# Does Gental discipline=No discipline??



## Stayathomemommy (Jun 7, 2002)

After reading some posts and trying to figure out exactly what GD means i feel like it = no discipline. GD is a wonderful theory but from what i have seen when parents use this form of "discipline" it usually means their kids run the show and arnt respectful of any adult or authority figure. I really think its for the chilrens own good that they have consistancy, rules, and real discipline (none of which needs to be done with spanking, name calling, or hurting our child emotionally). Can GD be all those things too?? Does GD mean no concequences, no punishment for bad behavior?? what wrong with taking away privilages??


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Stayathomemommy*
After reading some posts and trying to figure out exactly what GD means i feel like it = no discipline. GD is a wonderful theory but from what i have seen when parents use this form of "discipline" it usually means their kids run the show and arnt respectful of any adult or authority figure. I really think its for the chilrens own good that they have consistancy, rules, and real discipline (none of which needs to be done with spanking, name calling, or hurting our child emotionally). Can GD be all those things too?? Does GD mean no concequences, no punishment for bad behavior?? what wrong with taking away privilages??

GD means different things to different parents and families.
There are those of us here of every shade of the spectrum.
In my home discipline is how you describe. GD is about no spanking, yelling, shaming, and about being aware of my childrens needs and abilities.
In other homes you will likely find GD defined differently.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

We have no punishments, we have some consequences, but we try very hard to limit those to natural ones. And my dd doesn't run wild, yet. She's almost three. Well, sometimes she runs wild, but like I said, she's almost three.







I'm not big on showing respect to authority figures, I think EVERYONE should be shown equal respect, and we stress that in my family. We talk a lot about ways to show respect to everyone, and we show a lot of respect to her. She doesn't "run the show", as in she doesn't get to do everything she wants, or even close, but I respect her DESIRE to do those things.

As far as what's wrong with taking away priveleges, I don't feel that her "priveleges" are mine to remove. We have no "punishment for bad behavior", in fact we have no "bad behavior". We might have "undesired behavior." But, IMO, a punishment deflects a child from learning the correct way to act. It angers them, it is an unecessary show of power, and it may even create an atmosphere where misbehavior is more likely, as there can be a trade of "misbehavior" for "punishment". That's what I have against it. Like I said, she's still a toddler, but it's working pretty well for us so far.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Stayathomemommy*
Does GD mean no concequences, no punishment for bad behavior?? what wrong with taking away privilages??

A few problems with punishment (taking away privileges being an example) are that it can set up an adversarial relationship, it might encourage kids to be dishonest (do the wrong thing when no one is looking....), and that it robs the child of an opportunity to truly face the natural consequences of their actions and "make good".

That said, GD does not nec = no punishment for everyone.

The good news is that there are ways to teach responsible behavior without punishment. Barbara Coloroso's book "Kid's are Worth It!" is a great read on parenting without punishment. Alfie Kohn's "Unconditional Parenting" is great, too....but, imo, more theory and less substance.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

After reading some posts and trying to figure out exactly what GD means i feel like it = no discipline. GD is a wonderful theory but from what i have seen when parents use this form of "discipline" it usually means their kids run the show and arnt respectful of any adult or authority figure. I really think its for the chilrens own good that they have consistancy, rules, and real discipline (none of which needs to be done with spanking, name calling, or hurting our child emotionally). Can GD be all those things too?? Does GD mean no concequences, no punishment for bad behavior?? what wrong with taking away privilages??
IMO no two parents GD or otherwise parent exactly alike. If you're not spanking, name calling, or hurting your children emotionally it sounds to me like you are GDing. IMO punishments and removal of 'privileges' could be emotionally hurtful though. I am human, sometimes I am not respectful of other people, occaisonally I am a jacka**. Usually this happens when I am either over tired, super hungry, frustrated, angry, or hurting inside. I expect no more or less from my dc. I do take into account they have less experience and impulse control. When they do act disrespectful (definitely NOT a usual thing) I look for the reason and help them accordingly. This is not always easy and it is not doing nothing. If their actions are affecting another person negatively I talk to them about that, just as a I would want someone to tell me if something I was doing was affecting them negatively. I believe many people here are comfortable with setting rules, consistency, and/or using logical and/or natural consequences as GD. There are also people who GD and they also strive to live consensually and/or be non-coercive. I've learned alot reading things here. I take what is useful/ meaningful/ thought-provoking for ME and leave the rest behind just as I do when reading a book.


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Boongirl, you are describing me, my parenting and my children. I know I am hijacking the thread but really I need advice. My problem is exactly there. I am an ineffective gentle parent. When you say about "kids that were not punished and also not held accountable in any way for their actions nor were they taught in any way how to behave like a civilized and polite person" well, that's us.
How can I turn this around without punishments? Everyone who sees my kids says: "You've got to punish them for what they do". I do not want to go that way, but the situation is like this.
My dd (age 5) takes to pulling a cord down. The cord is attached to the curtain thing on the window. I say, no pulling the chord. It will break. I say it twice and she says "I do what I want". So I remove her. She starts screaming and I have to hold her or she will go back to pulling the chord. I hold her for half an hour and she pulls my hair so hard and scratches me .... Later we talk about it. She says, yes, yes, yes mommy OK OK... teenage style...
What am I doing wrong?
The little one meanwhile asks for an egg. It is almost dinnertime. Because I am busy with dd1 screaming and I cannot prepare the egg immediately she throws egg on the floor. I say please clean the egg from the floor. Instead she runs away and tells me I am going to take a shower now. I have barely the time to say something due to the situation and she is in the shower bathing in cold water in a dirty shower. I don't know. I am trying really hard. I work full time but I do give the kids a lot of attention. I play with them a lot. Yet things are going from very bad to much worse.
Am I the worse mother?


----------



## cmb123 (Dec 30, 2004)

I try to just follow "the golden rule" and treat my kids the way I would want to be treated. If I made a mistake at work, would I want my boss to hit me, or scream at me? NO. So just because I know that my boss isn't going to beat me, do I screw up at work just because "I can" NO.
For me, I think that expectations are enough. I don't use spanking or punitive measures with my kids, and yet they are very "well behaved" (they are 5,7, and 9). I do talk about expectations, model the kind of behaviour I expect, and treat them the way I'd like to be treated. If there is a problem, we talk about it.
I do think one of the major keys to this is consistancy though. Just because you are not spending the day dreaming up punishments, or setting time out timers or whatever people do, doesn't mean you just sit back and do nothing. Discipline is teaching. It's a full time job. Sometimes I think gentle discipline is more difficult because it takes more time, creativity and patience than just reaching out and swatting someone or getting some kind of instant gratification by screaming your own frustration at them KWIM?
I think that is how some people end up with "out of control" kids. They know they want to use GD, but then are faced with a tricky behaviour situation, and they don't know what to do, so they do nothing- then that snowballs over time. The kids get out of control, because they don't have any kind of guidlines to follow or the parent hasn't set any expectations, because the parent doesn't even know what thier expectations are. I think parents do need to be in control- not control OVER thier children, but in control of themselves and thier emotions so they can teach thier children how to get along in this world.
Please keep in mind I'm generalizing here. I'm not suggesting that anyone here who is having a tough time with thier kid right now is just being lazy or anything. We've all been there! As someone else mentioned there are a lot of different families out there. For some families what some of us see as "out of control kids" is just fine with them. They want thier kids to do whatever they want, whenever they want, how ever they want. That is thier choice.
But for me, like the OP, I do believe that kids (or at least my kids) need boundarys, expectations, and guidelines and I strongly, strongly believe that those can be communicated w/o punishments.
Gosh I hope that made sense, it's really early


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

A lot of people here tell me I am not GD because I use parent-imposed consequences to discipline my children (not all the time, of course, but they are in my parenting bag). However, I don't scream at my kids, hit them, berate them, humiliate them, etc. I believe I discipline gently.

I certainly believe one can be GD and still be "in charge." I'm not willing to let my kids run the show or twist myself in knots so that my kids don't throw fits. I don't believe in letting kids' desires come first just because they are kids, and I don't believe the power imbalance inherent in the parent-child relationship is a bad thing.

However, I don't strive to be GD or any other label. I just do what works for our family.

Namaste


----------



## BlueStateMama (Apr 12, 2004)

Quote:

I do talk about expectations, model the kind of behaviour I expect, and treat them the way I'd like to be treated. If there is a problem, we talk about it.
I do think one of the major keys to this is consistancy though. Just because you are not spending the day dreaming up punishments, or setting time out timers or whatever people do, doesn't mean you just sit back and do nothing. Discipline is teaching. It's a full time job. Sometimes I think gentle discipline is more difficult because it takes more time, creativity and patience than just reaching out and swatting someone or getting some kind of instant gratification by screaming your own frustration at them KWIM?
EXACTLY the way I feel about GD. To the OP - we're a GD household, but I'm very strict in terms of my expectations and boundaries. It's very important to me, though, to respect my children. What was helpful to me is learning about where my children were developmentally - cognitively and emotionally. Trying to really understand their abilities, limitations, and how they see the world has shaped how we approach discipline.

Because I'm dealing with a toddler (DS - 2 1/2) we're more in the world of spanking v. non-spanking because he's so young (as opposed to some of the punishments used for older kids.) Spanking and yelling aren't an option in our house. And yes, I do think GD takes more energy, creativity and down-right "roll up your sleeves and get to work" parenting than simply smacking your kid on the fanny when you're mad at them. Like others have said, the role of discipline is to teach - and hitting your kid teaches them nothing except that hitting is acceptable. It's a short -cut (and lazy parenting, IMO.) OP - I know you specifically excluded spanking from your post, my commentary on that isn't directed to you.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

ITA with dharmamama. According to what most of the posters in this forum seem to believe, I wouldn't be using "gentle discipline." However, we don't hit, we don't yell, and we don't shame. We try to be positive whenever possible.

I will punish my children under certain circumstances. You can call it "parent-imposed consequences" or you can call it punishment, as I do. I view that as semantics.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

I agree that GD doesn't necessarily = no discipline. There are a wide range of opinions on what makes a parent GD. I find most of the debates to be interesting and informative. Others can get judgmental. Like any other parenting resource, I take what will work with my family and discard the rest. I try to take each situation and analyze what is needed. We do have expectations for our dds. Most issues that I find important are related to safety and repect of all people in our home, parents and siblings. While I try to meet their individual needs, I draw the line when that comes at the expense of another person in the house. For a great resource on discipline without punishment check out "The Secret of Parenting" by Anthony Wolf. Maya once suggested this book to me when I posted about an issue we were having in our home. The ideas in this book really resonated with me. You can discipline your child gently without punishment and have well behaved children. One doesn't have to be at the expense of the other.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Why does it seem like so many people (even on MDC!) think discipline = punishment? Discipline is guiding and teaching. The goal of discipline is to teach our children to be self-disciplined (think self-guided). I do not think punishment is an effective tool for teaching. I feel it takes the focus off of the lesson I am trying to teach, and erodes the trust between parent and child.

As an example lets say I want to teach my children to wear a helmet while biking. I could just tell them they have to wear it or I'll take away their bike. They will wear the helmet because they don't want the bike to go away. Then the focus is on "mom will take away my bike" not the real reason one should wear a helmet while biking. If you take the time and energy to teach them why it is important they will wear the helmet because they want to protect their head. If a someone is "behaving" out of fear of punishment (or want of praise) they have not really learned anything. Once mom's not there to punish there is no insentive to do the right thing.

I think gentle discipline is about a lot more than just not hitting your kids. It's about guidance, nurturing, cooperation and respect. When you've established a relationship based on mutual respect your children trust you. They believe you when you say "wear the helmet or you could hurt your brain if you fall." Does it mean they never question or challenge you? Of course not, questioning is part of learning. But my kids do know I'm on their side and that makes teaching so much easier.

This is from the forum guildlines sticky:
_Effective discipline is based on loving guidance. It is based on the belief that children are born innately good and that our role as parents is to nurture their spirits as they learn about limits and boundaries, rather than to curb their tendencies toward wrongdoing. Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems._


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I certainly believe one can be GD and still be "in charge." I'm not willing to let my kids run the show or twist myself in knots so that my kids don't throw fits. I don't believe in letting kids' desires come first just because they are kids, and I don't believe the power imbalance inherent in the parent-child relationship is a bad thing.

This is how I feel as well.

The power imbalance between parents and children is the reason why, when my daughter hits me, she gets a gentle correction - when, if my husband hit me, I would leave him. It's why she gets fed instantly whenever she's hungry, and my husband might be told, "let me finish reading this article, and then I'll start dinner."

I see it as my responsibility to pitch my expectations of her to her developmental level, while at the same time providing gentle teaching and guidance to help her advance in skills and understanding. In that context, I am comfortable being the leader in our relationship.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
As an example lets say I want to teach my children to wear a helmet while biking. I could just tell them they have to wear it or I'll take away their bike. They will wear the helmet because they don't want the bike to go away. Then the focus is on "mom will take away my bike" not the real reason one should wear a helmet while biking. If you take the time and energy to teach them why it is important they will wear the helmet because they want to protect their head.

Maybe. Or maybe the child will decide that the discomfort of the helmet is worse than the risk of head injury and go without the helmet.

Then it's up to the parent to decide whether the issue is "worth it" enough to them to set a limit.

It often seems that people who don't believe in using punishment assume that those of us who do punish jump straight to it without any other attempts to discipline. I think that is generally untrue. I think the main difference between myself and those who don't punish at all is their length of tolerance for a problem not being resolved. I am not willing to let certain problems drag on for days, weeks, or months.

Namaste!


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

I agree with dharmamama. There are some issues I am willing to negotiate with my girls. Safety isn't one of them. For me, wearing a helmet on a bike is like wearing a seatbelt in a car. It is not negotiable and it is the law. If they want to ride the bike, a helmet is part of the deal. Of course, I wouldn't jump right to the punishment either. I would try to discuss it and stress the importance of wearing the helmet. Some kids would try to go without it anyway. In that case, I would tell them they are welcome to ride, when they are willing to wear the helmet.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
It often seems that people who don't believe in using punishment assume that those of us who do punish jump straight to it without any other attempts to discipline. I think that is generally untrue. I think the main difference between myself and those who don't punish at all is their length of tolerance for a problem not being resolved. I am not willing to let certain problems drag on for days, weeks, or months.

My feeling is that when you resort to punishment you erode the trust and respect, so your child is more likely to "disobey" you when you're not around. Getting at the root of problems and really teaching my children (rather than just putting a stop to a behavior) might have taken more time and energy-- I don't think so though. For sure it's a breeze at this point.

Quote:

Or maybe the child will decide that the discomfort of the helmet is worse than the risk of head injury and go without the helmet.
I believe if you have a relationship with a firm base of mutual respect and trust, and your kids really understand the reason to wear a helmet, then this doesn't happen.







It's worked for us.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
I believe if you have a relationship with a firm base of mutual respect and trust, and your kids really understand the reason to wear a helmet, then this doesn't happen.









I believe that that is too simplistic of an explanation for why kids "don't behave."

Namaste!


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
I agree with dharmamama. There are some issues I am willing to negotiate with my girls. Safety isn't one of them. For me, wearing a helmet on a bike is like wearing a seatbelt in a car. It is not negotiable and it is the law. If they want to ride the bike, a helmet is part of the deal. Of course, I wouldn't jump right to the punishment either. I would try to discuss it and stress the importance of wearing the helmet. Some kids would try to go without it anyway. In that case, I would tell them they are welcome to ride, when they are willing to wear the helmet.

I get the impression that some here think that if you don't punish that means you have no authority. I believe that kids can view a parent as an authority figure and trust and respect them, without punishments. If I had to threaten punishment to get my child to do/not do something, I would figure I had failed in my job to teach them.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I think the main difference between myself and those who don't punish at all is their length of tolerance for a problem not being resolved. I am not willing to let certain problems drag on for days, weeks, or months.

But what happens if that punishment doesn't work? Do you resort to harsher and harsher punishments?


----------



## afishwithabike (Jun 8, 2005)

To me it means offering alternatives. If not taken it is up to you to decide what to do. We know however that Yelling is only going to frustrate both of you and spanking is cruel. Would you like to be belittled? Humm it is a catch 22.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I believe that that is too simplistic of an explanation for why kids "don't behave."

Namaste!

That wasn't an explination for why kids "don't behave." It seems that when someone says they don't use punishment then someone else will say "but what if your child does X?!" Implying that there is a point you get to where you must punish. I don't agree. I think that if you have a relationship based on trust and respect it makes teaching easier (that's what I was saying). There are lots of reasons kids "don't behave." That's another issue. You would want to look at the individual problem and try to figure out the reasons behind it.


----------



## mightymoo (Dec 6, 2003)

Unlike other 'systems' for parenting, Gentle Discipline is based on basic theories of respect for children and being true to their needs and your long term goals for them (Happiness, etc). I would venture that most of the parents here are not GD because it 'works', they are GD because they have thought long and hard about what they feel is the best way to treat their kids and they are trying to help them become good people through that.

You find many different concepts of what 'Gentle Discipline' is because its not a handed down prescribed philosophy - its something most GDers have thought through for themselves and naturally different folks end up with different ideas of what the right way is. It is also not a quick fix - its based on establishing a trusting relationship with a child and working hard to teach them the real reason we want to do things a particular way - teach them so they can internalize it and want to do it for its own sake, not to please or prevent angering their parents.

When you see a mother in the schoolyard whose child is engaging in destructive or hurtful behavior and the mother doesn't seem to be doing anything about it is probably not a GD parent. A GD parent would take their child aside and talk to them about the right way to behave - regardless of the where on the spectrum of GD that parent falls, you would see them involved, not sitting back. What you are seeing is not GD.

You asked what was wrong with punishment? I recommend you read Alfie Kohn's books. Punishment only focuses on the behavior and not on the reasons for why the child behaved as they did or why they should behave differently in the future. Punishment works - short term. Long term it makes the child less likely to want to engage in those behaviors on their own when they are out of your control.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
I get the impression that some here think that if you don't punish that means you have no authority. I believe that kids can view a parent as an authority figure and trust and respect them, without punishments. If I had to threaten punishment to get my child to do/not do something, I would figure I had failed in my job to teach them. But what happens if that punishment doesn't work? Do you resort to harsher and harsher punishments?

I don't consider having a rule that you must wear a helmet to ride a bike to be a punishment. It's a matter of safety and a law in both states I have lived in. I would try to discuss the situation and stress the importance of staying safe first. But, some kids will do unsafe things in spite of our best efforts. In that case, I would not be afraid to intervene. They would be able to decide on their own to wear the helmet and ride the bike. It wouldn't be taken away for a period of time as a punishment, like a week or whatever. While I think having mutual respect, trust and attachment are important, I don't think this means a child will never do anything that could be dangerous or against the teachings of the parent.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

I don't think GD=no discipline...I spend a lot of time disciplining my children, talking to them, explaining, redirecting, researching, worrying, hugging, kissing, trying new things. I try to make everything a teaching/learning opportunity and look for morals in everything we encounter in everyday life.

no discipline requires no effort...I make more effort because I choose to discipline gently.


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I am not willing to let certain problems drag on for days, weeks, or months.

That does sound exhausting! But just to clarify for my family (being one that doesn't use punishments) we've never had anything drag on for days, weeks or months - not even hours.
I've heard this misperception here before and just wanted to say something this time.

For me, I believe where I focus my energy is what grows so if I'm focusing on solving problems and having positive exchanges then that is what happens. We have been using the tools of consensual living for years (validation, reflective listening, problem solving) and each exchange we get better and better. It's really quite quick and it's all handled with positive energy.

Not trying to change anyone's mind but for those on the fence I didn't want them to think either it's punishment or DAYS of conflict.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
I don't consider having a rule that you must wear a helmet to ride a bike to be a punishment. It's a matter of safety and a law in both states I have lived in. I would try to discuss the situation and stress the importance of staying safe first. But, some kids will do unsafe things in spite of our best efforts. In that case, I would not be afraid to intervene. They would be able to decide on their own to wear the helmet and ride the bike. It wouldn't be taken away for a period of time as a punishment, like a week or whatever. While I think having mutual respect, trust and attachment are important, I don't think this means a child will never do anything that could be dangerous or against the teachings of the parent.

I didn't say I considered "rules" punishment. I think the important thing is understanding the parent's role as teacher. I don't believe that just because a parent threatens punishment the child will then always follow the wishes of the parent. In fact, I think it less likely. If you have to resort to threatening it seems to me the child doesn't understand the reasoning behind the rule and is therefore more likely to ignore it.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

This is what you said:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
I believe if you have a relationship with a firm base of mutual respect and trust, and your kids really understand the reason to wear a helmet, then this doesn't happen.

What I meant was, if the kid decides not to wear the helmet, I don't think that it's because you don't have a firm base of mutual respect and trust. I think that, in your instance, saying, "If my kids and I respect and trust each other, my kid will wear a helmet" is too simplistic.

Quote:

But what happens if that punishment doesn't work? Do you resort to harsher and harsher punishments?
Well, in your bike example, taking away the bike because the kid won't wear the helmet is probably a punishment. But no, you don't have to resort to a harsher punishment if this doesn't "work," because just taking the bike away solves the problem. The kid can have the bike back when he agrees to use the helmet. If he agrees but then starts riding the bike without the helmet, then the bike is gone again.

Namaste!


----------



## afishwithabike (Jun 8, 2005)

I personally feel it also depends on when you begin GD. The earlier the better. My DD is 20mo and getting really good with understanding and reasoning. I have GD with her since she was tiny. GD is a real brain teaser for parents sometimes because you have to think of creative alternatives that will really grab your DC's attention. I sometimes "feel" (just an opinion here) Spanking Yelling Etc is a lazy way out.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ambdkf*
That does sound exhausting! But just to clarify for my family (being one that doesn't use punishments) we've never had anything drag on for days, weeks or months - not even hours.

I believe you, but this board is filled with stories of problems that have dragged on for days, weeks, or months.









Namaste!


----------



## Stayathomemommy (Jun 7, 2002)

darmamama-that is perfectly said IMO!!! I never just punish my child without first talking things out and trying other ways. but my problem with some peoples form of GD is once they have talked to their children they have no recourse when the child decides "OK the helmet can keep me safe, but i dont care i dont like it and i am not going to wear it". ( you can explain things till you are blue in the face but that doesnt mean your child can grasp the concept of a concussion. thats why we are their parents because we can forsee the dangers that they know nothing about) and what about wearing a helmet is the law?

see my biggest problem with a lot of what some people are saying is that we dont live in a world that is going to walk on egg shells or talk themselves in circles to communicate with our children the "right" way or the way we deal with them. we live in a world full of rules and punishments. when they go to school how are they going to deal with being told what to do and not being able to chose what they want to do. a teacher doesnt have time to sit and explain every little thing to your child and will just expect once in awhile for a child to do as they are told and not hold up the other 20 children who are "getting in line". there are laws and if you brake them there is usually very little talking besides, "you have the right to remain silent....." my children have to deal with authority figures in their life and i feel if they grow up with out concequences they will have a hard time in the world.

That doesnt mean i am going to hurt them emotionally or physically but it does mean that i am going to love them and teach them right and wrong. and if they chose to do wrong then they will know without a doubt that its not acceptable and there are concequences.

Ok i got to go but thanks so much to everyone for sharing their thoughts with me. i hope i didnt offend anyone. we all have the right do do what we think is best and hope that in the end our children grow up respectful, loving, caring individuals that can give back.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
I didn't say I considered "rules" punishment. I think the important thing is understanding the parent's role as teacher. I don't believe that just because a parent threatens punishment the child will then always follow the wishes of the parent. In fact, I think it less likely. If you have to resort to threatening it seems to me the child doesn't understand the reasoning behind the rule and is therefore more likely to ignore it.

Where did you get the idea that I threaten my children? This is not the case at all. In 17 years of parenting I've never threatened them. The fact that they need a helmet to ride a bike isn't a threat. The fact that a child ( and this is hypothetical situation that was brought up in this thread) may not want to wear a helmet doesn't mean they don't understand the reasoning. For some, it simply means they don't want to wear it or find it uncomfortable or think it will mess up their hair. Although they may think these are valid reasons, they don't over ride the safety issue. Just like understanding its cold out doesn't mean they will want to wear a coat. This is not a safety issue and I would just bring a coat in case they change their mind later. Kids ignore safety issues all the time and not because they don't understand the issue.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

OP,

I see that you're curious about GD and that you feel that it means no-discipline. It's great that you started a thread to clarify this and you've gotten a lot of help with what you want to know. Would you mind participating on your own thread a little more before you start expressing your lack of respect for GD on new threads with people new to GD?

I'm not sure how you use the term. I know many people use the term interchangeably with punishment. How do you define the term?

Here's from Dictionary.com:

1. Training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior, especially training that produces moral or mental improvement.
2. Controlled behavior resulting from disciplinary training; self-control.
3.
1. Control obtained by enforcing compliance or order.
2. A systematic method to obtain obedience: a military discipline.
3. A state of order based on submission to rules and authority: a teacher who demanded discipline in the classroom.
4. Punishment intended to correct or train.
5. A set of rules or methods, as those regulating the practice of a church or monastic order.
6. A branch of knowledge or teaching.

To answer your question from my own perspective, I don't see any connection between no-discipline and GD. I see discipline as teaching my child to function well and I want to do that gently ~ kind of like the first def above. It's really pretty simple and very complex at the same time.

As far as some of the theory of punishment, coercion, praise, manipulation and etc., that's just really interesting stuff to me and it has more to do with thinking about human interaction than it does with basic GD, IME. Basic GD is to teach gently.

Then there's the issue of just getting through the day and this is where the theory stuff and the big debate stuff goes on for me. Sometimes, it's not about teaching *in the moment*. Sometimes it's just about getting DC into the bike helmet when it must be done. (This is, I assume, the part where lots of people think discipline begins but this is not how it is for us). During these times, I strive to not manipulate, yell, punish, beg, shame, guilt, bribe, praise. Sometimes it goes and sometimes it doesn't and I have a choice to make. I've got a list of "less than ideal" things that I can do to get things going and I use them.

But, there is discipline all along. From the very beginning:

discussing safety
reading books about the topic
pointing out other people with helmets
going the kids physics exhibit at the museum
taking her with me to choose the helmet
pointing out the time the helmet protected her head
being consistent with the "rule"
deciding not to go somewhere unnecessary when DC doesn't want to wear it

If none of these thigns work, I just say to DC in a somewhat firm voice, "DC, we need to go to this place because...You need to wear the helmet and I'm putting it on you because we need to go now. We can discuss this issue when we get there."

This is just and example but all the things in life go like this. Yes, we have more success with somethings than with others but to say there is no discipline is wrong.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

We cross posted. Thanks for coming back here to discuss a little more!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Stayathomemommy*
see my biggest problem with a lot of what some people are saying is that we dont live in a world that is going to walk on egg shells or talk themselves in circles to communicate with our children the "right" way or the way we deal with them. we live in a world full of rules and punishments. when they go to school how are they going to deal with being told what to do and not being able to chose what they want to do. a teacher doesnt have time to sit and explain every little thing to your child and will just expect once in awhile for a child to do as they are told and not hold up the other 20 children who are "getting in line". there are laws and if you brake them there is usually very little talking besides, "you have the right to remain silent....." my children have to deal with authority figures in their life and i feel if they grow up with out concequences they will have a hard time in the world.

I can respond to this because I was raised GD. I was not punished and we did not have many rules (none that I can think of right now). I do OK and did fine in school. In fact, I was often more willing to follow the rules than other kids. Even now, conscientious objection to societal rules makes me nervous. I have to overcome being TOO cooperative









IME, there is no validity in the claim that GD'd kids are less prepared for the "real" world. I see claim this occasionally but no one ever backs it up. I wonder if it isn't a left over from the whole "spare the rod" mentality.

One of the most convincing arguments FOR GD is the school/society thing. The reality is that teachers and employers can't hit kids and they are limited in the ways that they can punish them. Kids need to learn to act well without the threat of homestyle "punishments". IME, GD teaches this.

This gets into the reality of the world. DC know that the ultimate "punishment" for not wearing ther helmet is that she will injure her head. The same goes for other things. Not "falling in line" means that the class is disrupted and on and on.


----------



## sassafras12 (Jan 17, 2006)

For us GD means that all of our "discipline" begins with our "attachment" as the base from which to work from. I try to look at every situation within the framework that a child has to "feel right to act right". Is DD feeling overwhlemed, hungry, unsure, tired? So we concentrate on our attachment first, that go on to deal with the problem at hand. For example, DD is 4 and has a really hard time leaving places. We find that by first making a connection, and by this I mean getting down and really getting eye to eye, we can then precceed to talk about how it's hard to leave and that it makes us sad. Usually that is all it takes and we can avoid a big crying scene. We have found that we can trace almost all the behavior issues that come up back to a cause of DD not "feeling right". We have found that by keeping our attachment strong that DD does want to please us. That is not to say we don't struggle with many issues, but I have found I can keep calmer, and don't reach that frustrated yelling stage by focusing on our attachment rather than the behavior. Does that mean I never yell, never get frustrated....no, I'm human. But it's something to strive for. For me, "Hold on to your Kids" really brought together alot of the things we were already trying to do as far as "discipline" went. I agree "discipline" is defintely a continum and you find what works for you somewhere along that continuum. I think what is really important is the ability to recognize when something ISN'T working and then being willing to really look at what YOUR child might need and make changes accordingly.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I believe you, but this board is filled with stories of problems that have dragged on for days, weeks, or months.









Namaste!

We have some problems that drag on. The one right now is DC cleaning her room. I do think I could do something to get her to do it today but I don't think that would teach the value of doing it. I think it might even teach her to resent doing it.

I think that's the difference. Am I trying to manage a behavior or teach my child about the world? Sometimes, we can have both and I commend the parent who can do that well. I can do it with some things but, other times, it seems like managing the behavior might actually inhibit the bigger lesson.

Have you ever come across this?

Recycling comes to mind. I can teach DC to put the paper in the paper bin but that has nothing to do with teaching her the value of recycling. They're two different yet related things, yk?


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writermommy*
Where did you get the idea that I threaten my children? This is not the case at all. In 17 years of parenting I've never threatened them.

I wasn't talking about you specifically.







If punishment is the likely result of "misbehavior" then there is an implied threat of punishment. What makes punishment work as a tool is that it gets a person to comply because there is a threat of punishment.

Quote:

The fact that they need a helmet to ride a bike isn't a threat.
Yep. I know. And my kids also understand that they need a helmet to ride a bike. They understand that it would be dangerous otherwise.

Quote:

The fact that a child ( and this is hypothetical situation that was brought up in this thread) may not want to wear a helmet doesn't mean they don't understand the reasoning. For some, it simply means they don't want to wear it or find it uncomfortable or think it will mess up their hair. Although they may think these are valid reasons, they don't over ride the safety issue. Just like understanding its cold out doesn't mean they will want to wear a coat. This is not a safety issue and I would just bring a coat in case they change their mind later. Kids ignore safety issues all the time and not because they don't understand the issue.
In my experience this is not true. I believe that kids who understand the reasoning behind a rule are more likely to go along with it. I think the threat of punishment takes the focus off of the true lesson. And I am not "walking on egg shells" or "talking myself in circles" (as stayathomemommy said) because my children trust my authority and generally agree with my ideas. When we have a problem we look at the reasons behind the problem and solve it together. I hear people saying that they think not punishing your kids means that they are wild and out of control, or that it is really hard on the parent because you are always explaining and talking, and that's just not the case.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
I think that's the difference. Am I trying to manage a behavior or teach my child about the world? Sometimes, we can have both and I commend the parent who can do that well. I can do it with some things but, other times, it seems like managing the behavior might actually inhibit the bigger lesson.

Have you ever come across this?

Recycling comes to mind. I can teach DC to put the paper in the paper bin but that has nothing to do with teaching her the value of recycling. They're two different yet related things, yk?

I don't know how old your dd is, but imo it can depend on the age of the child.

One example that comes to mind, because I have used to several times recently in threads about this issue, is that I made my son sit on a chair when he first came to us and was hitting/kicking the dog (after days of us explaining that it hurt the dog and modeling good ways to touch the dog). I told him that it seemed he was having trouble not hurting the dog and that he needed to sit down, calm down, and think about what he had done to end up on the chair and what he could do so he didn't have to sit on the chair again. Very shortly he stopped hurting the dog.

Now, what did my son learn from this experience? Probably that if he hits or kicks the dog, Momma will make him sit on a chair. And that's fine with me if that's the lesson he learned, because we was only about 2 (21-27 months old, approximately, when he came to us) at the time and I really believe that he could not put himself in the dog's place and understand that kicking/hitting Pippin hurt him.

But I don't think that my son is going to be a 20 year old, a 15 year old, a ten year old, or even a six year old who believes that the reason we are kind to animals is so that our Mommas don't make us sit on chairs. As my son matures, his capacity for empathy will increase and he will learn to understand that we don't hit or kick animals because we don't want to hurt them.

So in your example, does it really matter whether my two and three year olds understand (at their ages) WHY we recycle? To me, no. If they understand that they put their stuff in the recycling bin because Momma says so, that's enough for me at this age. Would I punish them if they continually didn't recycle their stuff? No. But I will punish them if they continually hurt people or animals.

Hope that makes sense.

namaste!


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
I believe that kids who understand the reasoning behind a rule are more likely to go along with it.

Does this hold true for adults, too? Because I understand the reasons for not speeding, but I still do it anyway.









Namaste!


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Hope that makes sense.

namaste!


Yes, that makes perfect sense and we have many, many situations like these.

What I was wondering (and, perhaps my recycling example took me off track) is if you've ever come across a situation where the behavior management obstructed the main message?

Cleaning is one that gets me. If I want to teach my child the value of a relatively clean and organized house, how to take care of her things and that there is actually some pleasure in this, it's difficult for me to force this on her without feeling like I'm "throwing the baby out with the bath water", iykwim.

I feel it is a process and not something that has a quick fix. I believe that my DC learning to care for herself and her environment is a long process...that's on of the main aspects of childhood, no?


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
If I want to teach my child the value of a relatively clean and organized house, how to take care of her things and that there is actually some pleasure in this, it's difficult for me to force this on her without feeling like I'm "throwing the baby out with the bath water", iykwim.

Ok, I see what you are saying. I guess the attitude my husband and I take toward that is that, this house belongs to the entire family, we all live here, we all have some responsibility to the house, and we all have to pitch in to help keep it nice, _even when we don't want to_. I am not shy about telling my kids two things when we encounter cleaning battles: 1) We all have jobs to do around the house. I have my jobs, you have yours, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to add your jobs on top of mine just because you don't want to do them and 2) There are plenty of times that I do things for you even though I don't want to because I know that my helped is needed/appreciated. I expect the same from you, NOT because I am the Momma and get to boss you around but because we are all mebers of this family.

Perhaps it's just a difference in the lesson we are trying to teach? I know that I, for one, know that I have to take care of the house because my family depends on me to do it, even though I find no pleasure in it whatsoever!

I'm trying to think of an instance where I found that behavior management defeated the purpose of the lesson ... thinking ... thinking ... I'll have to get back to you on that!

Namaste!


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Does this hold true for adults, too? Because I understand the reasons for not speeding, but I still do it anyway.









Namaste!









ME TOO!


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
I wasn't talking about you specifically.









Sorry for the misunderstanding. Because you quoted my post, I took it personally. Just a problem with conversations online!


----------



## MillingNome (Nov 18, 2005)

GD is not no disciple. To me at least it means calling on a higher duty than merely fear of punishment. I want my children to be noble in their words and deeds. If I want that, they need to know I have confidence in them, that they can have empathy and understanding. It is working for my family.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Perhaps it's just a difference in the lesson we are trying to teach? I know that I, for one, know that I have to take care of the house because my family depends on me to do it, even though I find no pleasure in it whatsoever!

Namaste!

No, I think we're on the same wave length. But, I was addressing the issue of something dragging out. Talking to DC about helping, taking care of her stuff and etc. is not a quick fix in our house. It's one of those things that "drags out" and that's OK. The teenager with the messy room isn't a classic because everyone before us didn't it wrong. It's a classic because these thigns take time.

I thought of an even better example regarding the "dragging out" thing and it's something that I think could be interpreted as no-discipline.

DC has a friend and they weren't getting along (no physical violence). There is quite a bit we could have done to change this quickly. We could have threatened. We could have prevented it by watching closer or by restricting play times. But, what we did was just let them work it out. We did nothing, basically (other than watch for excessively hurt feelings). And, it took time. But, everything that was needed for them to learn the main message was already there. Us getting involved would have interfered. They worked it out and are better of because of how it came about. This happens a lot with our family.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

OK, I'll put in my 2 cents.....by using a hypothetical situation and a few various reactions to it with various parenting styles.....obviously there are limitless variations and in betweens, I'm just trying to point out some of the more common.

Joe and Bill are at the playground. Both are 3 years old. Joe whacks Bill on the head when Bill takes a nearby toy.

NO DISCIPLINE#1: Joe's parent is completely oblivious, or sees it happen but shrugs and says "boys will be boys" and says nothing to Joe.

NO DISCIPLINE #2: Joe's parent screams from their seat on a nearby bench, "Joe, cut that out!" or "Joe, that isn't nice, stop it.", but does not get up and does not address the situation beyond that.

GENTLE DISCIPLINE: Joe's parent goes to Bill and makes sure he is OK. Joe's parent then takes Joe aside and tells him that hitting people is not OK, and that it hurts them, and briefly tells Joe some ways he can *talk* to Bill and get his point across. Joe is asked if he can think of anything that might make Bill feel better (and maybe parent suggests that apologies or hugs sometimes make people feel better). Joe's parent asks Joe if he thinks he'll be able to go back and play with Bill without hurting him, or if he needs some time to calm down. The parent is interacting by squatting down to Joe's eye level, and talking about the situation. Some GD parents do opt for time outs for physical aggression, but they can be open ended ('when you feel able to not hit", or just as a "cool off time" to separate and short circuit the situation...but they do not yell at the child during the time, or breate or shame them.) They will probably also talk about it later that night and see if they can come up with alternatives for expressing anger or frustration with his friends.

NON-GENTLE DISCIPLINE: Joe's parent storms over, yanks Joe towards Bill, yelling at him 'what's wrong with you?' or, 'stop being bad' and forces Joe to apologize to Bill. Joe's parent may (or may not) spank Joe (how ironic), while continuing to berate him for hitting his friend. Joe's parent is standing the whole time, towering over Joe. Joe may be forced to sit in a time out for being 'bad', while being scolded more, and/or Joe may be forced to leave the playground. Joe may have some completely unrelated privilege revoked that night at home.

Clearly, the GD reaction is NOT "doing nothing"...it is just NOT yelling at or hitting your child. The GD parent would also be aware enough of their child's development to complie this situation with other recent situations, and understand maybe Joe just isn't ready to socialize in this situation, or if maybe Joe is overtired or hungry, and adjust his social interactions and outings accordingly.

I think we can all agree the no discipline scenario would be the "out of control" kid, but through no real fault of his own, if he's never taught about being gentle to others...and the non-gentle scenario just teaches the child that it's oK for the parent to be mean to them, but not OK for them to be mean to anyone else (nice double standard).

Anyway, just my thoughts, take 'em or leave 'em...









ETA: Obviously, none of these reactions will guarantee that Joe will never hit anyone ever again...but it is more likely it will stop *sooner* with the GD reaction than others, because Joe is *learning* about hitting and will understand it sooner, instead of just resorting to hitting people when he won't "get caught" (non-gentle), or not learning that he shouldn't do it (no discipline). In actuality, GD is MORE effort than no discipline AND non-gentle, because it is a continuous dialogue with your child, as opposed to a quick fix.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sassafras12*
For us GD means that all of our "discipline" begins with our "attachment" as the base from which to work from. I try to look at every situation within the framework that a child has to "feel right to act right". Is DD feeling overwhlemed, hungry, unsure, tired? So we concentrate on our attachment first, that go on to deal with the problem at hand.

ITA with that









Kids KNOW that parents have authority. If you have to enforce it, that may be a sign that the attachment needs attention.
I personally not punish, and try, in general, to not coerce. I think I discipline my ds more than some mainstreamers. I don't generally ignore behaviors, or "pick my battles." If I don't like what he's doing, I tell him. I tell him how his actions affect others. Then, depending on the situation, I may leave it at that and let him choose what to do. Or I may redirect, give more information, give acceptable alternatives, etc.
As he gets older (he's 18 mos now) I can see more and more often, that giving him that original information as to how his action is affecting others, he's choosing to do the "socially acceptable thing." And he's almost always open to redirection, or acceptable alternatives.
The only time we have problems, is when I'm not acknowledging him and his needs/desires (when I'm tired, frustrated, etc). But once we get back on track, its all good again.

eta: good hypotheticals donosmommy. I think those demonstrate well the difference between gd and no discipline.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*

The power imbalance between parents and children is the reason why, when my daughter hits me, she gets a gentle correction - when, if my husband hit me, I would leave him.

Thought provoking!


----------



## BlueStateMama (Apr 12, 2004)

GREAT examples/scenerios, donosmommy! You explained things really well


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

donosmommy from me too!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Maybe. Or maybe the child will decide that the discomfort of the helmet is worse than the risk of head injury and go without the helmet.

Then it's up to the parent to decide whether the issue is "worth it" enough to them to set a limit.

It often seems that people who don't believe in using punishment assume that those of us who do punish jump straight to it without any other attempts to discipline. I think that is generally untrue. I think the main difference between myself and those who don't punish at all is their length of tolerance for a problem not being resolved. I am not willing to let certain problems drag on for days, weeks, or months.

Namaste!

Yep me too!
If Adults who have as fully developed reasoning abilities and impulse control as they ever will still use the "But it wont happen to me" argument when it comes to making decisions that go against reasonable safety, I think it is only reasonable to expect that children will sometimes do the same.
So yes it is very important to teach them WHY they have to do things. However I think it is equally important to enforce that they have to do things regardless of whether or not they have internalized the reason. They might decide that the risk of a head injury that they have never seen or felt is less than the risk of mom's anger/consequence.

And ditto to the second part too.
Joline


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

But we all know that we don't "have to" do things we don't want to do as adults, it is only as children and prisoners that one is *made* to do things one doesn't want to do.







: Do you really want to discuss this AGAIN?









Pat


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I believe you, but this board is filled with stories of problems that have dragged on for days, weeks, or months.

OK, I read up to here and have to post - I didn't read anything after this and don't know if it got covered...

As one who has posted about a couple of issues that have been dragging on for months, let me be crystal clear.

_*They have dragged on for so long beacuse of a lack of respect on either my part or other caregivers' parts - not because the child's feelings were considered and boundaries respected.*_

I have written in asking for others' ideas about getting through such problem in a respectful way, without just forcing my will for things to be neat and convenient.

Putting one's foot down without regard to a child's feelings may delay the issues even for years, but it will resurface somehow, someway - someday. In working to respectfully deal with lengthy issues with my son who has limited ability to express fear, anger, worry, or disappointment, I am not allowing him to "run the show". I am helping him process now what is causing him distress, instead of teaching him to stuff it down, and facing what has hurt him instead of leaving him to sort it out as a teen...

Sure it takes longer to actually deal with feeling, issues, and needs than it does to train a kid to act like you want them to. Is that really the point? And do we have to ask that again? Didn't we decide the better route on that one when we all decided here that CIO is out?

At what age should a parent stop allowing a child to have real needs? Sometime after infancy? When they can talk? I mean, geez, the newborn colicy crying dragged on for months, but I let him have that issue for a long time!







Should I have put a stop to it? Made a rule? No crying when Mommy is tired? No needing to be held when Mommy's back hurts?

I understand this was not directed as a personal statement to me, but as a mama who fit your above description, I think I get to correct that misunderstanding.


----------



## Stayathomemommy (Jun 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
OP,

Would you mind participating on your own thread a little more before you start expressing your lack of respect for GD on new threads with people new to GD?

.

I thought i made it clear on the thread 'What exactly IS gentle discipline? How/where do I start? that i posted on that Erika, the poster, is my friend. she is actually my best friend so i know her and her problems very well. we have talked about GD a lot and i just wanted her to know she is a good mom even if she has hard mommy days. I was not in anyway trying to discourage her from GD but i also dont want her 10 month old getting hurt by her big brothers when they hit her. She has to keep all her kids safe.

though i may have not posted much on the subject i have been on mothering forums and reading these threads for 5 yrs. my question stemmed from seeing parents GD and also seeing how the way some people practice it CAN mean very little discipline and the children are a mess. *now this does not apply to all GD parents since everyone has their own way.* thats why i created the thread in order to see how others think and see if there is a way to do it and be an effective parent. I have really welcomed all your answers and i think its been a good debate.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
But we all know that we don't "have to" do things we don't want to do as adults, it is only as children and prisoners that one is *made* to do things one doesn't want to do.







: Do you really want to discuss this AGAIN?









Pat

We all know that this is what you believe, yes this is true. But having discussed it already ad infinitum, hasnt changed everybody's mind on this. I dont think starting over will help any.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Neglect is not GD. Not even close. Why do you put it under that banner?


----------



## Stayathomemommy (Jun 7, 2002)

"Joe's parent goes to Bill and makes sure he is OK. Joe's parent then takes Joe aside and tells him that hitting people is not OK, and that it hurts them, and briefly tells Joe some ways he can *talk* to Bill and get his point across. Joe is asked if he can think of anything that might make Bill feel better (and maybe parent suggests that apologies or hugs sometimes make people feel better). Joe's parent asks Joe if he thinks he'll be able to go back and play with Bill without hurting him, or if he needs some time to calm down. "

This is how i would deal with it the FIRST TIME. but i have seen it a billion times that little Joe looks at his mommy and says, "O.K. i wont hit" and turns around walks up to bill and wacks him over the head again. Joes mom in turn squats down and talks things threw and the whole thing goes through this cycle many times. when something isnt effective then its basically like you are doing nothing IMO. I also think having your child apoligize it very important!!!

IF Joe goes and hits bill again, and i am Joe's Mommy. i take Joe and remove him from the play ground so he cant hurt bill or anyone else.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

There is not a person alive who has always remembered everything they "should" everytime - esp if its something that isn't important to them.

Why would you expect that a child should? It's not only age-inappropriate, it's human-inappropriate.

Very unreal expectaions.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Neglect is not GD. Not even close. Why do you put it under that banner?

Neglect and GD are both in the eye of the beholder.

I have seen/heard things which are described as GD by the parent but which appeared to my biased eyes to be neglectful.
It is not quite so simply cut and dried to say "This is GD" and "That is Neglect" and here is where the clear cut boundary is.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
There is not a person alive who has always remembered everything they "should" everytime - esp if its something that isn't important to them.

Why would you expect that a child should? It's not only age-inappropriate, it's human-inappropriate.

Very unreal expectaions.

Nobody is saying that a child should always remember what they should do every time. That has not once been mentioned or implied.
What has been said that a child who does remember and who still chooses to do contrary might be considered by some parents in a position to do something more than just get a talking to. Perhaps being removed from the situation (or playground as it were)


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Nobody is saying that a child should always remember what they should do every time. That has not once been mentioned or implied.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Stayathomemommy*
This is how i would deal with it the FIRST TIME. (snip example)

Sure sounded that way to me.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Sure sounded that way to me.

Right, the first time the child hits another child she talks to him and explains why not etc. . . . Because he isnt expected to remember instantly.
But if he continues he leaves.
I dont think responding to a child with instruction is the same as expecting them to always remember to do what they are supposed to.

All the poster was saying was that if she stopped the action, discussed the issue with her child and he continued to hit she would not continue to allow him to go back into that situation.
To me that is all about giving a second chance.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Right, the first time the child hits another child she talks to him and explains why not etc. . . . Because he isnt expected to remember instantly.
But if he continues he leaves.
I dont think responding to a child with instruction is the same as expecting them to always remember to do what they are supposed to.

All the poster was saying was that if she stopped the action, discussed the issue with her child and he continued to hit she would not continue to allow him to go back into that situation.
To me that is all about giving a second chance.

I would take this action, but I think part of GD is a different viewpoint. For example, this wouldn't be a situation where I would say to my child, or even think to myself, "Well, maybe now you'll learn your lesson! If you can't stop hitting you'll have to leave, how do you like that?"

Instead, I think my attitude would be more considerate of my child's feelings. I don't think my children really WANT to hurt others, so I would help them not do that by removing the temptation. And protecting the other child at the same time.

Also, I think the most GD reaction here would be not to allow the child to hit another time. Gently disciplining means, IMO, being present and prepared, watching for the signs that your child is getting frustrated, and helping them by removing them, distracting them, whatever before they do it.

I personally think this is the most effective way to parent, whether you're punitive or not. Taking action, not reacting. Or "putting out fires" as Joline just said in another thread.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Stayathomemommy*
This is how i would deal with it the FIRST TIME. but i have seen it a billion times that little Joe looks at his mommy and says, "O.K. i wont hit" and turns around walks up to bill and wacks him over the head again. Joes mom in turn squats down and talks things threw and the whole thing goes through this cycle many times. when something isnt effective then its basically like you are doing nothing IMO. I also think having your child apoligize it very important!!!

IF Joe goes and hits bill again, and i am Joe's Mommy. i take Joe and remove him from the play ground so he cant hurt bill or anyone else.

I figured this would come up, so here's my thoughts, again (whether you want them or not







)

JOE proceeds to whack Bill on the head again......

NO DISCIPLINE: Parent continues to do nothing, or just keeps calling out to Joe without getting off their butt to address the situation.

GENTLE DISCIPLINE: Now, can take many forms. Parent can go to Joe and say, "you seem to be having a hard time being gentle right now - let's go play on the swings?" or, "is there something bothering you that you're not being gentle with Bill?" or, "what else can we play with that won't get you upset, you seem to be having a hard time playing with Bill without hurting him." OR, Parent can tell Joe that since he's having a hard time being gentle and it's not fair to Bill to have to worry about getting hurt, they'll go somewhere else to calm down and do whatever, and then leave. If Joe promises again to not hit Bill and asks to stay, that COULD be OK, but the parent should be RIGHT THERE, to intercept at this point before another whack could happen. It's then up to the parent whether to leave or not...and would depend on the parent's "style" of GD.

NON-GENTLE DISCIPLINE: Parent throws a fit, yelling and shaming Joe, probably spanking again (or they do it this time if they didn't last time). Parent tells Joe since he was so bad and mean, are leaving now, and if anyone else is involved (siblings), throws in a heap of guilt about now the other sibling can't have any fun because Joe was mean/bad. Joe most likely will lose some completely unrelated privilege when he gets home.

Personally? I'd probably do the redirection thing and get my kid to play somewhere else with me, if they were having a hard time with someone else...and talk to them about it later and come up with other things they could have done. If he didn't want to do anything else with me, and was having a meltdown, I'd probably leave the playground, cause there was clearly something going on that was setting him off.

I think someone (dharmamama?) said earlier that they don't always believe there's a deep underlying issue with everything that happens, soemtimes it's just experimenting and seein gwhat will happen, where the line is, and I believe that too. Sometimes, it just is what it is, and the less drama you attach to it as the parent (you can still be firm and serious without melodrama, shaming, or guilt), the better.

As far as the apologizing, I don't agree with forcing your kid to apologize...I don't like apologies that don't mean anything, and if the kid is upset he's not gonna mean it. I would ask him what he thought he could do to make Bill feel better, and then suggest something, I might even go over and comfort Bill myself and say I was sorry he got hurt, thereby modeling the apology for my son, but I wouldn't 'make' him apologize.

Early night for me ladies, I'm out of here. I've enjoyed this one.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
NO DISCIPLINE #2: Joe's parent screams from their seat on a nearby bench, "Joe, cut that out!" or "Joe, that isn't nice, stop it.", but does not get up and does not address the situation beyond that.

I didnt address this earlier, but for whatever reason it has stayed with me.
While I do not believe that screaming is necessary. I dont think that it is necessarily a sign of no discipline when a parent can remind and direct her child from across the room or sandbox. (especially if it actually works)
For example, if the child already knows that they should not do x and why, and they usually can reliably remember, it isnt always necessary to go through the entire lecture again every time the child forgets.
I have three children age 3 and under and I have to supervise them all at once. So I could theoretically be pushing one child on the swing, while supervising another on the slide and a third playing in the sand.
I have been known to remind my children verbally from a distance the first time an "offense" happens. Of course I GOMA (get off my a$$) if it happens again. But this does not mean I am not addressing the issue or that I am failing to discipline my children.
All it means is that sometimes discipline is below the radar of others watching.
I happen to have a huge amount of luck with this, ask once, then get up method. Even if it appears that my butt is stuck on the park bench 'doing nothing'
Joline


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Stayathomemommy*
I thought i made it clear on the thread 'What exactly IS gentle discipline? How/where do I start? that i posted on that Erika, the poster, is my friend.

No, it wasn't clear to me but that makes much more sense now! Thanks for answering me about that and not taking offence.

I'm done with the theory for now.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I didnt address this earlier, but for whatever reason it has stayed with me.
While I do not believe that screaming is necessary. I dont think that it is necessarily a sign of no discipline when a parent can remind and direct her child from across the room or sandbox. (especially if it actually works)
For example, if the child already knows that they should not do x and why, and they usually can reliably remember, it isnt always necessary to go through the entire lecture again every time the child forgets.
I have three children age 3 and under and I have to supervise them all at once. So I could theoretically be pushing one child on the swing, while supervising another on the slide and a third playing in the sand.
I have been known to remind my children verbally from a distance the first time an "offense" happens. Of course I GOMA (get off my a$$) if it happens again. But this does not mean I am not addressing the issue or that I am failing to discipline my children.
All it means is that sometimes discipline is below the radar of others watching.
I happen to have a huge amount of luck with this, ask once, then get up method. Even if it appears that my butt is stuck on the park bench 'doing nothing'
Joline

Hey Joline, thanks for pointing this out...I guess a better choice of word would have been 'shout'....I didn't necessarily mean scream as in mad.....hope that makes it more clear..

and to me, the difference between a verbal reminder from a gentle parent and a verbal reminder from an uninvolved parent would be the reaction of the kid to the parent, and what happened next....

If the kid gave some kind of reaction of acknowledgement back to the parent, even just looking at them for a second or two, at least there's a connection there. If the kid completely ignores the parent, gives no response, and just keeps on doing what they're doing, then I'd consider that the parent doesn't necessarily address things.

AND, you did say you'd GOYA if it happened again with your kid....there's the difference.

Thanks for pointing that out to me! Hard to convey things online, sometimes, huh?


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Stayathomemommy*
"Joe's parent goes to Bill and makes sure he is OK. Joe's parent then takes Joe aside and tells him that hitting people is not OK, and that it hurts them, and briefly tells Joe some ways he can *talk* to Bill and get his point across. Joe is asked if he can think of anything that might make Bill feel better (and maybe parent suggests that apologies or hugs sometimes make people feel better). Joe's parent asks Joe if he thinks he'll be able to go back and play with Bill without hurting him, or if he needs some time to calm down. "

This is how i would deal with it the FIRST TIME. but i have seen it a billion times that little Joe looks at his mommy and says, "O.K. i wont hit" and turns around walks up to bill and wacks him over the head again. Joes mom in turn squats down and talks things threw and the whole thing goes through this cycle many times. when something isnt effective then its basically like you are doing nothing IMO. I also think having your child apoligize it very important!!!

IF Joe goes and hits bill again, and i am Joe's Mommy. i take Joe and remove him from the play ground so he cant hurt bill or anyone else.

Your next step wouldn't be to find out the reasons he continues hitting? IMO, if a child continues hitting, after hearing alternative ways to express his feelings, there is most certainly a reason. Perhaps he sees hitting on tv, as an effective way of dealing with problems. Perhaps he lacks the impulse control to not hit at the moment, in which case alternative ways of expressing anger need to be repeated over and over, until they sink in. you get the point. Whether its effective the first time, doesn't mean it won't become effective after repeating it.
I think having a child apologize when he's not sorry, is not a good thing. Its lying, and it kinda gets the child out of feeling bad for how his actions affected someone. "I said I'm sorry, that fixes it."

Not saying I would let the hitting continue in the moment. Protecting others from harm is very important. I would certainly distract him, move on to another activity, or even leave the park if the temptation is still to much to resist. But not in a punitive way, kwim?
But I wouldn't give up on *teaching* by giving info and alternatives.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Ok, I see what you are saying. I guess the attitude my husband and I take toward that is that, this house belongs to the entire family, we all live here, we all have some responsibility to the house, and we all have to pitch in to help keep it nice, _even when we don't want to_. I am not shy about telling my kids two things when we encounter cleaning battles: 1) We all have jobs to do around the house. I have my jobs, you have yours, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to add your jobs on top of mine just because you don't want to do them and 2) There are plenty of times that I do things for you even though I don't want to because I know that my helped is needed/appreciated. I expect the same from you, NOT because I am the Momma and get to boss you around but because we are all mebers of this family.

Perhaps it's just a difference in the lesson we are trying to teach? I know that I, for one, know that I have to take care of the house because my family depends on me to do it, even though I find no pleasure in it whatsoever!

I prefer to set up a dynamic of *helping* each other. I'll help ds (even if I don't want to) and he'll help me. I don't want to teach "Its your job. its not my job." I want us to work together. I do stuff for dp, he does stuff for me.
If there's a mess for me to clean up, I have the option of waiting until my show is over, doing something else first, asking dp to help so it gets done faster, having ds help (although its not faster that way. more fun though!), or even asking dp to do it altogether, etc. I'm going to give ds those options too.
I want ds to do things for me, because he knows his help is needed/appreciated. And I feel that the best way to foster that helpful, "everybody pitch in" attitude, is to be respectful, and not ever force the issue.


----------



## Kincaid (Feb 12, 2004)

I have a question for those who say they would focus on talking and not on consequences/punishments. How does talking work when the child who is being talked to puts their hands over their ears, makes faces, ignores, thrashes around, hits at parent trying to talk, stomping feet, ignoring and running off.... I have gone to a playgroup with a very "no discipline" mom, and when her children are aggressive or hit other children they don't seem to be in the right "place" to listen to her talking to them. She stoops down and talks calmly while they stomp and scream and shout NO, and she talks calmly for a few minutes, says listen to my words, it all sounds very nice and soothing. The child squirms and seems obviously like all he's thinking is how to get back out there playing fast. He realizes if he stands and nods he gets back out there. Mom seems satisfied, lets him go, and kid runs off like a streak still high-key and unfortunately it seems the hitting is usually repeated. I have noticed that other moms get really annoyed watching this - especially moms of the kids who have gotten hit.

My son is only 17 months old, so I am fortunately in the position where he has not done anything yet that has needed discipline. So I am still watching and forming my thoughts on the various approaches under the umbrella of "gentle" (which will certainly be my route)...


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid*
I have a question for those who say they would focus on talking and not on consequences/punishments. How does talking work when the child who is being talked to puts their hands over their ears, makes faces, ignores, thrashes around, hits at parent trying to talk, stomping feet, ignoring and running off.... I have gone to a playgroup with a very "no discipline" mom, and when her children are aggressive or hit other children they don't seem to be in the right "place" to listen to her talking to them. She stoops down and talks calmly while they stomp and scream and shout NO, and she talks calmly for a few minutes, says listen to my words, it all sounds very nice and soothing. The child squirms and seems obviously like all he's thinking is how to get back out there playing fast. He realizes if he stands and nods he gets back out there. Mom seems satisfied, lets him go, and kid runs off like a streak still high-key and unfortunately it seems the hitting is usually repeated. I have noticed that other moms get really annoyed watching this - especially moms of the kids who have gotten hit.

Well, I think there are effective ways to talk to your children, and ineffective ones. I like the way boongirl and donosmommy spelled it out. I think if you're not going to punish and you still want your child to "behave", then it's important to figure out effective communication.

For example, there's this mom at our story time who is always following her toddler around (about 18 mos., I'm guessing) and saying, "Noooo, we're not going to do that. No, no, no, we're not going to do that." Her child tunes her out completely, and if she tries to pick her up, she cries, so she puts her back down and continues following her. There is no "we" in this child's mind, and she just does whatever she wants, which includes hitting. IMO, this mother needs to figure out what she wants from her child's behavior, what she can realistically expect from her child, and how to get it. She's not punishing, but I can tell she's totally frustrated all the time.

There's another mom there with a child about the same way who just sits and waits for her child to do something "wrong", and then she runs over and smacks him. And that's it. No other interaction. He's very mad, surprise, surprise, and he hits kids all the time just out of the blue. She, too, could use some lessons in effective communication.

Okay, sorry for the rant. Punishment just shouldn't be the focus, IMO. Prevention is much more effective.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid*
I have a question for those who say they would focus on talking and not on consequences/punishments. How does talking work when the child who is being talked to puts their hands over their ears, makes faces, ignores, thrashes around, hits at parent trying to talk, stomping feet, ignoring and running off.... I have gone to a playgroup with a very "no discipline" mom, and when her children are aggressive or hit other children they don't seem to be in the right "place" to listen to her talking to them. She stoops down and talks calmly while they stomp and scream and shout NO, and she talks calmly for a few minutes, says listen to my words, it all sounds very nice and soothing. The child squirms and seems obviously like all he's thinking is how to get back out there playing fast. He realizes if he stands and nods he gets back out there. Mom seems satisfied, lets him go, and kid runs off like a streak still high-key and unfortunately it seems the hitting is usually repeated.

FWIW, I would say that a big part of communicating is listening. I think that probably when a child hits (at least the initial time), there's probably a reason. Maybe it's that they want a toy, or that someone did something they don't like, or any number of other things. I think that most people like to be heard before being told what to do. So if my child is frustrated over a toy and hits another child, my child is more likely to listen to what I want him to do if I am willing to listen to my child as well as communicate my own feelings and expectations. IME, a child who is standing there with hands over ears is a child who feels they haven't been and aren't going to be heard. If I say to my child, "are you frustrated because so-and-so did such and such?" and my child says yes and possibly expands on expressing his feelings, then I can clarify what my child wants/needs ("would you like her to share her toy?") and I can go on to say "I understand. I expect you to be gentle, though, so let's find another way to handle it." and then work on teaching my child a more appropriate way to behave.

The underlying reason isn't always a big dramatic one, but I think that usually aggression is an attempt at communicating something else. And therefore, just saying "no hitting" or punishing isn't likely to solve the problem.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid*
I have a question for those who say they would focus on talking and not on consequences/punishments. How does talking work when the child who is being talked to puts their hands over their ears, makes faces, ignores, thrashes around, hits at parent trying to talk, stomping feet, ignoring and running off.... I have gone to a playgroup with a very "no discipline" mom, and when her children are aggressive or hit other children they don't seem to be in the right "place" to listen to her talking to them. She stoops down and talks calmly while they stomp and scream and shout NO, and she talks calmly for a few minutes, says listen to my words, it all sounds very nice and soothing. The child squirms and seems obviously like all he's thinking is how to get back out there playing fast. He realizes if he stands and nods he gets back out there. Mom seems satisfied, lets him go, and kid runs off like a streak still high-key and unfortunately it seems the hitting is usually repeated. I have noticed that other moms get really annoyed watching this - especially moms of the kids who have gotten hit.

My son is only 17 months old, so I am fortunately in the position where he has not done anything yet that has needed discipline. So I am still watching and forming my thoughts on the various approaches under the umbrella of "gentle" (which will certainly be my route)...

I believe this is where the difference between 'talking at' and 'talking with' is evident. In a *conversation* there is a listening, validation, consideration and a two party _discussion_. I found the book "How to Talk so Kids will Listen and How to Listen so Kids will Talk" to be life altering. Seriously, the ideas are that practical and essential to communications. The Center for Non-violent Communications at www.CNVC.org has information on verbalizing one's observations, sharing feelings (with *I* messages), stating one's needs, and making requests as a template for *talking with* others.

By choosing to model these types of communications, rather than give "mini-lectures", our son is more able to do the same. He will explain 'I was playing with the shovel, and Bill took it. He pushed me, so I hit him', or whatever. This allows me *to hear* his observations, and feelings and to restate them 'You wanted to play with the shovel. And it sounds like you were angry that Bill took the shovel to play with' and he will say 'Yes!' _and then_, I can discuss different ways of communicating 'You can tell Bill 'Please don't push me' or 'I was playing with the shovel'; or you can come ask for my help if you feel angry and want to hit and we will find a solution'. This creates a partnership during the communication rather than an event from which the child is wanting to escape.

Pat


----------



## Soundhunter (Dec 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
I think someone (dharmamama?) said earlier that they don't always believe there's a deep underlying issue with everything that happens, soemtimes it's just experimenting and seein gwhat will happen, where the line is, and I believe that too. Sometimes, it just is what it is, and the less drama you attach to it as the parent (you can still be firm and serious without melodrama, shaming, or guilt), the better.

I completely agree with this!!!

My daughter is a really non-aggressive, generous little spirit so far. The few times she has been physically rough with other kids, it seems to be more to see what happens, then because she's angry at them or competing for anything or upset in any way or wanting to hurt them. She has a baby friend, one day she just kept trying to bonk her on the head with different toys, I kept telling her this wasn't right, as did the baby's father, and then I did give her an ultimatum, that the friend would go home if it kept going because this wasn't social behavior. That was it, it ended (the whole time she was in a great mood, excited to play with the baby). She's seen her dozens of times since and hasn't tried anything, I think she was just experimenting that day. I don't think there where any deep rooted issues that required a lot of words, I think talking too much would've possibly fed the behavior by feeding it a lot of focus and attention, instead of just treating it as a wrong thing to do and moving on.


----------



## Kincaid (Feb 12, 2004)

Soundhunter, what you said really fits for me.


----------



## Raynbow (Aug 2, 2004)

I think this is the biggest misconception about gentle discipline. Gentle discipline is just that - *gentle* DISCIPLINE.
It means that when my son is throwing a temper tantrum, I don't smack him or "beat his ass," but nor do I give in and give him the candybar he was tantruming for. It means I hold him until he is finished tantruming and reiterate WHY I said no candy - and (if appropriate) offer a healthier alternative.
It means that if he hits another child (or me), I don't hit him in return, but I hold his hands and tell him that hitting is bad and that we don't hit others and ask him to apologize. If it happens again, it means we go home because he can't be safe with other kids and they don't deserve to be hit.
So, no, GD does NOT mean "no discipline" - it means discipline without physical violence or verbal or emotional abuse.

Add: I wanted to add that I also keep my eye open to WHY my son is acting inappropriately - my little one is VERY sensitive to too much noise and crowds and I know that if we are in that sort of situation, he will become aggressive and very unruly. In those situations, I keep that in mind when addressing his behaviors - and try to keep him out of those situations! Ditto if he is tired or hungry - you have to understand WHY your child is acting the way s/he is before you respond.







Helps wonders. I found the "raising your Spirited child" and "Living with the Active, Alert child" very helpful!


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Soundhunter*
I don't think there where any deep rooted issues that required a lot of words, I think talking too much would've possibly fed the behavior by feeding it a lot of focus and attention, instead of just treating it as a wrong thing to do and moving on.

I think this is a perfect example of why listening to what's really going on with the kid is the most important aspect of all this!









Jumping right into our own assumptions and lecturing doesn't likely help in any situation.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid*
I have a question for those who say they would focus on talking and not on consequences/punishments.

I don't punish, but I don't focus on talking either. For me the focus is on teaching and guiding, while keeping my child's needs and limits in mind. I think so many problems are just avoided when you understand and anticipate your child's needs. For example, my 15mo has a difficult time with playgroups when she is tired, or if they last longer than an hour. I don't push her past her limits because that would be asking for trouble.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kincaid*
How does talking work when the child who is being talked to puts their hands over their ears, makes faces, ignores, thrashes around, hits at parent trying to talk, stomping feet, ignoring and running off....

That doesn't sound like an effective teaching moment, imho







I think scubamama hit the nail on the head with this. People don't listen when they don't feel heard.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Raynbow*
So, no, GD does NOT mean "no discipline" - it means discipline without physical violence or verbal or emotional abuse.

I think it is helpful to talk about what GD _is_, instead of just what it isn't. Let's face it, no parenting parenting style or philosophy would set out in principal to be abusive. So if all we say is _it's not abuse_ that's not setting the bar very high.


----------



## Soundhunter (Dec 13, 2003)

I had a thought that I wanted to come back to this thread with after posting to another board I frequent, I guess it is more of a GD definition thing, but it was the other thread that got me thinking about this thread, so posting it here.

I'm happy with being a coercive, authoritive parent, though I really enjoy reading about other ways of doing things and incorporating bits and pieces of it all into my "tool box". But, I fall on the stricter side of GD, and other than a spell where I hand slapped three times and still kill myself over it with regret (15-18 months was a very challenging developmental stage for me, I believe I've grown enough to handle it again, but it really tested ME) it's working well for us.

My point/thought

I was responding to a thread where a woman was all frazzled because her daughter was throwing tantrums at 6 months old, which most of us with older toddlers would agree is a ridiculous notion. In an example she gave, the baby wanted to lay with a plastic bag, and she took it away from her and moved it out of her reach, and then complained on the message board about her infant throwing a "tantrum" until she took her away to look out a window. The thought had never occured to her that the baby had a legitmate right/reason to be angry, that being angry isn't the same thing as a tantrum, that any of us would be pissed (well, maybe not scubamama







) if we wanted to touch something and someone pushed it just out of our reach. She's a young first time mom so it's good she got advice about redirection when the baby is interested in something she deems to be dangerous, but there are frequent posts on this other (mainstream) parenting board where people just "discipline" when their children are expressing healthy, normal emotions Like forcing independence when a baby is clingy to teach them independence, or time outs for a child being angry etc.

However people interpret GD, I believe what puts GD'ers in the same pack whether they are strict or non coersive, is that they believe that children's emotions are legitimate, while I think non GD discipline focuses on teaching lessons regardless about how the child feels about it. I teach Emma things she doesn't always feel like learning and stop her from doing things that she wants to do, but I make it quick if that's the case, or acknowledge it, or adjust my mode of delivery for it, and I would never deprive her of hugs or affection no matter what kinds of behavior I may be trying to "correct" or coerce. But I have no problems putting my foot down, for any lurkers that think GD always equates not being firm, there are plenty of us in this camp. But, I also respect if she doesn't like what I'm making happen or not happen, all of her emotions are welcome, always have been and they matter to me and her Dad, and always will, anger included. I think even the strictest GD'ers would feel similarily, which to me, seems different than other schools of discipline thought.

Hope my tangent is relevant here. Carpal tunnel is flaming, typos will not be corrected.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Soundhunter*
I'm happy with being a coercive, authoritive parent, though I really enjoy reading about other ways of doing things and incorporating bits and pieces of it all into my "tool box". But, I fall on the stricter side of GD

Yes......

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Soundhunter*
However people interpret GD, I believe what puts GD'ers in the same pack whether they are strict or non coersive, is that they believe that children's emotions are legitimate, while I think non GD discipline focuses on teaching lessons regardless about how the child feels about it.

Yes.....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Soundhunter*
But, I also respect if she doesn't like what I'm making happen or not happen, all of her emotions are welcome, always have been and they matter to me and her Dad, and always will, anger included. I think even the strictest GD'ers would feel similarily, which to me, seems different than other schools of discipline thought.

YES!

Soundhunter, this post really resonated with me...you put into words a lot of what I've been thinking and feeling lately as I'm reading more and more about the various "flavors" of GD there are out there - Thanks!!


----------



## sanguine_speed (May 25, 2005)

I just read this whole thread and am glad I did. My family is new to GD, and it's very difficult to learn what it means and "how" to "do" it. This thread has been helpful. It's tough to learn how to do something without the tools to do it. I suspect that some other mamas were not modeled GD as children as well, and some maybe quite the opposite.

Thanks for your insight!


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

i think i fell on the "no discipline" side of the fence for a long time...mostly because he was a pretty darn good kid and didn't need any "discipline" so now that he's doing some things that are not safe or good for him to do, he's totally ignoring all of my attempts to "discipline" him. so we're working on consistency a lot right now. i agree that every family is different.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Jumping in late, as usual!

First, I hope we've put to rest the notion that GD = no discipline. Ineffective parenting is a problem for sure. But it's not GD.

Second, it is entirely possible to set limits, have rules in the house, make decisions that need making (like issues of safety, etc) and still never use punishment. Whether you choose to go non-punishment is not the same thing as choosing to be GD. GD is a spectrum of parenting styles on this forum. But as another poster pointed out, when you compare us to mainstream parenting, there is so much more to unite us than to separate us. Mostly, it's just a point we quibble about for academic entertainment.









Third, the argument that kids need to be punished at home to prepare them for punishments/consequences in "real life" really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. First, kids behave entirely differently among parents and close family than they do with teachers and other "strangers" (this is why Supernanny always has the advantage). I would suggest that most kids respond well to the rules set by teachers in the school, and further, that the ones who don't are the "abnormal" ones, the ones with the problems and issues. I would bet you dollars to donuts that most GD kids have absolutely no problem in "rules and punishment" settings (and there are moms of older children in this forum who can attest to that) because there is no power-struggle scenario in their minds to start with.

Fourth, the argument that we have "laws and punishment" in our society. Well, again that doesn't hold water. Punishments, such as jails, fines, etc, are put into law for those people who don't have enough inner motivation to follow the rules. And one of the major goals of GD is to get kids to be inner motivated, not outwardly (reward and punishment) motivated. In other words, the reason I don't steal is not because I'm afraid of jailtime. I wouldn't steal even if it weren't against the law. Similarly, I go to work not because I'm afraid of being fired if I don't, but because I respect the people I work with and those who depend on me to do my job. My feeling is that using punishments and rewards as motivators at home is exactly WHY such laws need to be put in place. Because the inner motivation, combined with the emotional security required to be TRULY empathic, is missing in some people. And those aren't the GD people, I can assure you!

Fifth, the argument that GD means issues dragging on for a long time is weak. I don't know a single proponent of spanking, let alone any form of punishment, who expects it to work the first time around. So with ANY choice of action a parent has an expectation of how long such an issue will last. And, since it is impossible to perform the perfect experiment, one will never know if the issue went away becuase of how the parent handled it, or whether the child simply "grew out of" that phase of development, such that the issue is not longer a conflict. So even people who argue that *sometimes*, some form of "consequences" are necessary, can never prove that.

Finally, teaching a child social skills and behavioural skills and LIFE skills should be no different than teaching them math. Nobody would advocate punishing a child for not knowing the answer. And nobody would say "we've tried tutors and workbooks and math games and nothing is helping so obviously we need to start issuing some consequences for not knowing how to do math". Instead we would focus on giving the child basic understanding of the skills required to solve the particular problems. And if the child continued to struggle we'd assume they require a different approach, not that the child is deliberately giving the wrong answer. And that "consequences" are the only way to get the child to answer correctly. So it is with discipline. IMHO.


----------



## cmoma (Aug 3, 2006)

:


----------



## alana1980 (Dec 2, 2006)

thanks for bumping this thread. its has been helpful for me to read through!


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Stayathomemommy* 
After reading some posts and trying to figure out exactly what GD means i feel like it = no discipline. GD is a wonderful theory but from what i have seen when parents use this form of "discipline" it usually means their kids run the show and arnt respectful of any adult or authority figure. I really think its for the chilrens own good that they have consistancy, rules, and real discipline (none of which needs to be done with spanking, name calling, or hurting our child emotionally). Can GD be all those things too?? Does GD mean no concequences, no punishment for bad behavior?? what wrong with taking away privilages??

I have one child, who is four and a half, and he is an amazingly nicely behaved child. I was feeling horrible about myself, and my sister pointed out to me that my son is so pleasant to be near. He knows how to speak to adults and to children alike with sensitivity. He is a four year old, you know, with all that implies, but he is just right with the whole balance of respect for others and seeing to his own needs.

Some of that is just him. Some of it is that we don't use punishment. We are really pre-emptive about situations that could go wrong for him. We don't make him go on four errands, or stay up super-late at night. We don't bring him into a huge crowd of people with no escape and expect him to act like an adult. We always have lots of opportunities for quiet talking and reflection. Of course that's all pretty easy since there is one of him and two of us--it might be tougher with a rowdier kid, or two kids.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 
Of course that's all pretty easy since there is one of him and two of us--it might be tougher with a rowdier kid, or two kids.











Yeah, just a little. When we just had Ramona, tailoring life to suit her needs was remarkably easy. We have three kids now, two of which are probably about 3 months apart in age, and I find that the "avoiding situations that could go wrong" thing is sometimes impossible. While we still try to be pre-emptive, we have to do a lot more "making lemonade from lemons" than we used to.

My kids are delightful with other people. They are well-mannered, kind, funny, interesting, etc. I am grateful for that and I really think that it shows a lot about who they really are.

I frequently wish that my kids were as wonderful with us as they are with other people.









My younger two are best friends, but they are also very interested in individuating themselves right now, and we are definitely in a "You say tomato? Well, I'll say tomahto just to be different!" phase right now. It tests the patience and logistics of many a situation.









dm


----------



## ann_of_loxley (Sep 21, 2007)

I hate to come across rude but it really really really grates my hide when people think that GD means no dicipline...if it mean no dicipline..it would be called ND - not GD! lol

For me it starts from respecting and trusting your child before they are even born! Set a good example for them! And dont expect too much too soon. Also - dont stress on the small stuff!

I have yet to punish my child, spank him, hit him, degrade him, etc...

And he is a very loving, kind, well mannered, respectable, respecting, bright young man! Why? Because I have treated him as an individual, with respect and kindness from the moment he was born!

A great example I have of this is how he says thank you, etc... I have never MADE him say 'thank you', I have never punished him for not saying 'thank you' either... I have always respected him, I have said it to him, and because of this - he has learned from me.

Also - because of all of this...me respecting my son, treating him as an equal person, etc... If he 'tests' a new behaviour (hmm..what happens when I pull the cats tail?)... all I have to do is kindly tell him that we dont do that, show him what we do, and then thank him for his kindness....in return I get a kind boy who listens to me - becuase I trust him, he trusts me. Its a wonderful circle!

I think also alot of things that need 'dicipline' are best given by mother nature herself. I can leave a cup of coffee out on the table and not worry about my son knocking it over or grabbing at it etc, becaues he knows its 'hot'...and though he hasnt had to learn this the 'hard way' (I wouldnt put my child in danger!) - he has learned this with a helping hand from mother nature. lol

I think a lot of people have this attitude that children are not to be trusted and they are younger so thefore dont know better and need to treated as 'less'...which is where I think it all goes wrong!

I feel my only job is to help show my son the way.
We are doing well so far...and I am at the 'terrifc twos'!...(oh yes - we like to be positive positive positive! hehe)

And the idea is...hopefully...through all of this now. This relationship we have...will bloom and grow with him. So that when hes older he is confidnt in himself to do the right thing because is the right thing to do.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
all I have to do is kindly tell him that we dont do that, show him what we do, and then thank him for his kindness....in return I get a kind boy who listens to me - becuase I trust him, he trusts me. Its a wonderful circle!

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I think that one thing you are forgetting is innate temperament. When my extremely strong-willed child was two, she was delightful. When she turned three, she became extremely demanding, and she has a will of titanium. When she was two, she had such amazing verbal skills that she could get what she wanted because she knew how to ask for it. When she turned three, her desires became more complex and her excellent verbal skills couldn't necessarily make up for her physical limitations or her limited understanding of what's practical and possible.

My kid is a great kid, but she's got a personality of her own, and it's not nearly so simple as "we trust each other so life is good."

dm


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Stayathomemommy* 
After reading some posts and trying to figure out exactly what GD means i feel like it = no discipline. GD is a wonderful theory but from what i have seen when parents use this form of "discipline" it usually means their kids run the show and arnt respectful of any adult or authority figure. I really think its for the chilrens own good that they have consistancy, rules, and real discipline (none of which needs to be done with spanking, name calling, or hurting our child emotionally). Can GD be all those things too?? Does GD mean no concequences, no punishment for bad behavior?? what wrong with taking away privilages??

I have found alot of GD to be too idealistic to work in real life for my family. But I totally can feel the love.









I wish I could provide for everyones needss all the time and we lived on a puffy white cloud and harmony abounds.









Of course, I am human so thats not happening at my house.

I LOVE to read GD threads though because even though its mostly way too soft to work for me, I still learn something I can apply.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Wow this is a crazy old thread









Anyway, whether or not GD means "no discipline" depends on how you define "discipline". We don't hit, yell, punish, time-out, shame, manipulate, have arbitrary rules or imposed consequences. If any of that is how one defines "discipline", then we would look like one of those families who has "no" discipline.

If you see discipline as an act of learning and modeling self-discipline -- including but not limited to: respectful exchanges, modeling of socially appropriate and respectful behavior, lots of safe learning opportunities, lots of opportunity to explore, creating a "yes" environment, honoring our boundaries and teaching dd how to honor her own, knowledge of and respect for age and developmentally appropriate behvavior, ongoing discussions where almost all needs and wants of all family members are considered and honored, discussing and modeling non-violent communication,displaying unconditional love regardless of behavior by putting the relationship first, trusting our child's abilities to know herself and so much more.... then yeah, we use a lot of discipline.

Discipline and punishment are interchangable words to many people, so to those people, our method of *discipline* probably looks like no discipline -- because to them, it isn't discipline unless someone is learning through a painful process.

We recognize and embrace the knowledge that learning and even modifying of behaviors (though the latter is not our goal, it is often a fringe benefit) can come about joyously, or at the very least, without painful or punitive measures.

So I guess to answer your question "Does GD mean no discipline??" I would say, depends on who is asking, who is answering, and how they both define *discipline* -- so it is no wonder that the replies vary so much.


----------



## ann_of_loxley (Sep 21, 2007)

oOOOOooo...That is so very well put Captain Crunchy!

and darhmamama...

Quote:

When my extremely strong-willed child was two, she was delightful. When she turned three, she became extremely demanding, and she has a will of titanium. When she was two, she had such amazing verbal skills that she could get what she wanted because she knew how to ask for it.
Wish my ds had any verbal skills! lol... I know what frustration is like, and yes he does have tantrums because of this - but none of these things need 'dicipline' (or punishment), just guidance..and one again my respect and trust for us to all get through it and come out better at the the other end.

He has a pesonality of his own as well. I dont want him to 'mind' me...I want him to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. And I really dont think you can get that without trust and respect. Because he trust me he listens to me as that is all I have shown him in return for my respect for him...if he didnt trust me, he would continue to 'pull the cats tail' (as example) and the cat would soon show him why he shouldnt do that! lol Sometimes we hit a hard spot and need a bit of help, but compared to the many parents I know who try and 'dicipline' without trust and/or respect for their child - our 'problems' are trivial! lol

I am more used to calling this Positive Dicipline, rather than GD! lol


----------



## Mammy Julie (Sep 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Stayathomemommy* 
After reading some posts and trying to figure out exactly what GD means i feel like it = no discipline. GD is a wonderful theory but from what i have seen when parents use this form of "discipline" it usually means their kids run the show and arnt respectful of any adult or authority figure. I really think its for the chilrens own good that they have consistancy, rules, and real discipline (none of which needs to be done with spanking, name calling, or hurting our child emotionally). Can GD be all those things too?? Does GD mean no concequences, no punishment for bad behavior?? what wrong with taking away privilages??

I use the term GD when i talk about it on forums but in real life I'm not a fan of the word discipline. If you're disciplined you're controlled and theres no room for control in my relationship with my child. However that doesnt mean he doesnt recieve any guidance. Hes new to this world and needs to learn that some things you just dont do. I do that by teaching through example though and if he does something inappropriate (eg hitting) then I explain to him how that makes others feel etc and we will also discuss it at a later time when we arent in the heat of the moment. Thats something Im just starting but I find it gives him the opportunity to tell me why he did it and together we can think of ways to handle similar situations next time.

Its far from the case in our family that ds runs the show BUT we dont rule him either. Rather we co-operate with each other and respect each others needs. Obviously theres always exceptions i mean hes not even 3 yet but i'm confident that hes learning that other people matter and that must mean he matters too. He amazes me wometimes how well he gets that concept and if he accidently hurts me or damages something his first reaction is always 'sorry' and he will see what he can do to put it right so theres a lot of respect there for my feelings too.

I dont think strict rules are neccesary either. You have rules you need consequences when theyre broken and since rules arent always broken deliberately thats unfair. You do need expectations though - and there is a difference. For example one expectation I have of Adam is that he treats me as I treat him and doesnt do anything that will hurt me. Sometimes he wont live up to that expectation but then I just remind him why I expect that of him. He still learns hitting isnt acceptable and theres no need for mainstream discipline. As for consistency - it can be over-rated. If Im trying so hard to be consistent in my reactions I'm not being true to myself or him. Sometimes whilst something may work one time it may not be appropriate another and you have to adapt your response to fit. I cant think of an example off the top of my head but basically i dont want to get so caught up with trying to be consistant that our relationship loses any sponataneity (sp?) and I become less able to adapt to different situations iyswim.

As for taking away priveledges i believe any sort of punishment makes the child do good for fear of being punished whether that be losing priveledges or being smacked. It doesnt really help children learn right from wrong just that behaving a certain way benefits them. I'd rather my child behaved well because he considered other people and knew what it meant to do good and not through self interest.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
I dont want him to 'mind' me...I want him to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

That's what I want for my kids, too. I have always encouraged my children to make their own choices based on the information available to them. Sometimes I think that has come back to bite me in the butt!









My point was not that I punish my kids for tantrums or that trust isn't a good thing. What I was trying to get across is that, regardless of how well you and your kids trust one another or how wonderful your relationship is, some kids have stronger personalities than other and some are hard-wired to test the limits, and then test them again, and again, and again, and again, so the idea that kids will do the right thing simply because their trusted parent tells them what the right thing is is, to me, a bit simplistic and doesn't take into account that some kids are extremely strong-willed no matter how much they trust you. I'm not talking about things one might punish a child for. I am talking about kids who have a "my way or the highway" personality who make daily life difficult because they are bound and determined to get their way. There seems to be an idea here at MDC that kids can be parented out of this if one simply applies the magic MDC (tm) patented parenting philosophy, but I don't think that's true. Kids are who they are, due to nurture, certainly, but also due to nature, and, although I think my point has meandered away from the original intent of this thread, the idea that "My kid is delightful because of the way I parent" seems, to me, a little naive.

If I misread your original post, please forgive me, but

Quote:

And he is a very loving, kind, well mannered, respectable, respecting, bright young man! Why? Because I have treated him as an individual, with respect and kindness from the moment he was born!
lead me to believe that's what you were saying.

dm


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub* 
GD means different things to different parents and families.
There are those of us here of every shade of the spectrum.
In my home discipline is how you describe. GD is about no spanking, yelling, shaming, and about being aware of my childrens needs and abilities.
In other homes you will likely find GD defined differently.

Me too.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I think any discipline style where you don't use shame or physical force to get your kids to do what you want can fall under the GD umbrella.

I do try to be consensual and I don't punish, but I don't think either is a necessary ingredient to GD. And I don't parent the way I do for effectiveness; I do it because my moral code tells me that's the way I should treat other people, and my daughter is a person.

I do not always parent consensually, as much as I try. There are times where we aren't able to reach a consensus, but I think it's more due to us being tired or cranky than because a good answer wasn't out there somewhere. We had an issue over the bike helmet and it wasn't perfect in the consensual living way. I said that I couldn't let ride her bike without a helmet, but I'd be willing to let her try on different helmets or something. I thought she might have outgrown her helmet and it might not have been comfortable anymore. She decided if she just wore a headband with the helmet she'd be happy. It was apparently an issue of sweat. But I did put my foot down and say whatever we came up with was going to involve a helmet on her head. If push would have come to shove, she wouldn't have been riding her bike without her helmet on her head.

And my daughter is always a delight, but she does not always behave in a delightful manner. How I deal with that changes from moment to moment, but I don't punish. Sometimes I have to give myself a bit of a timeout because I get very angry and I'm afraid I might start screaming at her if I don't give myself a breather. But I don't give her timeouts. I don't take away privileges. I don't force anything. We work together to figure out how problems are solved.


----------



## cmoma (Aug 3, 2006)

Soooo, it just occurred to me that this thread is from JANUARY lol, I never paid attention to the date. A little odd of me to be subbing on a unactive thread, huh? LOL!

But since it's now active again I am SUBBING for real







haha


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmoma* 
Soooo, it just occurred to me that this thread is from JANUARY lol,

Jan. '06!


----------



## ann_of_loxley (Sep 21, 2007)

I do understand that it comes down to both nature and nurture. And though what I said may come across as niaive - my point is that my son wouldnt be all of those things if I didnt 'parent' the way I do -use GD for example! Not that he is the way he is _only_ because of the way I parent...if that makes any sense!


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

I believe discipline should be used in the sense of "to teach."

GD absolutely can work. I know some very well-behaved children who are being raised with GD.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:

I use the term GD when i talk about it on forums but in real life I'm not a fan of the word discipline. If you're disciplined you're controlled and theres no room for control in my relationship with my child.
Discipline means "to Disciple" or "to teach" (but I understand thats not what most mainstream parents use it as.)

I belive that you do need to control your childrens *boundrys.*

I also think that the best way to teach is to act out the way you want them to act. I have found that my little ones are like little mirrors of me.









And its so hard to "act right" all the time.


----------

