parents. It's old-school, yes, but one of a parent's job is to teach the child right and wrong.


Not to single you out because this is a pretty common reaction to "GD" or, I guess more specifically, non-punitive discipline but I wonder about your phrasing.

To me, your response to the thread seems like maybe you think that non-punitive discipline isn't discipline or even parenting. I know that's not what you're saying but I wonder if you can elaborate a little and share where you're coming from.

IME, we (as in all of us) parent without punishments most of the time. We are disciplining most if not all of the time. Modeling is the BEST most thorough, effective form of discipline, IMO. From there are things that don't look like discipline but that very much are part of the spectrum like having age-appropriate expectations, meeting our kids needs for food, sleep, routine, comfort and etc. Then you get into behavior issues and how to address those and the non-punitive toolbox is HUGE. Even if you agree that punishment is sometimes and ok way to go, I think it can pretty much be agreed upon that in GD it shouldn't be the first tool.

The thing is that we are not trying to create a consequence-free zone. Life happens, things get broken, people fall and get hurt, rules that are not ours must be followed, energy runs out, friends react to behavior, people get sad or angry. The world, as some say, is full of consequences. There is no need for parents to manufacture them.

But, I'm not arguing for the damaging effect of the occasional punishment or logical consequence (I think kids will be fine with this set-up, I know mine are!) ...but against the notion that a child can not be raised well without it.

ETA:

I think where our mind goes when we think of non-punitive discipline is interesting. For me, when I hear about a family who has gotten through many years without punishment, I am impressed! I don't assume that those kids are terrors - to the contrary, I assume they are pretty awesome and probably extraordinarily well behaved -- how else could a parent get through life without resorting to punishments or logical consequences. My instincts are to tell that parent that they rock!


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> I studied Kohn in college (particularly his classroom situations) and while I did like some of his concepts, for the most part I didn't agree with him. And I still don't. Granted, my baby is only 4 months so there's been no disciplining yet, but I do believe discipline is a necessary part of life and of growing up. As adults, we experience discipline in the form of consequences.
> 
> I do believe parents have the job to be parents. It's old-school, yes, but one of a parent's job is to teach the child right and wrong.


mama your reply makes me smile.

because what i thought the kind of mother i would be when i was pregnant is so different the kind of mother i AM today. all those thoughts and ideas went out the door.

because i had a super intense high needs baby/toddler/child - meaning forever intense and high needs in different ways - and i am so so so glad about that. she taught me how to be her mother and i am super grateful for that.

all i am saying to you is keep an open mind. alfie just might end up being your greatest buddy. you just never know now.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> I studied Kohn in college (particularly his classroom situations) and while I did like some of his concepts, for the most part I didn't agree with him. And I still don't. Granted, my baby is only 4 months so there's been no disciplining yet, but I do believe discipline is a necessary part of life and of growing up. As adults, we experience discipline in the form of consequences.
> 
> I do believe parents have the job to be parents. It's old-school, yes, but one of a parent's job is to teach the child right and wrong.


Most of the time adults aren't given deliberately imposed consequences for their bad behavior. It would be pretty unusual for your neighbors, relatives, coworkers, or acquaintances to give you a punishment, no matter how badly you treat them. Other people might get angry with you, decide not to invite you to their party, tell mutual acquaintances bad things about you, and so forth, but unless you break the law or the rules at your workplace and get caught, you probably won't experience a deliberate punishment as an adult. So why do kids need to be given deliberate punishments to prepare them for life as adults?

I agree that parents should teach their kids right from wrong, but I don't see how punishment is necessary to accomplish this. Why isn't enough just to explain to your kid why hitting is wrong? If it takes the threat of punishment to prevent him from hitting, that means he doesn't really feel it's wrong (or doesn't care that it's wrong.) So you can punish him and that may affect his behavior, but how will it solve the problem that he doesn't really get the wrongness of hitting?


----------



## Backroads (May 4, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> Not to single you out because this is a pretty common reaction to "GD" or, I guess more specifically, non-punitive discipline but I wonder about your phrasing.
> 
> ...


Happy to elaborate. I was at lunch and thinking over my post with the thoughts "that was badly worded".









I really am in favor of gentle parenting. But, as others in this thread have mentioned, I've seen kids who seem to have no behavioral skills whatsoever because their parents seem to be just too sweet and practically fearful of upsetting the child. I'm sure this is what you mean by the delusion some people have of non-punitive parenting.

I think that very young children aren't ready to internalize lessons on the whys of right and wrong. This age varies from child to child, but I don't think one can expect to take a very young child and try to reason morals with him. I think most agree to remove a child that is doing something wrong from the situation, but is it always the best solution to then try to reason with a child that just isn't ready to comprehend what I'm saying? I think in some situations, some sort of punishment is in order, something immediate that does let the child know such-n-such is not okay. I'm a big believer in time-outs from my teaching days.

I agree with your examples presented here, nor do I think traditional punishments are necessary all the time. But I have a friend whose children are holy terrors because she doesn't believe in ever stepping up and being in charge as the mother. Her words, not mine.

However, my parenting philosophy as it currently stands is "I'm the Mom, Baby is the Child, I am responsible for your well-being, I am therefore in charge, not you." I probably will do variations of time-out, I will be taking away priviledges (it's not morally imperitive for my daughter to one day have a cell phone and a tablet) I will probably scold in the earlier years without bothering to explain why, and I will not seek to put explaining and talking through problems in too prominent a place before my daughter is ready to comprehend.


----------



## Backroads (May 4, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
> 
> Most of the time adults aren't given deliberately imposed consequences for their bad behavior. It would be pretty unusual for your neighbors, relatives, coworkers, or acquaintances to give you a punishment, no matter how badly you treat them. Other people might get angry with you, decide not to invite you to their party, tell mutual acquaintances bad things about you, and so forth, but unless you break the law or the rules at your workplace and get caught, you probably won't experience a deliberate punishment as an adult. So why do kids need to be given deliberate punishments to prepare them for life as adults?
> 
> I agree that parents should teach their kids right from wrong, but I don't see how punishment is necessary to accomplish this. Why isn't enough just to explain to your kid why hitting is wrong? If it takes the threat of punishment to prevent him from hitting, that means he doesn't really feel it's wrong (or doesn't care that it's wrong.) So you can punish him and that may affect his behavior, but how will it solve the problem that he doesn't really get the wrongness of hitting?


I tried to address this in my just-before-this post, but I don't feel I gave it enough attention.

Your first paragraph... very true, great points, and I do see them and agree.

Your second... if a child isn't development ready to understand the difference between right and wrong, I still have to stop them from harming another person or another person's property. I can't just say "Sorry, my child isn't ready to comprehend the wrongness of this yet, so you'll just have to deal."

Granted, I do believe right and wrong can be taught at age appropriate increments, and I believe one of those earlier levels is simply letting my kid know that behavior is not okay. ICM mentioned age-appropriate expectations. If they're not capable to comprehend why, they still need to know it's not okay. I do believe that, if done correctly, extrinsic motivation can lead into intrinsic.

Another question in the best regards (because I am a new mom), what do you do if explaining to your child why hitting is wrong doesn't stop him from hitting?


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> I do believe parents have the job to be parents. It's old-school, yes, but one of a parent's job is to teach the child right and wrong.


This statement always seems to assume there is only one way to be a parent. It assumes that how children behave right now this minute is the litmus test to the effectiveness of the parents to be "parents". Unfortunately, to properly assess how "parent" a parent is can take the whole of a child's childhood. The kids best behaved at this minute at 5yo are often the ones terrorizing frat row on a Saturday night.

I know you are getting a lot of flack about this statement, and unfortunately you are getting the feedback about every time I've heard this, which isn't fair to you. I just wanted to make this statement in general, not as a personal attack. So, sorry if you are getting the brunt of it.


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> Your second... if a child isn't development ready to understand the difference between right and wrong, I still have to stop them from harming another person or another person's property. I can't just say "Sorry, my child isn't ready to comprehend the wrongness of this yet, so you'll just have to deal."
> 
> ...


Like I said above, I would remove him from the area. If he did it all the time I would have to be really vigilant about preventing it and try to find out why he was doing it. Sometimes it might even mean not taking him to play dates until he is past that stage.

Sorry I'm typing on my phone. The middle paragraph in the above quote is actually part of my reply.


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> Another question in the best regards (because I am a new mom), what do you do if explaining to your child why hitting is wrong doesn't stop him from hitting?


This is always the best question--one that I continually bring up because I am an anarchist at heart-- what if the child refuses to comply? This is why I think that punishment (gentle) really is sometimes necessary for some kids in some instances. Because there are children who refuse to comply, and for some things, it is important to stop them NOW. For example, is picking up a child and removing them really gentle? I doubt it, because it would not be an appropriate move for a child to big to be moved. I am fine with removal, personally, but I definitely see it as a punishment because for many kids if they were big enough to effectively fight back, they would and that forces a parent to reconsider. We need to extrapolate our actions onto children of other ages to help us gauge what is considered gentle. Anyway, I can think of many possibilities along the spectrum of punishment/non-punishment for addressing hitting, but if we are exploring punishment as necessary or not, we need to address the "what-ifs", and the most important "what-if" is "what-if it doesn't stop the hitting"?


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> I think that very young children aren't ready to internalize lessons on the whys of right and wrong. This age varies from child to child, but I don't think one can expect to take a very young child and try to reason morals with him. I think most agree to remove a child that is doing something wrong from the situation, but is it always the best solution to then try to reason with a child that just isn't ready to comprehend what I'm saying? I think in some situations, some sort of punishment is in order, something immediate that does let the child know such-n-such is not okay. I'm a big believer in time-outs from my teaching days.
> 
> ...


IMO, if they are too young to understand very simple reasoning, then they are probably too young to understand why they are being punished. To me, it just confuses them, so why do it? I think at that age distraction or removal is best. And always very gently (although don't get me wrong. I have lost my temper more than once!)


----------



## Backroads (May 4, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SweetSilver*
> 
> This statement always seems to assume there is only one way to be a parent. It assumes that how children behave right now this minute is the litmus test to the effectiveness of the parents to be "parents". Unfortunately, to properly assess how "parent" a parent is can take the whole of a child's childhood. The kids best behaved at this minute at 5yo are often the ones terrorizing frat row on a Saturday night.
> 
> I know you are getting a lot of flack about this statement, and unfortunately you are getting the feedback about every time I've heard this, which isn't fair to you. I just wanted to make this statement in general, not as a personal attack. So, sorry if you are getting the brunt of it.


Not bothered at all, but I do have to ask which of two sentences you were referring to. I think we may both be speaking in general!


----------



## Backroads (May 4, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dalia*
> 
> IMO, if they are too young to understand very simple reasoning, then they are probably too young to understand why they are being punished. To me, it just confuses them, so why do it? I think at that age distraction or removal is best. And always very gently (although don't get me wrong. I have lost my temper more than once!)


I agree with that, removal or distraction as good choices. But they should not count as a lesson in if something were right or wrong. Removal/distraction are just what they are, with absolutely no connection to the misbehavior. If you removed or distracted a child, I don't think you should get to think you taught them a lesson or solved a deeper problem as I doubt the child will understand why he was removed. Not against them by any means or trying to put words in your mouth, just saying.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> Happy to elaborate. I was at lunch and thinking over my post with the thoughts "that was badly worded".


No worries!









Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> I really am in favor of gentle parenting. But, as others in this thread have mentioned, I've seen kids who seem to have no behavioral skills whatsoever because their parents seem to be just too sweet and practically fearful of upsetting the child. I'm sure this is what you mean by the delusion some people have of non-punitive parenting.


I could have guessed that you had some "AP" friends who seemed GD in some ways who had some kids with seemingly unaddressed behavioral issues or seemingly permissive parenting. What I can say to that first is that YES there are permissive parents out there. There are GD looking parents who are just permissive (but this is not GD, IMO). There are also a lot of families who do punish who are also permissive. Permissive parenting is lazy parenting and there are lazy parents who punish and lazy parents who don't punish. Punishing is not the cure for permissiveness - trust me! (I apologize if the word lazy seems harsh...I am struggling for more gentle wording for what I'm trying to say)

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> I think that very young children aren't ready to internalize lessons on the whys of right and wrong. This age varies from child to child, but I don't think one can expect to take a very young child and try to reason morals with him. I think most agree to remove a child that is doing something wrong from the situation, but is it always the best solution to then try to reason with a child that just isn't ready to comprehend what I'm saying? I think in some situations, some sort of punishment is in order, something immediate that does let the child know such-n-such is not okay. I'm a big believer in time-outs from my teaching days.


I think that maybe you're thinking that a punishment for a young child makes sense in a situation where they are developmentally unable to understand some lesson. I want to concur with what meemee said - just wait. In the question you phrased below about how to tell a young child that hitting is wrong...well hitting is "wrong" but why? Hitting hurts. Young children can often understand that. That said, many children do not need to be taught that hitting is not something we do. Yes, some do, but not all (neither of my kids really needed anything more than one shocked moment from me before they realized that hitting is just not something we do - modeling!).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> However, my parenting philosophy as it currently stands is "I'm the Mom, Baby is the Child, I am responsible for your well-being, I am therefore in charge, not you." I probably will do variations of time-out, I will be taking away priviledges (it's not morally imperitive for my daughter to one day have a cell phone and a tablet) I will probably scold in the earlier years without bothering to explain why, and I will not seek to put explaining and talking through problems in too prominent a place before my daughter is ready to comprehend.


Also, if you were a teacher you probably have some sense that kids tend to meet expectations. Teaching and parenting are different, obviously. I do tend to wonder how well Kohn would work in my DC's district (even though I know he has worked with disadvantaged discricts) and I have seen his homework philosophy in action and think it is better in theory than in practice. BUT, I have found his parenting philosophy to be pretty sound. That doesn't mean that I put a whole bunch of pressure to follow it to a T but we've been well served (as have our kids) by taking the punishment and rewards out of the daily equation.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> Your second... if a child isn't development ready to understand the difference between right and wrong, I still have to stop them from harming another person or another person's property. I can't just say "Sorry, my child isn't ready to comprehend the wrongness of this yet, so you'll just have to deal."
> 
> Granted, I do believe right and wrong can be taught at age appropriate increments, and I believe one of those earlier levels is simply letting my kid know that behavior is not okay. ICM mentioned age-appropriate expectations. If they're not capable to comprehend why, they still need to know it's not okay. I do believe that, if done correctly, extrinsic motivation can lead into intrinsic.


Sure! And I agree with your comment about the extrinsic -> intrinsic to some extent as well.

I also think there are a lot of young children's behavioral issues that just go away. That's a hard thing to accept as a parent. Of course it doesn't mean just letting your kid hit people or steals stuff (not to anyone with enough interest in discipline to post here!) but sometimes it means just intervening gently, over and over again until they grow out of it. I know that probably sounds like the permissive way out but it's not permissive, it IS parent intensive but, IME, so is punishment and "waiting it out" is often (IMO), as effective as punishment when dealing with impulse control issues and developmental readiness.

This is a bit off-topic but I can not say enough how long the concept of positive assumptions goes for kids - even toddlers. Try it! Just ask your kid to do some small chore with the fullest bit of confidence that they will do it...and they will! It's amazing. Assume that they won't fall when they climb high. Assume that they will play well with others (and when they don't the best tool is the sheer shock from their parent at their behavior). Assume that even if you were willing to hide their tail...that you will never need to.

Yea, that's not the end of it but it's the start and it goes a LONG way, or at least it did for my kids (so far).


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> I agree with that, removal or distraction as good choices. But they should not count as a lesson in if something were right or wrong. Removal/distraction are just what they are, with absolutely no connection to the misbehavior. If you removed or distracted a child, I don't think you should get to think you taught them a lesson or solved a deeper problem as I doubt the child will understand why he was removed. Not against them by any means or trying to put words in your mouth, just saying.


I'm not trying to teach them a deep lesson at that point. I'm just taking charge of the situation so no one gets hurt and also taking into consideration that what he is doing has more to do with development than "misbehavior".

Actually, now that I think of it one lesson he is learning even at a young age is that all people should be treated with empathy and compassion according to where they are in life. This is the most valuable lesson one can learn in my opinion.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

There is also the question of whether kids need to be taught that hitting is wrong. Do they?

I think that very question could use a bit of thought. I think that kids are essentially born to please and with the desire to fit in. Hitting in most settings would be ruled out by those two fairly basic qualities. Some kids do hit. I don't think it's because they don't understand that it's wrong (even though the concept of right and wrong may be a bit abstract for them - it is for me, even!).

In general I think kids hit because it's interesting. It gives a reaction that creates a desire to understand that reaction. At the point that they realize that it's not cool, that it isn't what people like and that it's kinda anti-social, they may not have impulse control to stop (or are getting mixed messages from those around them).

Or kids hit because they are angry and have not yet learned outlets for that. In that case the lesson is not that hitting is wrong but ways to express anger.


----------



## erigeron (Oct 29, 2010)

"IMO, if they are too young to understand very simple reasoning, then they are probably too young to understand why they are being punished."

Well, kind of and kind of not. I think that instant punishment could function as operant conditioning in little kids--grab something you're not supposed to, get a smack. They can probably understand that connection before they can understand the actual reason for not grabbing the item in question (be that it's messy, hot, breakable, someone else is using it, whatever). Punishment that is at all delayed is pointless in this situation, because they won't connect it to the transgression. A child who is old enough to understand why a punishment is being done now for something they did previously is also old enough to communicate with by another technique.

It's the same reasoning of squirting cats with a water bottle to send the "get off the table" message. If there is an instant correspondence between human seeing cat on table and human squirting cat, after a few rounds the cat might make the "get on the table, get squirted" connection. There would be no sense squirting the cat several minutes later as it would not make the connection.

Not that I'm saying I favor smacking a toddler for grabbing something they shouldn't, but I can at least see why it might be effective. There are better approaches to those situations for sure.


----------



## Backroads (May 4, 2013)

ICM, I will not quote your whole post but it was good and I think we may be more similar in views than we think. I keep thinking "Yes, that's what I was getting at!"

As for punishment/rewards, I still believe in consequences, but rewards for every little thing? Didn't grow up with it. Sure, we did fun things and sure, there were occasional rewards (more like celebrations) for uncommon things, but by and large you did what you were supposed to do because that is how the family ran and you were part of the family. Yeah, it is rather Kohn-ish.

I suppose that yes, I do believe in "punishments" according to my own definition: consequences that may or may not be entirely natural, and I do believe in standing up, being the mother. If I have to manipulate a consequence to protect my own interest even to model that others will protect their own interests, I will.


----------



## Backroads (May 4, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> There is also the question of whether kids need to be taught that hitting is wrong. Do they?


Leads into the debate of whether kids pick up on morals or need to be taught morals.

No matter the path, I think most kids will eventually learn that hitting is wrong, at least socially undesirable. But in those first hitting moments, they may not understand it causes pain, or care that it causes pain.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> ICM, I will not quote your whole post but it was good and I think we may be more similar in views than we think.


Yes, I'm sure we do. I LOVE these conversations but dislike how the nitty-gritty philosophical stuff tends to divide parents who have way more in common that not.


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> ICM, I will not quote your whole post but it was good and I think we may be more similar in views than we think. I keep thinking "Yes, that's what I was getting at!"
> 
> ...


I'm with you on the rewards thing. I also don't believe in constant praise. It's like, "Oh, little Ricky just sneezed! GOOD JOB!" Meanwhile, no one gives a crap if I sneeze LOL!!!!!


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


If your kid is too young to understand why hitting is not okay, isn't he probably also too young to understand why he's being punished if you give a punishment? Sure, you have to stop him from harming people and property, but that doesn't have to be done with a punishment. You just physically stop him. Showing disapproval with your voice and face can be helpful, too, and that really is a (mild) punishment. Maybe physically stopping him is unpleasant to him so it also serves as a mild punishment. But I can't see giving any punishment beyond that to a kid who's too young to get the concept of punishment. Are you envisioning a different kind of punishment - something like time-out, maybe?

If explaining to my child why hitting is wrong doesn't stop him from hitting, then I keep explaining, keep stepping in to stop him if he starts to hit, and try not to put him in situations that seem likely to lead to hitting. And I ask myself why he's still hitting. Is it lack of self-control? If so, punishment probably won't help, because when he's mad enough to hit he's not going to be in control enough to think about the punishment he's going to get and stop himself in order to avoid it. Is he not yet old enough to think about other people's feelings? If he just doesn't yet fully understand the wrongness of hitting, he's probably not going to understand the rightness of punishment for hitting, either. So the punishment is more likely to make him mad at me and sorry for himself than sorry for hurting someone else. I don't think punishment is a good way of helping kids develop an intrinsic sense of right and wrong.

But is it useful anyway, just as a way to stop a really undesirable behavior when a kid is too young to be intrinsically motivated to stop it? Maybe, sometimes. Generally, I think not. As I mentioned above, if it's a self-control problem, punishment probably won't help. But even if you're punishing something a kid can control, I think it often just creates more problems and doesn't help in the long run. Punishment makes kids feel bad, and feeling bad can lead to acting bad. Punishment may actually slow down the development of intrinsic motivation to behave nicely, because it encourages the kid to focus on how his behavior affects what happens to him instead of on how his behavior affects others. Punishment teaches kids to be sneaky and to lie. Punishment puts you and your kid in an adversarial relationship. Giving punishments models behavior you probably don't want to see in your kid. Do you want him trying to punish you or his siblings or friends for actions he doesn't like? If you can punish him, why shouldn't he be able to punish you? If your kid has a serious problem behavior you want to change, before going to punishment, why not try rewards for the desired behavior? Rewards can be problematic too, but they're not likely to lead to the same level of bad, adversarial feelings.

Have I ever punished my kids? Yes. Did it work well? Mostly not, I think, but I can think of a couple of times when it did, when they were very young. We're talking pretty mild punishment, though. When they were babies, I yelled "Ow!" for biting while nursing or when my hair got pulled, and that put a stop to those behaviors very quickly. When DS was a toddler (under 1 1/2), he went through a phase where he kept climbing up on the table, and at first I kept just lifting him down and trying to move chairs to make it harder, but he kept doing it and both of us were getting really frustrated. (It wasn't a very sturdy table; otherwise I might just have let him do it.) Finally, I just made it very clear to him with my voice and my expression that climbing on the table was absolutely not allowed. I stopped him immediately as soon as he started to climb up, and I didn't exactly yell, but I was very stern and emphatic. It worked very quickly, and it made life a lot less frustrating for both of us. I did the same thing when he got very interested in climbing onto the file cabinet next to my computer, and there was just too much not-baby-safe stuff up there for me to let it happen. And it worked again, and really was much kinder than letting him get frustrated over and over by trying to climb and being stopped. I don't know if I can think of any other times when I punished and ended up feeling like it worked well in the long run.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dalia*
> 
> I No one here, who doesn't punish, is going to end up with kids in prison.


That's quite a crystal ball you have there.


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *choli*
> 
> That's quite a crystal ball you have there.


Why thank you. I love my crystal ball. I was looking at it just a few minutes ago and already knew you would make this comment.

Carry on.


----------



## Backroads (May 4, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
> 
> If your kid is too young to understand why hitting is not okay, isn't he probably also too young to understand why he's being punished if you give a punishment? Sure, you have to stop him from harming people and property, but that doesn't have to be done with a punishment. You just physically stop him. Showing disapproval with your voice and face can be helpful, too, and that really is a (mild) punishment. Maybe physically stopping him is unpleasant to him so it also serves as a mild punishment. But I can't see giving any punishment beyond that to a kid who's too young to get the concept of punishment. Are you envisioning a different kind of punishment - something like time-out, maybe?


This is where I've seen difficulty in this thread. My ideas of punishments are vocal/facial disproval and a time-out where, yes, he doesn't get to play for a minute or two. That time-out does give an immediate consequence where even if he can't understand he did something wrong, he does see a negative result for a wrong action. Are these bad? Do they really count as punishments? Is it wrong to give a "no no!" and pull a kid away from a bad situation? Are they punishments or are they not?

Quote:


> But is it useful anyway, just as a way to stop a really undesirable behavior when a kid is too young to be intrinsically motivated to stop it? Maybe, sometimes. Generally, I think not.


Again, just asking this in the spirit of learning: If you can't intrinsically teach a child to not do the undesirable behavior and it NEEDS to stop, is it better to just wait for better behavior or work harder on stopping the behavior? As aforementioned, is "no no!" and a removal out of the question due to potentially being too harsh? If removal is a punishment, is it too harsh? Is it better to not let the kid know the behavior is not okay until he can understand why it isn't, or find a way to let him know it's undesirable early on and teach the whys later?

Quote:


> Punishment makes kids feel bad, and feeling bad can lead to acting bad.


This may be a derail, but it's something I've been thinking about. I do disagree with punishment to primarily make kids feels bad rather than to help them solve a problem or learn a lesson (as opposed to being taught a lesson).

But, in and of itself, is it so wrong for kids to feel bad about things they did? Isn't this just what we want intrinsic lessons to lead to?


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

I definitely say "No!" in some situations. I don't see how that can be avoided all the time though I am open to it. I mean, if my kid is about to throw a brick at someone you can bet I'm gonna be shouting LOUD. I consider that a very natural thing, and not a punishment. And if he did throw a brick you can bet we would be having a big talk about it. But when my kid was really little he tried to throw a big piece of wood at someone and all I did was take it away because it wasn't something he should have been playing with. And I did shout "NO!" to stop him from throwing it.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SweetSilver*
> 
> I would love to agree with you, but my younger daughter absolutely melts if she doesn't get her way and she knows it's in my power to change things. So, if I can change it into something she prefers but don't, then it is a punishment no matter my intentions. I would agree with the comments about intentions in theory, but in practice I think it can become a meaningless delineation. I mean, even parents who do clearly punish, or those of us who strive for less punishment might have the similar intentions. Too subjective.


i agree its really subjective and hard to describe too. but there is so much in the unsaid communication that kids pick up. it also depends on personality. and their sensitivity. obviously at 1 1/2 putting on clothes to go to a drs. appt when dd wanted to stay naked was going against her wishes. however you can make them see it. for instance when dd was 1 i poked her with a push pin so she understood why i wouldnt let her play with the push pin. and she got that.

but then again it all comes down to semantics. is it really punishment.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> Another question in the best regards (because I am a new mom), what do you do if explaining to your child why hitting is wrong doesn't stop him from hitting?


how are you explaining? first of all if you are not using the language of a child you will go nowhere. you might as well speak washo. second of all they have to understand you. so telling a 2 year old is not the same as telling a 20 year old. to make it equal you need to repeat, repeat, repeat multiple times a day for at least 2 weeks before your 2 year old gets it.

that's why the first 3 years you are either a pantomime clown as i was or the greatest diverter in town. you either make a game out of it, or you remove the child.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> This is where I've seen difficulty in this thread. My ideas of punishments are vocal/facial disproval and a time-out where, yes, he doesn't get to play for a minute or two.


No, this is not punishment. I mean, I suppose you could stretch it but that goes beyond simple semantics to possibly turning every interaction with our kids to a reward or punishment. So, no, I do not think this is punishment. This is communication. I do think it's better if the look on a parent's face is genuine but even a slightly exaggerated response is a form of communication on the level of a pre-verbal child.

I do NOT think that gently picking up a child who is not playing well is a time-out...but I think it can be depending on the spin a parent puts on it. I think the child receives the message best if the child understands that they are being removed to protect the other kid.


----------



## Backroads (May 4, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> how are you explaining? first of all if you are not using the language of a child you will go nowhere. you might as well speak washo. second of all they have to understand you. so telling a 2 year old is not the same as telling a 20 year old. to make it equal you need to repeat, repeat, repeat multiple times a day for at least 2 weeks before your 2 year old gets it.
> 
> that's why the first 3 years you are either a pantomime clown as i was or the greatest diverter in town. you either make a game out of it, or you remove the child.


Truth be told, I am explaining nothing yet as my girl is 4 and a half months and my first graders, by and large, already had their behavior in place by the time they got to me.


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Backroads, in answer to your question:

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> *Not bothered at all, but I do have to ask which of two sentences you were referring to. I think we may both be speaking in general!*


This first statement I bolded:

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *SweetSilver*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


And this statement:

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SweetSilver*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Sorry for the giant writing, it's to draw attention to the appropriate bits, not to represent voice raising.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> Truth be told, I am explaining nothing yet as my girl is 4 and a half months and my first graders, by and large, already had their behavior in place by the time they got to me.


i was talking about your future, when your girl is older. not now.

hopefully you are doing NOTHING now in discipline.

eeeeek. or were you asking what to do NOW???

dunno i didnt do anything to dd till she was what 9 months old when i would take her hand and touch my face gently and say gentle gentle. i'd do the same to her cheek and say the same. if it hurt i'd make pantomime faces and say oww oww.

at 4 months i was too busy being gaga over my baby and tearing my hair out as i could not sometimes figure out what the heck dd wanted. and she'd scream her head off till i figured it out.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


I'd say yes, they count as punishments. My definition of a punishment is something you do after a behavior that the child finds unpleasant, with the intention of discouraging the behavior in the future. Are these particular punishments wrong? Probably not. Is it helpful to do them? Depends on the kid and the situation, I suppose. If he's already angry and frustrated, if you scold him or pull him away and make him stop playing, it may just push him over the edge and lead to a total meltdown. And if he acted out of anger and frustration, a negative consequence may do nothing to prevent the behavior next time, because next time he'll once again be too angry and frustrated to control himself. But let's say he's not raging and hitting, but just happily doing something you disapprove of, like climbing on the table or whacking the cat. I think "no no!" is fine in situations like that. But for a toddler, I'm not sure a time-out is really helpful as a negative consequence. The moment where you pull him away from what he's doing may serve as a punishment, if it happens immediately after the bad behavior and if it's unpleasant for him. But if the time-out goes on for a minute or two, it's just going to become an unhappy experience that isn't connected in his mind to anything that happened before. And even if "no no!" is helpful sometimes, you don't want your whole day to be one long string of "no no!" That's going to be stressful for both of you.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Whether or not it makes sense to try to stop the behavior instead of just waiting for it to get better depends a lot on what it is and how much control the kid has over it. If the kid doesn't really have much control over it, there's probably not much point letting him know it's undesirable, and in fact it may be better not to show disapproval, just as you wouldn't want to show disapproval if you had an old dog who lost bladder control and urinated in the house. If the behavior is really a big problem and punishment will work to stop it, then punishment might make sense. But punishment just doesn't work in every situation. "No no!" and removal isn't necessarily too harsh, but it isn't necessarily going to work, either. If that kind of punishment were all it took to stop problem behaviors, there wouldn't be so many hitting, biting, tantruming toddlers, or so many books about discipline.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Backroads*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Sure, it's appropriate for kids to feel bad about bad things they did. But I don't think punishment usually leads to the kind of feeling bad we want. The kid may feel bad that he got caught. He may end up feeling he'd better not try the same behavior again, or he may just feel he'd better try harder not to get caught. He may feel angry about the punishment. He may feel sorry for himself. If he's being punished for something he did to another kid, he may feel angry at the other kid and blame him for the whole thing. But I really don't think it's typical for a kid who's punished to feel genuinely sorry about what he did because of the negative impact it had on others. Punishment certainly didn't tend to encourage that kind of feeling in me when I was a kid.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

While I may disagree with Daffodil that a disapproving look is a punishment I otherwise agree 100% with this post, especially these parts...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
> 
> Whether or not it makes sense to try to stop the behavior instead of just waiting for it to get better depends a lot on what it is and how much control the kid has over it. If the kid doesn't really have much control over it, there's probably not much point letting him know it's undesirable, and in fact it may be better not to show disapproval, just as you wouldn't want to show disapproval if you had an old dog who lost bladder control and urinated in the house. If the behavior is really a big problem and punishment will work to stop it, then punishment might make sense.










Well said!!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
> 
> Sure, it's appropriate for kids to feel bad about bad things they did. But I don't think punishment usually leads to the kind of feeling bad we want.


Agreed. In discussing this I was reminded that in the relationships I really value probably the worst outcome of some behavioral issue is disappointing someone I love.

When Backroads was saying that she doesn't feel punishment has to have the intent of making a child feel bad...I think I tend to agree with her. My older DC is very sensitive to feeling like she has disappointed people she loves and I have to be careful about that. If we have done things that feel like a punishment to her or if we punish in the future I would have to be VERY clear that the intention of the punishment is to help her remember to change her behavior and I would need to include A LOT of assurance that we are not angry and that we have already moved to forgiveness. She would also HAVE to have a way to make amends (which, is a great stand-alone solution to wanting to drive home a point about some issue).

Part of the problem with punishment is that it can have the outcome of a child feeling like they have paid for whatever they did. I can really see for a sensitive kid who deeply cherishes their relationship with their parents that a punishment can feel like the easy, less complicated way to acknowledge some problem.

Re: time outs...

These are odd things in my house because so far neither of my kids would have done it. No way! But, I've seen a punitive time-out used with a child who just did not perceive them as a punishment. She was a cute, feisty kid and I guess a bit unphased by her parents punishment and I think she recognized that when they told her to go to time-out that she really did need a minute. For her, she was angry during these situations and I really don't think a super sweet response from her parents was something she would have appreciated.

Perhaps I am now playing the devils advocate because I enjoy talking with you all...

I guess I'm just saying that I don't think punishment is necessary but that if a parent does punish that it should be done according to the individual child's temperament in mind, the specific situation, and with the best interest of the child at heart. And, if you (we) do choose to punish, keep in mind that the option to punish sometimes creeps in before we have tried other, far better, far more educational options.


----------



## Backroads (May 4, 2013)

I suppose I consider time-outs to be a possibility because they have worked very well with my sister-in-law. My 4-year-old niece is very feisty, but in her case, they suit her. With her, simple removal from a situation causes a tantrum, so my SiL came up with the "repentance bench" as she calls it, where my niece can sit for a minute and both mother and daughter can calm down. Reportedly, my niece knows the purpose and realizes she has some space and time to come down from her tantrum.

I'm also enjoying this thread. I like discussing these things. And I do find it educational.


----------



## salr (Apr 14, 2008)

Maybe this is a good time to bring up a question. HOW do you enforce time-outs? I can understand the time-in variety a bit more, where you are holding them or are distracting them with something different to do while staying with them, or talking to them. But even then, if the kid doesn't want to be sitting there, they will flail and attempt to run away, right? Do other people not have that happen to them? Do kids really just say OK i will sit in a time-out/time-in? How did they get to that point? Did the parent physically move them back to their spot 100 times? Did they yell and scare their kid saying You WILL stay there! And then from then on the kid just knows they "have to" stay in one place?

I am of the variety that thinks the traditional time-out makes for a kid who sits there and thinks how unfair this is, how much they hate their parents, and thinks of ways to not get caught. Thinking of anything but what went wrong and how to do it better next time. I feel the same way about grounding, unless it's with the purpose of spending more loving time together as a family. Not just resentful time in the same house.

Anyway, time-outs? How does that even work?


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Those kinds of time-outs never worked for me for all those reasons you mentioned. When dd1 was a little older, and I saw that she calmed herself on her couch, I'd often just say "couch!" and she'd go, but this wasn't for infractions, it was because she was on a rampage that needed stopping. The couch had her soymilk, her bunny (she'd suck her thumb back then) and she would calm herself down. I'd eventually come over and read. Those time-outs worked. (I miss the bunny and the thumb... they would sure be nice these days!) Occasionally, I would take a time out with her in our bedroom and talk and let her rage and eventually crawl on my lap. This never worked with dd2 who would flip out. I never could find a time-out set up that worked for dd2, she just had to calm down where she was, which could take a while.


----------



## Backroads (May 4, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *salr*
> 
> Maybe this is a good time to bring up a question. HOW do you enforce time-outs? I can understand the time-in variety a bit more, where you are holding them or are distracting them with something different to do while staying with them, or talking to them. But even then, if the kid doesn't want to be sitting there, they will flail and attempt to run away, right? Do other people not have that happen to them? Do kids really just say OK i will sit in a time-out/time-in? How did they get to that point? Did the parent physically move them back to their spot 100 times? Did they yell and scare their kid saying You WILL stay there! And then from then on the kid just knows they "have to" stay in one place?
> 
> ...


As pure punishment, I doubt there is a way for it to be enforced. In my niece's case, it is simply what works, and it just has the name time-out. My niece goes to it herself because she knows it's what she needs.

No clue how to do it if it isn't what they need or want?


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *salr*
> 
> Anyway, time-outs? How does that even work?


Yea, this. The only ones I've seen are ones where kids seem to kind of get where the parent request is coming from and the kid just willingly takes a few minutes away. I'm not sure if those kids have been trained or if they just agree on some level that a time-out is a good idea. It's possible, also, that for an older child that there has been some consensual agreement about the use of time-outs.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

time ins worked for dd but time outs worked for her best friend.

both of them lose it when they are in the middle of it. but for her best friend it seemed like he did better alone than with another adult. he preferred to go to his room and gain back his composure. from the age of 2 i would say.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Time outs are what made me re-think punishments. I tried to put my daughter in time out for something when she was little and she screamed and would NOT stay and it was going to take a huge amount of physical force to keep her there. I don't think it would have been better than spanking in her case. And she turned herself into the victim. The whole episode in her mind stopped being about hurting me and became injustice toward her. That seemed counterproductive.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> Time outs are what made me re-think punishments. I tried to put my daughter in time out for something when she was little and she screamed and would NOT stay and it was going to take a huge amount of physical force to keep her there.


That's how my DC would react too. I'm not 100% about my younger child. She has a different personality and I can almost see her being OK with a time out...maybe. But, in reality prevention and intervention and all the other basics work so well for her I just can't see us needing a time-out.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

My younger one would handle time outs fine too, I'm sure, but she's so easy I can't imagine needing to do it. Or I'm just used to handling things differently because of #1.


----------



## starling&diesel (Nov 24, 2007)

Time in vs. time out ... We don't do either, by name anyway. But we have used the terms 'calm-down chair' or 'taking some space.'
I wonder if whether a child is essentially an extrovert vs. introvert has anything to do with the efficacy of either/or?
For my eldest, being sent away or having to calm down on her own would be an awful, awful, painful, terrifying thing. She needs comfort and human contact to calm down. We go with her and hold her, which is sometimes the last thing that I want to do, but I do it, because for her to be alone is perhaps her biggest fear.
She has a friend the same age from a family who also doesn't do time-outs, per se, but when he needs to calm down be chooses to go up to his room and close the door. No enforcement or coercion. It's what he prefers. Quiet aloneness works for him, whereas that would devastate my daughter.
Is mine an extrovert, as in she gets recharged and soul-fed by being in the company of others?
And would than suggest that her friend is an introvert, in that he recharges and is souk-fed by quiet solitude?
I am an introvert, so I have a hard time understanding why my four year old doesn't *want* time to herself. I love it!
Different needs for different folks ... Kids too.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

sorry i got my threads mixed up.

never used time ins or time outs. what i was talking about was what to do during tantrums. never really as a punishment but how to help them deal with their intense emotions.

and both dd and her best friend are both very intense kids.


----------



## dawnetorres (Dec 7, 2012)

Thank you!! We are going through the same thing with our 2 year old and are handling it the exact same way. I give her freedom and independence with as much as I can, but the random darting in the street and in shopping center parking lots is where I draw the line. Her consequence is getting carried to the car or having to ride in the cart too. I have read just about every book on positive discipline, gentle parenting and for the most part practice it, but not every situation is textbook. In various playgroups we belong to I meet amazing children who are all parented a little differently and guess what they are all sweet, kind, well mannered children. I will not judge someone for what works for them. All children are different in what they require and respond to. If stickers work you you great. Think the biggest problem is judging each other and more harshly ourselves.


----------



## newmamalizzy (Jul 23, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SweetSilver*
> 
> Those kinds of time-outs never worked for me for all those reasons you mentioned. When dd1 was a little older, and I saw that she calmed herself on her couch, I'd often just say "couch!" and she'd go, but this wasn't for infractions, it was because she was on a rampage that needed stopping. The couch had her soymilk, her bunny (she'd suck her thumb back then) and she would calm herself down. I'd eventually come over and read. Those time-outs worked. (I miss the bunny and the thumb... they would sure be nice these days!) Occasionally, I would take a time out with her in our bedroom and talk and let her rage and eventually crawl on my lap. This never worked with dd2 who would flip out. I never could find a time-out set up that worked for dd2, she just had to calm down where she was, which could take a while.


This has been my experience with time-outs, too. When used as a "punishment" for specific infractions, they just add to the chaos and anger of the situation. I quickly gave those up, even time-ins. But even at age 2, my DD would accept a time-out when her behavior was overall just out of control, like days when I babysit her cousin and she gets stressed out. I don't remember who brought up the extrovert/introvert connection, but my DD is a TOTAL extrovert - and yet, alone time is often the trick to her regaining control when she's acting out of character. She initially protests, but quickly gets into a groove and comes out of it much, much calmer. It doesn't feel like a punishment when I see how much better she ends up feeling. What about that variety of punishment? Pushing kids to do things you know they need in order to feel good?


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *newmamalizzy*
> 
> What about that variety of punishment? Pushing kids to do things you know they need in order to feel good?


I think this is when the whole subject of punishment, its definition and etc. become VERY grey. And it's a place where I do think really sensitive parents may be quick to slap a punishment label on something that really needn't be thought of in that way. I'm tempted to say that if the parent doesn't intend something in a punitive way, that it just isn't punishment.

...but maybe now we're going in circles. ;-)


----------



## RoseVC (Jul 30, 2013)

Discipline and punishment are different. As parents we aim for discipline. We discipline because they are young and have not developed control of themselves, nor do they have wisdom. We teach them that there are consequences for all of us if we don't follow the rules of nature, of men's law or their parent's rules of the house. Eventually we hope to help them to develop *self discipline*, something adults in a society need.

Distraction is an effective tool for the very young ones. Every child responds to different things at different ages. Stickers can work for some, it is a reward system. Whenever my kids wanted something at the store I would respond "What job are you willing to do for that?" Is that not what we do for an employer? It gives them a sense of responsibility and they learn life isn't a free ride nor is Mommy a bank.

Imagine your 2 year old as a teenager. Who is in charge? You or the child? Who pays the household bills? If he wants to choose his own clothes, it's time for him to get a job to pay for them. If he wants the freedom to go out late, run his own life then he can start to contribute to the household monetarily, rent for his room and board. ( You can always put it in a savings for him - don't tell ) You are just teaching him to be able to be independent and hopefully make better decisions knowing life has consequences for all. Everyone needs self discipline.

Just my take on things, I ramble a bit. I think my daughters turned out surprisingly well even though I'm their Mom.


----------



## MamadeRumi (Aug 5, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SweetSilver*
> 
> I would argue that this example is a bit fuzzy, too. A parent would probably have made a purposeful decision to not go out and collect the toys so they wouldn't get rained on or stolen. For me, because the parent manipulates a situation, then it ceases to be a simple, natural consequence. I'd say more appropriately that a child who keeps dropping a teddy bear for the parent to pick up finally drops it off a bridge. Irretrievable. That's a natural consequence, unmanipulated by the parent.


The more I read this thread, the more I realize that I do think punishment (if that's the term I have to use) is sometimes necessary. I don't use physical punishment or shame, but I do think it is necessary to teach my DS that sometimes bad things will happen if one does certain things. In the teddy bear example above, I just think of how heart broken my DS would be if he dropped one of his beloved stuffed animals off a bridge and it couldn't be retrieved. And how unfair would that be if he had repeatedly dropped his stuffed animal and I had always picked it up for him. He would have had no warning that there might be negative consequences to his behavior, and now it is too late for him to learn that lesson because teddy is gone. I would much, much prefer the following scenario-- he drops teddy (probably for the umpteenth time), I pick it up, hand it back to him, and tell him that if he keeps dropping Teddy I will have to put Teddy away to protect him from getting lost or hurt. He then drops Teddy again and I put Teddy away. Yes, my son would be sad. Yes, there would probably be tears. Yes, it was a parentally manipulated situation. But his sadness would be temporary. I could tell him that when we were in a safer situation, or when he felt ready to hold onto Teddy, Teddy could come back. And if at some point he still did drop Teddy off a bridge, at least he wouldn't have been completely blindsided -- he would have already been exposed to the idea that his actions had consequences. If that is punishment, then I guess I think punishment is not only necessary, but really the kinder, fairer, more respectful way to treat my son. He's 3. I can't expect him to know the negative consequences that are out there if I don't teach him about them. I can try to teach them in a gentle way. And of course this is without even touching on the really horrible consequences, like the consequences of running out into the street, or running up and petting a strange dog without first asking the owner if the dog wants to be petted. Of course I would love to keep my dear boy from experiencing any sorrow, but if a little, temporary sorrow is going to keep him from experiencing much worse sorrow or pain, then that's part of my job.


----------



## MissAnthrope (Jan 31, 2011)

We don't punish or discipline. Etymologically, parent means one who brings forth-- the same root, in Latin, as the word for giving birth. Being the parent doesn't mean being the bad guy, being the sahib, being in control. It means raising up, giving to the light, being the guide and guardian. When chips are down and we are empty-nesters, we will not be judged on how well we controlled our children or how polite our tweens were, but rather on the adults we brought forth from our parentage. So we keep a long perspective.

We only do things by force and totally override their consent in matters of unacceptable risk to health and safety, but even then it's usually just the toddlers. We will take scissors away from a child who cannot use them safely, we will pick them up and carry them across streets if they change their minds in the middle of the crosswalk, we do insist on baths following diaper explosions, etc. I'm actually hard-pressed to think of an example where I needed to do this for a child older than five-- usually they can take care of it themselves or respond to a verbal reminder.

We do point out the natural consequences where they might be difficult for a child to see/understand, e.g. "When you say things that hurt me, I don't want to talk with you." "Look at his face! When you hit him, you hurt him." "If you help me so I can finish the laundry faster, I will have enough time to drive you to the library." "When you help me by getting into your own seat and getting buckled, it's easier for us to go fun places in the car!" "If you do not take adequate care of your teeth, you will get cavities." "You are being too rough, so I am going to take the baby to the other room. You can stay here and have your own space until you are ready to be gentle and kind again."

We also make suggestions and remind them of their choices. "I think you are tired. It's hard to use your words when you're tired! Would you like to take a nap?" "If you clean your room now, your friends can play in there with you when they come over, and you won't have to bring your toys out here where the baby might find them. I am available to help you clean your room until 2pm." "Maybe you can throw the ball to each other instead of taking turns by yourselves." "Your face is very dirty. I think you should wash it. It will feel so nice once it is clean!"

We also make deals. "How about you wait patiently while I finish this typing, and then we go to the park?" "What if I pick up all the blocks, while you put away the books?" "Can you trade a piece of pizza for a handful of french fries?" "I would prefer to pick you up at 9 so I can get to bed on time. If you can promise you will be ready to go right when I pull up at 10 o'clock sharp, that would be okay." "You may have some blackberries, but they need to stay in the kitchen so they don't stain the carpet. Deal?"

We model the behaviors we would like to see in our children, and we talk to them about what these behaviors mean and why we use them. When we don't behave well, we explain our mistakes, we apologize, and we find a way to make amends. I think this is the MOST important part of raising children-- showing them that you walk the walk.

We also don't coach emotional statements-- we never instruct our children to say they apologize, thank, forgive, or love. These are for them to decide. Admittedly, this has gotten us the stink-eye at the sandbox from other parents, but you know what? I'm not raising my children to be congenial or to conform. I am raising them to be responsible, compassionate, and self-aware-- and those long-term goals are not served by instructing them to model false emotions.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

MA, I think it was really nice how you followed your first statement about not punishing or disciplining with all those examples. As it happens, everything you described sounds like discipline to me. Of course, it's all fine if that's not how you view it. I think this is another example of us having different terms or views of very similar forms of parenting -- because it sounds like you and I parent (discipline







) the same way.

In our house we do encourage politeness but in the form of genuine gratitude, sincere regret, or simple courtesy. I think your description of "walking the walk" is the best way that kids learn this.

When it comes time for a reminder of manners, I choose to remind DC what's happening rather than what I want her to do. So, I may say, "DC, your friend is leaving," which helps remind her to thank her friend for coming and etc. I'm sure I have never told DC to thank her friends for coming over. But, I may have remarked once or twice how nice it makes me feel when kids thank me for having them. I also thank people for having me after I leave their home. I'm sure that's what DC is really learning from.

As far as our toddler goes...she's easy going. I was reminded of this thread the other day when she was climbing a rickety book shelf (with just toys so not able to do major damage if it fell). Rather than say "no" I just walked over and offered to hold it for her while she got that urge out of her system. While climbing it, she realized how flimsy it was so she was able to learn the lesson that climbing it wasn't such a great plan.

Sometimes I think the cries of, "How else will they ever learn," are selling kids short a bit.


----------



## akgirls (Feb 10, 2008)

Do you have statistics to back up the claim that lack of punishment is positively correlated to incarceration? Brain research and child development research indicate the very opposite. People are moral and productive when they are intrinsically motivated instead of extrinsically motivated (the result of forced obedience).


----------



## Serafina33 (Jan 24, 2013)

We definitely use a system of consequences, both of rewards and loss of privileges. The four of us sat down and wrote it together, everyone agreeing on each point and everyone signed it to make the point that everyone felt the "rules" and expectations were fair. The rewards that they can work up to earning are extremely motivating and fun for everyone when they achieve them (fun outings, etc) and the loss of privileges are painful enough (meaning stuff they enjoy going away, nothing harsh) to provide motivation to do their best to resist urges to hit or kick one another, or curse or slam doors when their emotions get fired up....

It's posted clearly on the wall and it's necessary so that neither brother can claim that their brother 'gets away with everything' and receives preferential treatment. We have to be so precisely systematic about how we treat them so that neither starts feeling like they are getting treated less fairly. Very competitive boys born close together, so the rivalry can eat my sanity alive if I don't manage to keep things exactly equal in all things.


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *MamadeRumi* 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SweetSilver*
> 
> 
> > I'd say more appropriately that a child who keeps dropping a teddy bear for the parent to pick up finally drops it off a bridge. Irretrievable. That's a natural consequence, unmanipulated by the parent.
> ...


Interesting take on the scenario. But imagine that I as parent don't mind picking up teddy (I know, I know) and that surprise! the teddy gets thrown off the bridge. Tears, perhaps even anger, empathy from mom. But is there really a problem for a child discovering something harsh like this? No. Because we can't prepare them emotionally, or even logically, for all possible consequences. Conversely, I wouldn't keep silent on the possibilities, either. But I don't think putting teddy up to possibly prevent a huge emotional impact is necessary. Not that I disapprove, either.

Anyway, now that I've made myself perfectly clear







I think I'll go find myself some caffeine.....


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

This is an interesting thread and a hard question IMO. I think punishment and consequences are the same thing (with the exception of natural consequences since they are not imposed at all). I really think that whether punishment/consequences are necessary depends on the family. There are times when I have imposed a consequence to get an annoying behavior to stop before I go over the edge and react harshly. I think it is much better to gently stop something from happening by removing the child/object/food/etc... than it is to continue allowing something that is triggering you until you lose control and slap or spank your child. There are some parents who have very few triggers and much better control over them who may never need to resort to imposing their will on their child's though so it isn't always necessary.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Slight side track...

I heard an NPR show today about the Milgram experiment (the one where the subjects were tested on how far they would obey "orders" and shock their peers). Apparently the experiment is pretty well misunderstood or misrepresented as an "obedience study" when, in fact, the study shows the opposite (according to this show). What the scholar on the show said is that subjects were willing to inflict pretty gruesome amounts of pain on their peers (65% in one set-up) but only if the felt they were doing it in the name of science (intrinsic motivation). Once given a direct order (extrinsic motivation) ZERO percent of participants were willing to comply or continue with the experiment. Food for thought...


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

i've been also thinking about this thread. i think there's a difference between discipline methods with a under 5 to 7 year olds and over 5 to 7 year olds. i use 5 to 7 because i have noticed with kids around me that most kids around that age have their round of 'teen' behaviour. the i hate yous come up, you dont understand me, hitting, tantrums all come back for a short time. and boom the moment that stage is over the child has matured hugely in leaps and bounds and yet not too much physically.

i think it makes a huge difference when you use the term punishment for a 3 year old vs. say a 6 year old or a 14 year old.

esp. around 10 - 12. now i dont use punishment not because i dont want to. but also because dd's personality lends to that.

however i am entering unchartered territories. dd is mature for her age and is showing tween/teen behaviour. and its more and more becoming apparent to me that i am not sure if i am punishing or not. i am very careful to make sure my boundaries ARE about safety regardign my child. its not a head trip of mine. am i truly focusing on dd or has she triggered something within me and i am reacting.

sometimes reading this thread i am lost as to what IS punishment. here i am thinking about punishment between parent and child. not the outside world. not school or anywhere else. but parenting. coz i find being punished by a teacher is blown off. but being punished by me is sheer torture in our family.

is punishment a disagreement between a parent and child. that the child sees what they did was ok, but the parent thought not? but punishment is not boundaries.

dd and i have had a couple of instances where for the first time really i punished her. and we talked and thought about it later. and i discovered my mistake. i had no clue what to do so i jumped into punishment.

punishment during these puberty times is so punitive. it really serves no purpose. i am talking about parenting. if i feel i have to punish my child then somehow i have lost touch with my child. somehow our communication has broken down. when i punished my child (it had NO effect on her) i discovered her bad behaviour was a reaction to a bigger issue and punishment was worse than helpful for her.

hmmm... back to pondering.


----------



## Serafina33 (Jan 24, 2013)

My ten year old really has moments of rude, ugly behavior seemingly out of nowhere and ten minutes in his room seems to help him to calm down from his little rage. Additional Loss of fun/extra privileges in repeated bout scenarios may or may not help drive home the point that it is unacceptable to lash out verbally or physically but we feel we must express our standpoint on truly antisocial outbursts somehow so that they register.


----------



## alexisfaye (Mar 8, 2010)

I am on a two week road trip with my three kids (7, 5, & 2). And my mother. We have 50 hours of driving. That's super hard. I get it. We are all tired. But I can't afford to fly all these places so we just do out best. My son (5) has really struggled. I try to build in breaks at parks or playgrounds. I brought colors and books and books on tape (no movies). He has been difficult. Screaming, hitting seats, chanting "you are poopy" for ten minutes at a time, etc. the baby is behaving better! I don't see how to go through this experience without artificial consequences or punishment. I can't walk away. I can't stop the car. I know he needs a hug. A snack. Some alone time. In the meantime it's totally unfair for the rest of us to suffer through this. So what would a no-punishment mom do? Yeah. I want to change his behavior. Does that mean I'm already on the other side of the fence?


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alexisfaye*
> 
> I am on a two week road trip with my three kids (7, 5, & 2). And my mother. We have 50 hours of driving. That's super hard. I get it. We are all tired. But I can't afford to fly all these places so we just do out best. My son (5) has really struggled. I try to build in breaks at parks or playgrounds. I brought colors and books and books on tape (no movies). He has been difficult. Screaming, hitting seats, chanting "you are poopy" for ten minutes at a time, etc. the baby is behaving better! I don't see how to go through this experience without artificial consequences or punishment. I can't walk away. I can't stop the car. I know he needs a hug. A snack. Some alone time. In the meantime it's totally unfair for the rest of us to suffer through this. So what would a no-punishment mom do? Yeah. I want to change his behavior. Does that mean I'm already on the other side of the fence?


Honestly, if I were in that situation and I thought punishment would work I might try it. (That's assuming we had to cover a certain number of miles in a certain amount of time and there was no way around it. Otherwise, I might consider cutting the trip short or driving a shorter distance each day.) But I can see some difficulties with using punishment in this situation. First of all, there's the question of whether or not he actually has the ability to control his behavior to the extent you want. But let's say he does. What punishment would you use? Maybe just pulling over for a minute and giving him a stern lecture would work. Or maybe not. You could take away some privilege he would otherwise have when you stop for the night, like dessert with dinner, or TV in the motel. But what if he does behave badly even after the punishment has been threatened? Now he's already lost the privilege and has no incentive to behave unless you add another punishment. What's that going to be - no dinner at all? No dessert for the next two nights? You could quickly get to the point where there's no way to add more punishments without being really cruel or where he's already lost so much that he doesn't see any point in even trying to behave well anymore. (I suppose this is why physical punishment was popular for so long. You can always add another spanking.) And the thought of the accumulated punishments might make him so angry that he feels more like screaming and hitting than ever.

But what options do you have besides punishing? You could try rewards. I'd probably try rewards before punishment. That also will only work if he actually has the ability to control his behavior. There's also the problem that if he messes up and loses the chance to get the reward he now loses motivation to behave unless there's another chance to be rewarded. So instead of offering a big reward if he behaves all day, you might want to give out a small reward after every half hour of good behavior.

Since I'm not sure how effective either punishment or rewards would be, I'd probably think hard about ways I could make the time in the car less unpleasant for him. If I could afford it, I might even consider buying a portable DVD player or a Nintendo DS to keep him entertained. I'm not a big fan of screen time for kids, but if the alternative is that he's not only miserable himself but also making everyone else in the car miserable, it might be the best choice.


----------



## Holleys8 (Aug 15, 2013)

I'm new here, Hello!!

I have eight children; 29 years old down to 9 years old and have dealt with so many different personality traits. I have learned first hand that each child needs to be

treated differently. I do believe in natural consequences but I also think that there is such a fine line between discipline and consequences and that sometimes Mom

has to push more immediate results.

I always told my children that there is nothing that they HAVE to do and of course, they went through the phase saying that we have to eat....no you don't but you chose to starve;

or we have to breathe, no you don't but then you will die. It may seem a bit extreme but it seems to work wonders. I start showing them what hot is from around a year old....no, I don't

let them burn themselves but allow them to feel enough heat so that I am not constantly pulling back their hands. I explain that things are hot and can hurt them, as they reach for the hot thing again, I very carefully let them naturally feel the heat. Of course, this is supervised and the actual age that it happens, varies.

As they grow I let them know what the consequences are for certain actions and tell them if they chose to continue, than they are choosing the outcome. The outcome may happen naturally or I may have to help it along, otherwise they do not think that there is an end result. Younger children may be told several times so that they understand. It is never harsh or punitive. The post about the child running in the parking lot. I would explain before they were out of the car, that they must stay by my side, if they don't they will be carried. I may give a younger child a second chance, so that they understand the expectation. If I needed to hold their hand or pick them up, than I would tell them why. When leaving the store, I would do the same thing. Using this technique allowed me to take 8 children to the store; 5 of them were under 6 years old. They did not run off or disrupt other shoppers.

Maybe this would be considered punitive but for me, it allowed consequences without danger, even if those consequences were guided by me.

I now have 8 of the most amazing, intelligent, creative....headstrong (lol) children. I love who they are as people


----------



## Serafina33 (Jan 24, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Holleys8*
> 5 of them were under 6 years old. They did not run off or disrupt other shoppers.


YOUR kids? How is that even possible to have 5 children ages 5 or under? That's having one child every year! Wow, I'm speechless, that is impressive.

Or even if they weren't your kids, brave of you to take that many little ones to the store. 
Seems like you are the toddler whisperer and have the tantrum thing mastered completely. I bow down! I wish I was as perfect with handling/preventing those, my kids tantrumed until age 7 in public. Not often, but sometimes. Totally stressful.


----------



## Holleys8 (Aug 15, 2013)

They were newborn, 18 months, 3 years, 4 1/2 years, and 6 years old....no not the toddler whisperer but we

did have the tantrum thing down, It was a necessity. I did have one child who did use tantrums until school age,

There was something about her that everyone gave into....strangers, not me. So, she learned that she got want she

wanted.

The circumstances that I had so many kids, so close together, is long and boring. =)


----------



## peaceful_mama (May 27, 2005)

Yes. Yes, I believe in punishment. However, I believe in it as a consequence of your actions. An example would be if my child made a poor choice during an outing, that child might miss the next outing. (depends on age of child & situation of course) If they make irresponsible computer choices or are destructive toward the TV, absolutely losing some time with the item.
They need to learn that actions have consequences & rules apply to them. I'd rather they learn this through loss of privileges now than later, when it can mean jail time & a record that affects their ability to work & have a life.

That said, they are children. Punishment has no place before an age where the child understands the rule in the first place. It must also consider the ability to connect the event to the consequence. For example, at two, a child is not going to connect your refusal to take him to the store this week to his refusal to sit in the cart last time. At eight, yes, my kid can remember stuff like that. (though at 8, the expectation wouldn't be to stay in a cart!)
Call it whatever you want. What I don't find useful is corporal punishment or random stuff like "you acted naughty in the store so I will take away tv"

Also consequences have to consider ashe & comprehension


----------



## peaceful_mama (May 27, 2005)

Trip lol I am totally stealing a friend's idea. Kids were twins, about 7 or 8. They earned a quarter for every 15 minutes of decent behavior. Catch....both or none. By the time they'd stop, they would have a few dollars to buy a treat.


----------



## PeacemongerMom (May 8, 2011)

*


----------



## PeacemongerMom (May 8, 2011)

I enjoy this topic because it's something I still struggle with and I'm indecisive about. I enjoyed reading all the replies, well I read most of them. I've read Kohn's Unconditional Parenting and I LOVED it. I just knew that was how I was meant to parent and then I applied it and the honeymoon with Kohn was over and the results were horrible but I was determined that my child would make good choices for the sake of being good not for fear or punishment or want or reward. No carrot and stick here, so I persisted on. I found a school that literally had an Alfie Kohn book on display to borrow from their parent library and it was a mile from home. I was elated could anything be more perfect? DS's kindergarten teacher also said she didn't believe in or utilize reward or punishments. Half way through kindergarten DS got kicked out of this school that seemed like such a good match. Still I wasn't certain I would tell him he got kicked out or just that he was going to try a new school. One day after his dismissal I got a phone call from the administrator about some paperwork and quick as lightning DS ran up next to me and before I could shoo him away through the phone he over heard the administrator and realized he'd been kicked out. I have never seen my child so deeply wounded. I can still see him, curling himself into a ball on the couch and hear him sobbing. This was very different then crying because he wanted something or he skinned a knee, different even then when his best friend would get mad and tell him he didn't want to play with him anymore.

An interesting thing happened after that, there wasn't one single school problem. The only notes I got were ones of glowing good behavior. Gone was the refusal to do work, the tantrums in class, back talking to the teacher, throwing crayons, etc. I didn't issue the consequence but the world did and DS heard and felt it. But did it hurt him, ultimately, did he benefit from it? Was it actually a good thing in the long term? I will never know if this change would have happened had a decided to shelter him from the truth of why he left his first school.

Maybe it's me, maybe there's some subtlety that I'm missing here. That kindergarten teacher at the first school, I think she did believe in some degree of consequences. A few times I tried to nail her down to specifics in an attempt to see if it was something I could do at home and provide some consistency to improve his behavior there. I never could get specifics. She would say things like when a child made bad choices they would model the correct behavior. It didn't help my son. Maybe non punitive methods aren't enough for some kids. I'm still of two minds on this. On one hand, I know well that life is lurking around the corner with it's own consequences and wouldn't it be kinder to prepare our kids for this at home? I don't mean to start preparing them at 16 , that's almost too late. I agree that little ones aren't capable of comprehending the abstract reasons for doing good. On the other hand working with them instead of doing to them , as Alfie would put it still holds appeal.


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

The Double-Postergeist strikes again!

Peeves!!!! Get thee gone, or I shall call the Bloody Baron!


----------



## PeacemongerMom (May 8, 2011)

ack, how do I erase it ?


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PeacemongerMom*
> 
> ack, how do I erase it ?


You don't exactly. You click on the "edit" icon, lower left, delete the body and substitute a * or whatever, or leave it as is. I've noticed it's been happening all over MDC in the last few days, so the Peeves joke was not entirely out of the ballpark. Digital-Peeves!


----------



## KSLaura (Jan 22, 2007)

Interesting thread! We run a punishment-free household and so far its working really well with my 4 and 7YOs. I've never heard of Alfie Kohn, but I'd love to learn more. Anyone have any good book suggestions?


----------



## kallah22 (May 8, 2011)

You know, it gets me that a lot of people now a days are still following Dr. Spock's particular theories for educating children and how man of you know that his son ended up killing himself? Not one I would want to follow. I'd rather follow what the Bible says. God created us and knows what's better for us and yes, I understand some criminals are in prison because of mental illness but this country in the last 40 years has abandoned its traditional ways of life where mom would be at home and dad would go to work and there was always someone there to take care of the kids. Now kids grow up on tv and video games, alone and many children never even know who their fathers are and I think that has greatly contributed to the high rate of crime.


----------



## Serafina33 (Jan 24, 2013)

Where in the bible does it give you step by step instructions for what to do, say, during temper tantrums with school aged children who are testing the limits?


----------



## Fillyjonk (Sep 21, 2007)

PeacemongerMow wrote "She would say things like when a child made bad choices they would model the correct behavior. It didn't help my son."

This is so true! And I dont think I've ever seen it articulated before.

My oldest, a boy just doesn't notice when people model stuff. He's off with the fairies a lot of the time really. He's very absorbed in his own world. He wants clear, quick answers, in the, to him, non-ideal situation that he can't just do as he likes







. But where these answers don't coincide with what brings him joy, he then sometimes kicks off or does as he likes.

My daughters, totally different. They pick up on the cues, the hints. They notice that we speak quieter and take our shoes off when we enter the house. Generally they do it. And ds is still there singing loudly in his mucky trainers.

There is a level on which we use punishment, time out etc because it is the only way ds actually notices.

Oh and before anyone suggests that I must have spent the last 10 years yelling and giving out gold stars, nope. We unschool, and we have really tried to avoid any punishments where possible. Oh and I can call them consequences. We are talking stuff like, right, you walked mud through the house so you need to go and wipe it up. To me thats a punishment actually, and fulfils the same top-down function as one. I have to say, to me consequences is a semantic nicety.


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

Neither of Dr. Spock's sons committed suicide. His grandson did, however he suffered from schizophrenia.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kallah22*
> 
> You know, it gets me that a lot of people now a days are still following Dr. Spock's particular theories for educating children and how man of you know that his son ended up killing himself? Not one I would want to follow. I'd rather follow what the Bible says. God created us and knows what's better for us and yes, I understand some criminals are in prison because of mental illness but this country in the last 40 years has abandoned its traditional ways of life where mom would be at home and dad would go to work and there was always someone there to take care of the kids. Now kids grow up on tv and video games, alone and many children never even know who their fathers are and I think that has greatly contributed to the high rate of crime.


----------



## Fillyjonk (Sep 21, 2007)

" I'd rather follow what the Bible says. God created us and knows what's better for us and yes, I understand some criminals are in prison because of mental illness but this country in the last 40 years has abandoned its traditional ways of life where mom would be at home and dad would go to work and there was always someone there to take care of the kids. Now kids grow up on tv and video games, alone and many children never even know who their fathers are and I think that has greatly contributed to the high rate of crime."

OTOH I'd rather have rights for women and employment and legal protection for those who want it. I'd rather women and men could make realistic choices about parenthood, work and not be forced into either. I'd rather domestic violence and rape within marriage be a criminal offence. I'd rather children had rights and were listened to and didn't have to go to work or starve. I'd rather a woman had the right to choose. I'd rather discrimination based on gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, race and culture be not only illegal but also socially unacceptable. I'd rather people knew not to drink and drive. I'm glad we've been to the moon and are sending probes to the furthest reaches of the solar system. I think the advances in medical technology, that interplay nicely with the technological world our next generation grows up in, have done so much to improve peoples qualities of life, kept families together for longer.

I think parenting today is radically different, better more consensual than it was 40 years ago. Generally, spanking and emotional abuse is unacceptable. If parents badly screw up, there is some kind of a care system which has an inkling of what kids need, even if it struggles to achieve it. Teachers are better, kinder. I grew up nearly 40 years ago. The world today is a much nicer one for our kids.


----------



## starling&diesel (Nov 24, 2007)

Thank you, *fillyjonk*!








I've been struggling with a response, and ultimately couldn't trust myself to stay within the UA. Thank you so much for standing up and singing with such a clear, beautiful voice! I'm in the choir with you, friend!

ps. And can I have your post printed on a T-shirt please?


----------



## MamadeRumi (Aug 5, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kallah22*
> 
> I'd rather follow what the Bible says.


As in "he that spareth his rod hateth his son"? Doesn't sound like really gentle discipline to me.


----------



## Fillyjonk (Sep 21, 2007)

aw starlinganddiesel, what a nice thing to see! Thank you.

I do feel a bit strongly about this, as you can see ;-)


----------



## filamentary (Aug 15, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daffodil*
> 
> why he's still hitting. Is it lack of self-control? If so, punishment probably won't help, because when he's mad enough to hit he's not going to be in control enough to think about the punishment he's going to get and stop himself in order to avoid it. Is he not yet old enough to think about other people's feelings? If he just doesn't yet fully understand the wrongness of hitting, he's probably not going to understand the rightness of punishment for hitting, either. So the punishment is more likely to make him mad at me and sorry for himself than sorry for hurting someone else. I don't think punishment is a good way of helping kids develop an intrinsic sense of right and wrong.


long thread, been reading through it off and on in free moments from my phone, this is where i'm up to, so forgive me if i end up saying anything that gets duplicated in someone else's comments i haven't read yet!

i like everything you said here, and i would add: if we notice kiddo is having impulse control - or does kiddo think things that feel uncomfortable or unfair warrant swift action (which in their limited repertoire comes out in the flailing or dragging of limbs or voice)? - isn't the only way to ensure we are modeling _a different way (of responding)_ to make sure that even a necessary consequence taken to protect one or more parties is done in a way that doesn't feel at all like what the child just did?

obviously if the kid hits another kid, and you fly over to them and hit them, we can all so readily and obviously see the hypocrisy and how the parent is sending a much clearer message with modeling hitting behavior than whatever directives are being verbalized. but without getting into semantics, i think it seems important to think about what all the teeny tiny clues you are sending with your body language and attitude may be, and - forget about the entire concept of punishment for a moment - does it feel/seem to the kid a lot like what they just did, from their limited perspective? and if so, isn't it just better, pragmatically speaking, to find another way?

i see this group hasn't come to consensus about whether you need to drive home a lesson about hitting, and maybe if you don't feel how i do, this idea won't work for you. but i absolutely believe that without ever being taught they did it wrong, the kid will outgrow the impulse as long as everything you model for them is positive, gentle, calm, loving, cooperative - unless they're nearly incapable (such as lower functioning autism spectrum kids). but we all know in kids who don't voluntarily choose cooperation due to cognitive inability don't respond to harshness, either, so i can't see any reason not to just use modeling, since any kid you feasibly could get compliant through punishment will just model their behavior after yours naturally anyway. ok, so that opinion aside and (i think) fairly well explained, where i was going was...

if (and perhaps only if) you see eye to eye with me on that last point, what about applying the baby falling concept to hitting? that is, baby falls, and you either go, "uh oh!" or "whoopsy-daisy!" as calm and cool as a cucumber and help them up, and then they only freak out if they are truly injured. you haven't overlaid unnecessary meaning onto it, creating additional distress baby wouldn't naturally need to feel. how bout if we did this with hitting? might take willingness from both kids' parents, but imagine if you basically go, "whoops!" like as if they did it on accident, even if it seemed rather deliberate (b/c chances are, they don't do it with the intent of causing the amount of pain it may possibly cause). no one is blamed. you are helping them up, basically (this is the moment of separation), giving both kids a moment to feel what they feel without any adult overlay. if it hurt the other kid, really and truly, and your kid sees that the only consequence of their action was that inflicted pain, they are learning what there really is to be learned - that hitting hurts. if it didn't hurt the other kid, we can at least rest assured it won't act as a natural positive reinforcement, since they didn't "get their way" as a result. you know, you just basically be like, "oops, not that, try again" in attitude, and then there's no chance the kid sees your response as an increasing escalation?

i mean, even with puppies, who don't have anywhere near human cognitive ability, but definitely show tendency toward what can probably rightly be called social behavior and empathy of the variety we value in our kids - they respond best to learning not to bite our skin (only chew on toys) when we act nonchalant in making the switcheroo: oops, got my hand (maybe a little yelp if it hurt, not the same as scolding), but here's the toy, clumsy little puppy. you don't have to reward them for selecting the toy or punish them for accidentally nipping flesh. even dogs naturally intuit that this is how it's done in this social sphere to which they enjoy belonging. not every dog every time, obviously, but even the best dog isn't as smart as a toddler in the verbal logic and reasoning department and no dog can ever understand your explanation. so isn't the important trait the social nature of the being, and the corresponding ability to empathize?

i feel like we all GET that attaching a punishment to a morally reprehensible action takes the focus off the morality of the action and substitutes avoidance of the behavior for the *right reasons* with avoidance for fear of being punished (leading them to sneak, deceive, cheat). but what about the subtle nuances of this principle? that even too quick a movement, too panicked a reaction from us, can likewise distract from the very building block lessons in empathy by injecting too much parental reaction? i am not at all saying we don't redirect, and guide, the kid, promptly. but if the kid can pick up your disapproving expression, can't they pick up the hurt look on the other toddler's face?

these are just thought experiments i want to throw out there. b/c maybe unconditional parenting is hard not only because of the patience it calls on us to muster, but because sometimes our own body language betrays the true spirit of the technique. maybe some of the people who contend it just didn't work don't mean it couldn't work, but they themselves just weren't good at internalizing it. the people who get really quickly defensive about their need to be the parent, set firm boundaries, enact discipline, etc., just don't strike me as people whose current attitudes and body language are likely to send the supportive "we're in this together, kiddo" message that you've got to be able to send if you're saying that you actually gave this parenting style a try. i know that sounds super judgmental, but bear with me - i'm asking this of myself as much as anyone else. some people just are calm, take-it-in-stride, gentle-mannered folks, and others are the teeth-grinding, hand-wringing, sweating type, and our temperaments (or perhaps some of it the results of our own upbringing) fall everywhere in between. i am naturally more high-strung than relaxed, which means i am going to have to be so incredibly mindful to enact unconditional parenting. and i'm bracing myself for the fact i won't get it perfect all the time. but i think it is more likely that the success or failure of it (just my opinion) rests on how successfully it is carried out. not in my over-achieving, list-checking way, but in the spirit in which i carry it out, as perceived by my kid.

and so, long story short, are our different views about semantics? or perhaps about something we can't bring to a message board at all? - our body language and the attitudes conveyed to our kids (regardless of what we say)?

and just because it's harder for some of us than others to give our kids what they most deserve obviously doesn't mean we don't owe it to them to work harder to rise to the challenge. as the saying goes, after all, they didn't ask to be born - we chose to have them.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kallah22*
> 
> You know, it gets me that a lot of people now a days are still following Dr. Spock's particular theories for educating children and how man of you know that his son ended up killing himself? Not one I would want to follow. I'd rather follow what the Bible says. God created us and knows what's better for us and yes, I understand some criminals are in prison because of mental illness but this country in the last 40 years has abandoned its traditional ways of life where mom would be at home and dad would go to work and there was always someone there to take care of the kids. Now kids grow up on tv and video games, alone and many children never even know who their fathers are and I think that has greatly contributed to the high rate of crime.


http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/drspock.asp

Please know your facts before you post. Bearing false witness is not cool. And I'm an atheist.


----------



## starling&diesel (Nov 24, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *filamentary*
> 
> i absolutely believe that without ever being taught they did it wrong, the kid will outgrow the impulse as long as everything you model for them is positive, gentle, calm, loving, cooperative - unless they're nearly incapable (such as lower functioning autism spectrum kids). but we all know in kids who don't voluntarily choose cooperation due to cognitive inability don't respond to harshness, either, so i can't see any reason not to just use modeling, since any kid you feasibly could get compliant through punishment will just model their behavior after yours naturally anyway.


So well put! Yes!


----------



## starling&diesel (Nov 24, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *filamentary*
> 
> maybe unconditional parenting is hard not only because of the patience it calls on us to muster, but because sometimes our own body language betrays the true spirit of the technique. maybe some of the people who contend it just didn't work don't mean it couldn't work, but they themselves just weren't good at internalizing it. the people who get really quickly defensive about their need to be the parent, set firm boundaries, enact discipline, etc., just don't strike me as people whose current attitudes and body language are likely to send the supportive "we're in this together, kiddo" message that you've got to be able to send if you're saying that you actually gave this parenting style a try. i know that sounds super judgmental, but bear with me - i'm asking this of myself as much as anyone else. some people just are calm, take-it-in-stride, gentle-mannered folks, and others are the teeth-grinding, hand-wringing, sweating type, and our temperaments (or perhaps some of it the results of our own upbringing) fall everywhere in between. i am naturally more high-strung than relaxed, which means i am going to have to be so incredibly mindful to enact unconditional parenting. and i'm bracing myself for the fact i won't get it perfect all the time. but i think it is more likely that the success or failure of it (just my opinion) rests on how successfully it is carried out. not in my over-achieving, list-checking way, but in the spirit in which i carry it out, as perceived by my kid.


This is where my struggle lies. I can have the intention, but sometimes in the heat of the moment my tone and body language will betray my best intentions and undo the gentle and non-coercive angles I was aiming for. Those times are our hardest times. When our hearts are all in it together, it's so much smoother.


----------



## Fillyjonk (Sep 21, 2007)

"i absolutely believe that without ever being taught they did it wrong, the kid will outgrow the impulse as long as everything you model for them is positive, gentle, calm, loving, cooperative - unless they're nearly incapable" from filamentry sorry can't quote for some reason

I think yes and no. I think yes for some kids. My girls, basically, yes. My son, no.

I think some kids-disproportionately boys, though I'm always reluctant to reduce anything to gender terms- seem to be amazingly unobservant and you can model til the cows come home but its not going to work. Because they don't really notice what other people are doing. Not, I assure you, because they've been ignored their whole lives. Actually one of my son's friends, who is awful for this, was an only child with a highly involved (what some might call an extreme helicopter) mother til about a year ago. I think some kids, like my oldest, actually need to be told that certain behaviours just aren't ok. Again, and again. He will not notice the effect of his behaviour on others and I have no idea why (he's not on the spectrum afaik, and many of his friends are the same). Modelling isn't always enough. And of course, this is behaviour that is unpleasant for others. Eventually you get to a point where you just have to put some lines in the sand, else you do end up with a kid who no one else wants to play with. Sometimes you need to be able to put clear, quick consequences in place so that everyone gets freedom. If I say to my son, "if you hurt anyone with your whirlwind impressions you will have to sit with me for ten minutes" then everyone gets to go to the park and everyone gets to stay at the park. He is happier as a result. And I promise, he has not been raised in an environment where people continually wave their arms around or rush about with their eyes shut. No one is modelling being a whirlwind. And there is nothing wrong with a 10 year old wanting the sensory feedback and group fun from doing that, except that they need to be more aware so younger kids are safe.

I also do believe, based on seeing other kids in action, that lack of awareness of others, relative lack of empathy, is developmentally normal. I think we sometimes measure good parenting by how adult-like our kids are and I'm not really in favour of that. I think better to recognise that our kids are undergoing recognisable, if irritating, normal, and necessary childhood stages. I prefer to give them simple, enforced limits, and let them get on with being kids and take care of some of the grown up organisational stuff, reminding them about rules and boring stuff, myself. Empathy comes with age and development IME, its not really learnt and is generally modelled well enough in any non-abusive family.

I think, personally, you get the kids you get and you do your best. I think we overestimate the amount we can influence them really and I think we often fall into a trap of correlating adult/mature behaviour with good parenting. I think the reasons for parenting kindly and well are primarily moral ones really, and I think we have a better relationship with our kids when we are kind to them. I think its right to model kind, empathic behaviour because it is right to be kind and empathic to people and our kids, along with our partners, are hopefully the most important people in our lives. But I don't think its all we need to do, for many kids, and I don't think it would ever be right to conclude that a child who behaved in a way not considered socially acceptable was doing that because they had not had appropriate behaviour modelled to them. If only it were so simple!


----------



## filamentary (Aug 15, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fillyjonk*
> 
> I think we sometimes measure good parenting by how adult-like our kids are and I'm not really in favour of that. I think better to recognise that our kids are undergoing recognisable, if irritating, normal, and necessary childhood stages.


yes! well said!


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I am really geeked about how much amazing discussion there's been in this thread!


----------



## KSLaura (Jan 22, 2007)

I think yes and no. I think yes for some kids. My girls, basically, yes. My son, no.

This is an interesting perspective. I have 2 girls who behave pretty well with appropriate modeling and suggestions. Thinking back though, I remember my parents having a hard time getting my younger brother to behave. I seem to recall things like temper tantrums in public when he was well into grade school. He responded a lot better to rules/consequences, and as a result, my parents did more of that with him than with my sister or I.

I wonder why it is that girls seem to respond better to these methods? Is it really a biological/gender thing, or is it the gender specific expectations we have in our society. Anyone have any experience with boys/girls from different cultures? I wonder if behavior in other countries follows gender lines.


----------



## Fillyjonk (Sep 21, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSLaura*
> 
> I think yes and no. I think yes for some kids. My girls, basically, yes. My son, no.
> 
> ...


Well, to respond directly about the kids in the above quote...what I can say is that my son was very, very sheltered from gender roles. Its something I'm highly aware of, have read about, and have never pushed. I actually kept his hours low at our Waldorf kindy because I did not appreciate the stereotyping. Til he was 6 or so, his favourite colour was pink (then he went to the Waldorf kindy...). Yes I am a SAHM but I've always been either working or studying (chemistry). His dad does equally his share around the house and he has good models in his grandfathers. He's been raised in an environment which celebrates diversity of gender and I have many friends whose gender and/or sexual identity is complex, or non mainstream. He's homeschooled, and we are in the UK where the default is secular.

Even now, at ten, he doesn't have an especially strong identity around being a boy. He's never been through the "girls are yuk" phase. He's entirely unbothered about wearing pink or purple and he'll play happily with his sisters. Until quite recently he had long hair and was often mistaken for a girl (he's also quite slight) and that never bothered him. It certainly didn't bother him enough to cut his hair.

But there are differences in how he processes information, what he notices, how he picks up on social cues. Whether that's a girl-boy thing I have no idea at all. However, if he is displaying this behaviour because of societal pressure, then I think there's little hope for the majority of kids.

I think the best way to see this is as, yes, some kids will pick up on social cues. Others won't. How can we work with those who don't?


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fillyjonk*
> 
> But there are differences in how he processes information, what he notices, how he picks up on social cues. Whether that's a girl-boy thing I have no idea at all. *However, if he is displaying this behaviour because of societal pressure, then I think there's little hope for the majority of kids. *
> 
> I think the best way to see this is as, yes, some kids will pick up on social cues. Others won't. How can we work with those who don't?


But isn't societal pressure part of the game? And isnt it a good thing he is testing it out? Isnt teenage pretty much part of that process?
isnt it about testing out and then finding your own voice.

I have discovered this about my dd. She is getting to the teenage phase and boy does parenting as one knows it go right out the window. punishment for me now takes on a whole different definition. i notice as they get around 10 or so (dd and her friends) they come so much into their own person who dont want help from their parents. Sometimes the natural consequence is worse than any punishment a parent could give. i am discovering how at this phase punishment COULD become an ego trip.


----------



## Fillyjonk (Sep 21, 2007)

meemee-just to be clear about the context of that quote. I was specifically referring to a previous post which suggested that my son was displaying typical "boy" behaviour because of his upbringing. I was pointing out that he'd had an upbringing which not only minimised exposure to stereotypical ideas but also encouraged him to actively question them. Basically, that if you want an example of a kid raised stereotypically male, my kid is about the worst example you could pick. Not that I was trying to raise an automaton. Ironically, quite the opposite.

I think this has been very much taken out of context and I'd really suggest reading all the posts relating to this, which were part of an ongoing conversation. One point I've raised relating to my own kid is that he has always been like that. My entire point is that kids are different and what works for one does not work for all. I know this because I have three, very different, kids.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Fillyjonk* 


> One point I've raised relating to my own kid is that he has always been like that.


this is your 9 year old right? The thing is just coz he has always been 'like that' does that mean he will continue to be that way? My dd too has never fit into any mold. She has always been very different and yet now even she is affected by societal pressure in the form of different people she is looking at as heroes.

Perhaps i am taking this further out of context. I have followed this thread and read all the posts - not attacking you Fillyjonk, but i will say without quotes some posts did get difficult following - but perhaps i am throwing this out there - because punishment before 10 is so different than punishment after 10 or so.


----------



## Fillyjonk (Sep 21, 2007)

meemee, sorry but I really don't want to get into this.At no point did I say that my child would always be that way, btw. I said, that is what he is like now and has always been that way, so the odds of it being some kind of preteen phase are minimal.

I don't think there's much point trying to convince me that I'm mistaken about my own child's personality. I think its fair to assume that I know him quite well by now. I also have three kids, which gives me, I feel, a level of perspective regarding what's nature and what's nurture.

I understand that its hard to read all the posts, but bearing in mind that you're taking a quote out of context and using it to criticise my assessment of my own child-and bearing in mind I wasn't asking for help or anything- I think its reasonable to ask you do so before commenting on my specific situation.

Incidentally, no, he's not 9, he's 10. My sig is out of date.

This is feeling rather personal. I think one important principle here is that our experiences differ. The original question was "is punishment ever necessary?". Not, "Is it generally a good idea.". or "is it a good default position.". My experience is that strict boundaries and consequences can work for some children. For others, they are just a major drag for everyone concerned, including the kid. I'm familiar with punishment free paragdims and have tried them and my experience is that they work for some children. There is simply no one size fits all in parenting. Its a huge mistake to extrapolate out, especially from what has worked on one kid, in one family.

I think its important to be respectful of each other's differences here and respect that people have had different experiences, not try to dismiss or explain away someone's experience of parenting because it doesn't tally with our theories.


----------



## erigeron (Oct 29, 2010)

Not to wade too far into this fray, but I was total crap at reading social cues when I was 9 or 10, and I'm a girl.


----------



## Fillyjonk (Sep 21, 2007)

erigeron, totally!

I'm arguing for kids to be seen as individuals and for it to be recognised that some kids are poorer socially than others. I am not saying that boys are poorer listeners per se. I am saying that we can't take a blanket "no punishment" approach because kids are not from a cookie cutter.

And I think that those kids really simply need clear guidelines and consequences which to some parents is punishment.


----------



## erigeron (Oct 29, 2010)

^^^ Couldn't agree more.


----------



## filamentary (Aug 15, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fillyjonk*
> 
> My oldest, a boy just doesn't notice when people model stuff. He's off with the fairies a lot of the time really. He's very absorbed in his own world. He wants clear, quick answers, in the, to him, non-ideal situation that he can't just do as he likes
> 
> ...


when i came back to this thread to catch up, i had to go back and read what the previous recent comments had been that prompted the discussion about boys/girls. got to this and realized that if you'd happened to just say "my oldest" and not specified "a boy" and then instead of saying "my daughters", had said "the younger siblings", the whole thing would have sounded different. i am very disinclined to believe there are any biological ways that a prepubescent child displays anything sex-related except what they learn from the world around them, so when i read this, i am naturally doing one of two things: assuming cultural training, or setting it aside as irrelevant and looking at what else might be different (if anything). you explain very clearly that you are doing a lot to prevent sexed socialization, so my next thought is, well, he's not different b/c he's being a boy. he's different b/c either (a) he's just a different individual or (b) there are actually differences in how he was raised. i am very curious, actually, about how different the experience is of the oldest child (or an only child), who is born into a family of only adults, from the experiences of younger siblings. so that was one thing that immediately sprung to mind. he is the oldest. maybe that has nothing to do with it. but maybe it does, and i was just pondering.

i've decided up front i only want one kid, so there are a lot of things i won't ever have to concern myself with. but i'm still very interested & curious, b/c it seems to be a recurrent theme on these message boards that things are never the same for one kid versus multiples, and the oldest often becomes harder to parent the way you like/originally intended when subsequent kids come along. that there are almost certain inevitabilities. like, maybe there are certain kids (like your son) who don't seem to pick up on what you model, so they'd require extra time and effort if you ever wanted to pull off a 100% punishment-free parenting style, that you just literally do not have enough of b/c you have to be a parent to all your children, so there are necessary compromises so that you're being fair to all of them. and, admittedly, it is in part these perceived inevitabilities that dissuade me from wanting more than one child (and i'm basically expecting a high-needs child, since this temperament seems to run in my family). (it is also just a practical matter of the size of our home and budget, and everything in this lifestyle we're leading is scaled to the simple & compact, so a miniature family makes sense, but that's another topic altogether...  )


----------



## Fillyjonk (Sep 21, 2007)

"

when i came back to this thread to catch up, i had to go back and read what the previous recent comments had been that prompted the discussion about boys/girls. got to this and realized that if you'd happened to just say "my oldest" and not specified "a boy" and then instead of saying "my daughters", had said "the younger siblings", the whole thing would have sounded different. i am very disinclined to believe there are any biological ways that a prepubescent child displays anything sex-related except what they learn from the world around them, so when i read this, i am naturally doing one of two things: assuming cultural training, or setting it aside as irrelevant and looking at what else might be different (if anything). you explain very clearly that you are doing a lot to prevent sexed socialization, so my next thought is, well, he's not different b/c he's being a boy. he's different b/c either (a) he's just a different individual or (b) there are actually differences in how he was raised. i am very curious, actually, about how different the experience is of the oldest child (or an only child), who is born into a family of only adults, from the experiences of younger siblings. so that was one thing that immediately sprung to mind. he is the oldest. maybe that has nothing to do with it. but maybe it does, and i was just pondering.
" by filamentary

Ok this is what I am going to say. It is long, I don't have time to edit, I've tried to break it up. Don't mind whether people read it or not really but thought it deserved a proper reply.

First, yk. I am really not ignorant about gender, or sexuality. I lived in a queer female commune for years. Really, I get the theory. I'd say, if you (collective you, not one poster) have a problem with what I am saying, based on my experience, you probably have zero chance with the 99% of parents who think I'm a dangerous amoral liberal. I do genuinely think that the way a few people have taken what I've said here pretty much stops debate. Now I don't care that much, but I do feel, more generally, as someone who broadly agrees only not really here, that way of arguing is enormously counter productive. its always better to actually listen to what people are saying rather than try to put up straw men.

Second, I'm basing what I am saying on experience, not theory, Experience of my kids and many others. Ten years child raising. My experience does not tally with my theories. That's a pain. Its also parenting in a nutshell. I was a much better parent before my kids were born, and I was a great parent of tweens when my kids were toddlers. I think, finally, ask me about teenagers and I might admit I don't know. Parenting is complex and messy and my experience is that it grows more complex and also, more fun, as they get older.

I'm not massively interested in defending myself. I really am happy with how I parent, and I'm really not sure how happy I am to put my parenting under the spotlight like this. TBH I'm posting mainly because I see that most people criticising have kids much, much younger than mine and I remember those days well, and really, rather than a curt reply, I'd like to encourage anyone to raise their kids to be critical of gender. These criticisms are misplaced, but at least they come from questioning and that's exciting.

But I think, if this is something people want to discuss, its better on another thread. This one has too much baggage, and-and I don't mean this unkindly-I'm not massively interested, as someone who has been parenting a decade and who has three kids-in having my parenting dissected by those with one kid, with younger kids, or none at all. I don't mean that unkindly, its just it does nothing for me.

I'm happy to contribute to a discussion thread on nature vs nurture in gender, raising kids as gender-blindly as possible, etc. I am happy to talk with anyone at all about this stuff. But it feels to me right now that my actual experience is being dismissed or explained away, because it doesn't fit with theory, and that really does nothing for me, I'm afraid. This is a real phenomenon I'm describing, and I think a lot of parents of tween boys would concur. Honestly, I've come to the painful conclusion that its more productive for feminists to find ways to raise their sons as questioning, aware young men than try to deny this.

There are real, deep, issues here and my feeling is that our first priority is to raise boys who don't see themselves as narrowly, defensively, male, who get what's wrong with pornography, who really don't get why on earth "gay" should be an insult, who stand up and say no when the rape jokes start. Who can cook and clean and don't see a female partner as a potential slave or emotional or physical punchbag. That's my first task with my son right now. 10 is far too old for him or I not to recognise that his experience as a boy is different to mine or his sisters. Better by far that his father and I actively encourage discussion and questioning of this, of inherent privilege. He may run around like a crazed windmill but he'll also tell a friend that they can't exclude the girls, that boys can like pink, that his cousins have two dads and what on earth is funny about that? I dunno, I feel that those of us with tween boys have some real work here, and that's really where my attention lies. Whether there are actual differences between girls and boys...well I've done everything to mitigate them and they are there. Not much more I can do but work with what I have. I'm a bit beyond the theories really, lovely as they are.


----------



## filamentary (Aug 15, 2013)

i feel like these message boards are so often about such incredibly personal aspects of our lives, that it's actually pretty cool & amazing how mature & supportive the vast majority of things said tend to be. on the one hand, some of us, maybe seeking to learn & grow, have to be ready to find something well-thought-out come under unexpected scrutiny, then sort out our thoughts about that feedback from the strong feelings that may accompany that... i am still immune from this experience to a large degree since i've got the youngest little one! (not conceived yet, hehe)... but in any case, i am and will continue to try to stay aware of that, so i can have & make interesting conversation while remaining sensitive to the deeply human, personal nature of the topics here. that said, i hope that my last comment wasn't construed as critical, fillyjonk. i honestly couldn't make out for certain the tone of the things in your reply that were in response to what you quoted from my previous reply (that's a mouthful!), but i certainly felt that, having been lurking in so many of the same threads lately, we had a bit of rapport, so i guess i expected my comments to come across as neutral or positive. i hope they did (like i said, i can't entirely tell). but do believe me when i say i am genuinely not trying to criticize.


----------

