# Opposed to time-outs? Tell me more.



## momma_unlimited (Aug 10, 2008)

I've noticed several negative references to time outs on this board... can someone who doesn't agree with time-out tell me why?

I guess I'm just curious.

I am trying to implement gd with ds2 (16 mos) after trial and ERROR with ds1. Setting him in the playpen when he disregards instructions (getting too close to woodstove, trying to touch woodstove tools, trying to stick parts of his body into the toilet, refusing to have a poopy diaper changed, etc) or throws himself on the floor, arches his back, and screeches like a banshee- works. It is like his "safe" place; he settles down and then when he's ready to cooperate he kinda calls me to come get him. I'm just curious how non time-outers would handle it.


----------



## jennert (Oct 22, 2008)

: (but without the popcorn--i'm allergic to corn







)


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Time outs are not an appropriate tool until a child is old enough to understand them.

In many cases they are simply a punishment. I try to avoid punishments (not always successful, but I try....) as I don't feel they are the most effective parenting tool.

Personally I only am comfortable with non-punishment time-outs, usually taken because the child chooses to take a break and get some space on their own.

-Angela


----------



## SquishyKitty (Jun 10, 2005)

We used a combination of time outs and redirection when DS was that young. Mostly redirection, because he was too young to get the concept of time out.

The idea of a safe place during a tantrum is good though, there is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes the child is just so overstimulated, there's nothing they need except a few minutes to themselves.

Time outs once worked better for us when DS was 3 or older, because then he was kind of able to understand the concept of why he was removed from a situation. We still limited them to 1 minute per year, so his time outs were only 3, 4, or 5 minutes. He's 7 now and we don't use them anymore.


----------



## rabbitmum (Jan 25, 2007)

I'm completely opposed to time-outs. I didn't grow up with them (or any other form of punishment) so I know they are not necessary. The "naughty corner" was something horrible and scary they had in the old days, like having to swallow a lunch box lid full of cod liver oil if you had forgotten to bring your spoon to school, or spanking (which has been illegal in Norway for many years).

Unfortunately time-outs are becoming more common in Norwegian homes now, due to nanny TV programs imported from the US and UK.







But kindergartens and schools are not allowed to use time-outs in my town. In "GD circles" in Norway time-outs are not considered GD.

When my eldest was little, around four years old, I read a parenting book that advocated time-outs, and I tried using them. Never again! She was really, really hurt and humiliated, and it didn't help the situation one bit - it only moved the focus away from what was currently the issue and over to the humiliation and hurt she felt from being excluded and pushed away from me (not literally speaking, I didn't push her, I carried her to her room and closed the door). After this had happened a few times she said one day: "Mummy, do you know what? Sometimes it almost feels like you don't love me anymore." She still remembers it.









It didn't feel like a useful and appropriate thing to do even to me, I just felt completely defeated and didn't know what to do. I never tried it with my two boys.

I have seen other parents (in the UK) use time-outs where they force the child to sit on a chair for some minutes, and from the child's reaction it was obvious to me that this is not right. They cry "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I won't do it again, I didn't mean it" while being carried to the chair, obviously genuinely fearing the humiliation and exclusion, even if they know that the parent is going to be sitting only a couple of meters away from them.

I can see that using time-outs is one step better than hitting the child, which is the alternative in many families in the US and UK, I suppose. But it's still punishment, humiliation, exclusion, and disrespect.

As for the situations you describe:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momma_unlimited* 
he disregards instructions (getting too close to woodstove, trying to touch woodstove tools, trying to stick parts of his body into the toilet, refusing to have a poopy diaper changed, etc) or throws himself on the floor, arches his back, and screeches like a banshee

16 months old is to young to expect him to really follow instructions on a regular basis.

Too close to the woodstove: Block his access with something, I would have used an overturned chair. If he gets too close, I would move him away and distract him with a toy.

Woodstove tools: I would put them somewhere out of his reach, along with the toilet brush and my camera.

Sticking body parts in the toilet: Lift him away, distract.

Refusing to change a poopy diaper: I would just change the diaper. It's not optional, as my youngest have so sensitive skin that he gets a rash unless it's changed immediately.

Throwing himself on the floor, arcing his back, etc.: This is behaviour that has to be expected from a child this age. On his way to developing self-determination and independance he is experiencing a lot of frustration and strong emotions that he doesn't yet have the maturity to handle by himself. I would comfort him if possible, be available and understanding. He needs my help to learn how to go trough these strong emotions, understand them, knowing that he is loved and accepted no matter what, so that he can learn to accept his anger and frustration and eventually express them in a different way, with words.

As for whether time-outs "work" or not, I'm suspecting that putting him in the playpen works for you right now BECAUSE he is too young to understand. He is being moved away from the situation and distracted. I think you would get a different response from him in a couple of years when he is old enough to understand that he is being punished.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rabbitmum* 
But kindergartens and schools are not allowed to use time-outs in my town.

cool... I am in total awe. What do they use? especially with younger kids?

You would be hard pressed here to find a single school that doesn't use time outs of some form.

-Angela


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

I'm not opposed to all forms of time out, so it kind of depends on your definition. First, when I would put my son in a confined space when he was a baby (under 2) it wasn't to "teach" him anything but to keep him safe. So I don't know if that really counts.

Second, we have a "you hit, you sit" rule, but the sitting is generally with a grownup and it's to calm down. We also might invite my son to go to a cosy spot and take deep breaths, or we might take him outside at a store or restaurant if he is melting down. So we do sometimes have the concept of a "time to calm down."

Third, we put toys that have been thrown up on the piano. So that's a time out for the toys.

Other than that, we don't use time out and don't intend to.

The way I see it implemented on television or with friends is that it is a "negative consequence" - that is, a punishment.

The whole concept of punishment comes out of a behaviourist point of view: you use positive and negative reinforcement to get the behaviour you want. I understand why in certain situations (one adult + 30 kids, etc.) you would need to resort to those methods - they are undeniably effective in many cases.

But for my husband and I, with the situation we have (one very affable, plugged-in child) we just don't feel that it really is in line with how we want our family to operate, and most importantly how we want our son to become self-disciplined.

For our home: we want it to be a space where we all respect each other, for sure. Our expectations are pretty high: no name calling, hitting, that we work together to prepare meals, clean up the house, and generally work as a team. When people fall short of those expectations I just don't see the point of putting them in time out.

I really like the Secret of Parenting's insight that giving a punishment sort of sets up a "trade" situation - I won't clean up, or I mouth off, so I am punished (time out), and then we're "even." Well if my son doesn't clean up or mouths off I don't actually WANT him to feel like we're even! I want him to experience whatever feelings he might have (appropriate guilt) so that he learns to do these things to avoid the bad feelings he naturally as a social animal has.

Of course to implement that I also have to be clear: I am QUITE ANNOYED that you spoke to me that way. But that's it. I also dispense hugs after a few minutes of feeling the feelings, so I don't abandon him to wallow in guilt and despair. But I am quite comfortable letting him, even at 3 and change, experience the bad feelings we get when we do something wrong. To my mind punishment short-circuits that process.

Which kind of leads into my son and his own self-discipline. Yes, we all experience reward and punishment in adult life - but again as a default. Sure, I work to get paid. But I also do a good job not out of fear of being fired but as a part of being a profession and having pride in myself. I have worked for companies where my professional ethics were higher by far than the company's requirements.

I want my son also to grow up with a strong INNER moral compass. And I don't believe time outs (or any other behaviourist system) work to build that compass very well. They reinforce an outer moral compass. They definitely impact on behaviour. But I think what the child learns is "I do something displeasing to my parents, so something unpleasant happens to me." I don't think they really learn "hitting is wrong because it hurts the other person" or "talking back is a disrespectful way to interact."

So for me it really just isn't the right tool for my parenting. I totally get that there are kids and situations where the behaviour is so much in the way that perhaps it's needed. But my family, so far, is not in that situation.


----------



## rabbitmum (Jan 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
cool... I am in total awe. What do they use? especially with younger kids?

You would be hard pressed here to find a single school that doesn't use time outs of some form.

-Angela

You know what, I think it's even difficult to answer the question, as I can't imagine in which situations they would think "Oh, I can't give him a time-out, what can I do instead?" And that you add "especially with younger kids" I also find interesting, as time-out is even less relevant with smaller than with bigger kids. Behaviourist techniques are not generally seen as good pedagogics in kindergartens here.

I know that a form of "time-ins" is often used, where an adult will remove the child from the situation - for instance if he or she is hitting someone and doesn't stop when asked - i.e. lift them up and sit with them and talk about it for a bit. If things get really out of hand they will perhaps take them to a different room to sit there and talk with them until they calm down. They are not supposed to do it in a punitive way or shame the child in front of the others, and they are not allowed to leave a child alone in a separate room. I can't say that it never happens, but the official regulations for kindergartens (in my town, at least) are against (negative) behavioural techniques and have been so for many years, and I have never seen it happen.

In schools they are not allowed to send a child out of the classroom, for instance. When I was little children could be sent out to sit in the corridor if they were noisy, but this isn't done anymore. If a child disturbs the others so much that it is necessary that he or she is removed from the classroom, there must always be a teacher there with them.

I don't know if you consider these to be some form of time-out?

The typical reaction to disruptive behaviour at school is to send a notice home to the parents, who are then asked to talk to their kids about it. I have had two notices sent home with my eldest son, they were: "Can you please explain to B. why we don't want any whistling during classes" and "Can you explain to B. that we don't wish to have jumpers thrown around in the classroom".

Also in the case of young kids who are not paying attention but talking to their desk mate instead, it is normal to move them to the front, closer to the teacher, or if it persists, split desk mates apart.

My two eldest kids went to a Waldorf school where they used to take very "disruptive" children to the teacher's common room to sit there and work by themselves with a different teacher supervising them. Many children thought this was a bit nice, as they got a teacher all to themselves.

Lately Waldorf schools have been criticised and have had to discontinue two discipline metods that they have traditionally used, those of detention (keeping children behind for an extra class after school) and "parade", which meant to turn up for school an hour early and for instance help the janitor sweep, or do schoolwork. Both were metods that were commonly used in schools in "my days", and that Waldorf schools held on to longer than "normal" public schools.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Okay- that sounds like the "time outs" used in preschools I've seen here....

-Angela


----------



## closedaccount15 (Dec 25, 2007)

I don't like time outs, because personally what I have seen is the parents spend more time fighting with the kid to stay in time out, so they kids doesn't learn what they did was wrong, they just learn they have to listen because mommy wants them sit in one spot. I have 9 nieces and nephews, and that was just my experience watching them. Then it escalates and becomes a power struggle and it's just not how I want to teach my child not to do something. Plus, some kids, they may sit there quietly, but after they leave, you realize they were quiet because they were pulling up the carpet or peeling the wallpaper or some other destructive behavior and then you have to deal with that.

I think removing a child that is a hazard to himself or others, or removing a child to calm down is not time-out. I think I heard the term "time-in" from somewhere. It's a time to connect and calm down, but not a time to bring up punishment.

The things you mentioned "getting too close to woodstove, trying to touch woodstove tools, trying to stick parts of his body into the toilet, refusing to have a poopy diaper changed, etc" I think are normal behaviors for a 16 month old child. I don't think he is disregarding your instructions (that implies choice - you think he is choosing to listen you and then deciding not to) I think he just can't comprehend he shouldn't be doing those things yet.

My DD is 19 months and throws things at the cat, no matter how much I tell her not to. But I either have to remove her or take the thing she is throwing away or teach her something else to play with that is better because I don't expect her to not to do something just because I said for her to do it. She just doesn't know any better yet, so I have to teach her.


----------



## nancy926 (Mar 10, 2003)

At 16 months, he is not going to stay away from the woodstove. Get a stove fence and gate. Put the woodstove tools on the other side of the fence.

You can get locks for toilet seats. Diapers, you can try different strategies - some people use a toy that the DC can have ONLY while getting his/her diaper changed. A cell phone in "Key lock" mode often works.

I guess I'm saying it's up to the parent to problem-solve solutions - it's not up to the kid to try to figure out what is being asked of him/her and remember it.


----------



## momma_unlimited (Aug 10, 2008)

From the time my son was 6 months old, he has responded to no and don't touch- I taught him too. 99% of the time from 6-7 mos til just recently, if I said "Don't touch" he would remove his hand; if I said "Come to mama" he would run to me; if I said "No!" He would stop what he was doing and look to me for guidance.

Now that he is coming into his own will, and separating from the extension of me he perceived himself as, he is testing the limits; he is struggling to determine more about his individuality. So, whereas, before he would meander over to the woodstove or tools (which, btw, there is absolutely nowhere to put them as we live in a wide open house with little furniture and without a single closet!), I would say "Don't touch" and it would be a rather mute point, now he has more determination to match his ability and is less distractable... but he also has not lost his understanding of what "don't touch" means, he is just choosing to follow his own inclinations instead. He looks at me with full understanding, and makes a conscious decision to do it anyways. I get it that he might be truly overwhelmed with curiosity; and that this curiosity is good. I don't want to punish him; but my perception of just trying to remove anything that could possibly cause conflict, rather than consistently helping him to follow through when I guide him, is that it would be... permissive... child-centered rather than family-centered? Obviously I do some things to make our house more toddler friendly. No valuables within reach, no cleaning products in low places... But if I just removed anything that could cause a conflict, how will he ever learn to develop his will when it is contrary to his desires (self-control I guess) and accept guidance from those who know better than him?

I am not trying to argue- I love to see everyone's point of view to develop a more well-rounded one for myself.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

The thing is that it's not an age appropriate expectation for him to stop himself. It's not fair to ask that of him at this age.

-Angela


----------



## mommabear207 (Nov 19, 2007)

so lets say he is older and does understand-what then?


----------



## mollusk (Oct 24, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
The thing is that it's not an age appropriate expectation for him to stop himself. It's not fair to ask that of him at this age.

-Angela

I agree.

We've always tried to make it very clear by communicating how pleased, proud, disappointed, etc we are. Ds (3.11 yrs) seems very affected by it. [When he was having trouble listening to an after-school teacher, we talked about it at home, spoke with his teacher (without ds present) about it, and spoke with ds + teacher about when he showed he was listening and when he struggled, how important his listening ears are....it took about a week but his behavior turned around and I haven't heard anything different since... But children--infants, toddlers, and older are learning, growing, and TESTING. Its what its all about, no?]

And as for time outs, we use them with ds strictly as a time for him to take a break and be removed from whatever is causing the overstim. It has *never* been used as a punishment, I don't think that is as an appropriate use. And they end with talking about what happened and hugs.

Ds's school uses "time outs" when someone has been physical with another child. It is considered a big deal and used only on occasion.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommabear207* 
so lets say he is older and does understand-what then?

Then you can discuss it with him and explore the natural consequences of whatever the action is.

Pick an example and I'll try to come up with more concrete examples









-Angela


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momma_unlimited* 
... I would say "Don't touch" and it would be a rather mute point, now he has more determination to match his ability and is less distractable... but he also has not lost his understanding of what "don't touch" means, he is just choosing to follow his own inclinations instead. He looks at me with full understanding, and makes a conscious decision to do it anyways. I get it that he might be truly overwhelmed with curiosity; and that this curiosity is good. I don't want to punish him; but my perception of just trying to remove anything that could possibly cause conflict, rather than consistently helping him to follow through when I guide him, is that it would be... permissive... child-centered rather than family-centered? Obviously I do some things to make our house more toddler friendly. No valuables within reach, no cleaning products in low places... But if I just removed anything that could cause a conflict, how will he ever learn to develop his will when it is contrary to his desires (self-control I guess) and accept guidance from those who know better than him?

I'm not arguing either; if you want to use TOs go for it.









Just to address things specifically though -

I think the testing is true at some ages. But at 17 months I think there is a whole other component in addition to the testing which is that comprehension does not equate to self-control or impulse control. So even if he were not wanting to test the limits around him, he might know that he should not do something... but not have the impulse control to keep that thought ahead of the desire.

For the question of removing things... I have never found a world where there is never ever a limit. Car seat belts, smearing poo, gravity... something. I myself don't worry too much that my child will never learn that there are limits. If you count in a day the number of things a child has no control over - when diapers are changed, food comes, which food comes, clothing, room he is placed in, etc. etc. etc. - I think it becomes pretty clear that limits are not really the issue, as an overriding thing.

I think the question really is that given your limits (whatever they are) how will you present them? Will you say "stoves are not for touching" and... redirect? place in time out? smack on the hand?

I am not suggesting any of these are equivalent to each other. I'm just saying that time out is not a magic bullet limit. (Except on TV where there are no alternatives presented between "chaos" and "naughty spots.") You can have expectations and limits without having artificial negative consequences.


----------



## kristinseto (Mar 24, 2008)

I will just briefly state what has happened in our home:
I started time-outs with my son at 18 months.
It works. At this young age (almost 3 yrs) he needs to know that someone is in charge and quite frankly, it is not him. We are the parents and we have his best interest in mind. The best interest of the family as a whole.
An example of why he would go to time out is if he throws something and will not pick it up and put it in it's proper place, or if he threw it at someone and would not say (or be) sorry. It is not okay to do these misbehaviors, even if it is him expressiving himself.
After time out, he then corrects the behavior that got him there and we have a talk about why he went to time out and we give hugs and kisses always.
He is at a point now where he goes to time out, maybe, once a week.
Oh, and one proven way that it works for a "break" and not always (but sometimes) a punishment, is that often when he is throwing a fit or in the process of melting down, he will go sit in timeout by himself, then comes out when he is ready.
I just wanted to share my experience. Don't knock it


----------



## shoes (Oct 17, 2006)

hmm... I didn't know that time outs were controversial.
I only use them right now for my almost 4 year old when she hurts someone (usually little sis). It's the one thing that I will not tolerate and it's an automatic time out. I always ask her "what's the #1 rule in our house?" and she answers "Never hurt anyone ever." Her time out chair is in the kitchen and I usually talk with her about it for the full 3 mins if I'm not busy with something else at the moment. After time out she apologizes and we get on with the day.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Then you can discuss it with him and explore the natural consequences of whatever the action is.

Pick an example and I'll try to come up with more concrete examples









-Angela


What would you do if you don't use time outs when your preschooler is violent with their younger sibling? This happens to be a reoccuring issue that doesn't seem to be getting better. I almost think that the time outs aren't harsh ENOUGH because it doesn't seem to be changing anything.


----------



## jmmom (Sep 11, 2007)

I don't use time-outs, never could, never will. My mother never used them or any other form of punishment, and all 4 of us were obedient through a fault, through highschool and college, still are even though she's dead and gone! Some of it is personality - my ds is also incredibly inclined to follow my direction. But I also think this is because I try very hard never to ask him to do anything unreasonable, and I also have gotten good results from saying, "Momma says no to this (i.e., the street), yes yes yes to this (i.e., the sidewalk)." He's quite verbal, and we have two rules that he knows - he gets carried across streets and parking lots, and he has to wear clothes. When he seems like he's testing something, I usually ignore it, and he stops. He's the kind of kid who thinks some no's are games - like putting his feet on the table - insofar as he likes to tell us that he understands that this is a "no," but does this by showing. I don't punish him for that kind of communicative behavior. I also always read the best motivation possible into his behavior.

In short, I haven't done time-out, and I have a kid who listens really, really well. I think a lot of this is because I respect him, his needs, and communicate clearly what my own expectations are.

BTW, when people are super opposed to time-out, they're often referring to something very specific - a deliberate ignoring of the child for some set of time, face turned away, in a way that has been shown to inflict more emotional pain than even a spanking. I think it's a bad idea. I think it introduces negativity, as opposed to respect, into your relationship. I have never seen a time-out administered in a way that I thought was ok. In short, I think it's mean - and in the end, kids usually do as they're shown, not as they're told. Helping a child find a safe place to calm down and teaching them techniques like breathing, etc, is not a time-out.

That's my 2cents. Good luck! My ds is almost 20 months - this 18-24 months time is SUPER challenging.


----------



## jmmom (Sep 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shoes* 
hmm... I didn't know that time outs were controversial.
I only use them right now for my almost 4 year old when she hurts someone (usually little sis). It's the one thing that I will not tolerate and it's an automatic time out. I always ask her "what's the #1 rule in our house?" and she answers "Never hurt anyone ever." Her time out chair is in the kitchen and I usually talk with her about it for the full 3 mins if I'm not busy with something else at the moment. After time out she apologizes and we get on with the day.

What would you do if you don't use time outs when your preschooler is violent with their younger sibling? This happens to be a reoccuring issue that doesn't seem to be getting better. I almost think that the time outs aren't harsh ENOUGH because it doesn't seem to be changing anything.

To clarify - what you describe is not, strictly speaking, a time-out, and I would have no problem sitting a 4yr old in a chair and talking to her the way that you describe. I have had a rule with my ds that when he touches another child in a negative way, he gets picked up and taken away from the situation - he learned pretty quickly that if he wanted to play, he shouldn't hit. And he also learned how to tell me he wanted to go home if that's what he needed.


----------



## shoes (Oct 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jmmom* 
To clarify - what you describe is not, strictly speaking, a time-out, and I would have no problem sitting a 4yr old in a chair and talking to her the way that you describe.

ahh... well that's good to hear. What I've found with MDC is you mama's are right about everything. I mean EVERYTHING. And things that I may not have agreed with in the past, after further research I always "see the light" and realize you all were right again.















What we've been doing seems to only help in the moment though. Overall it hasn't lessened the amount of violence she has in a day... I guess I just need to keep at it day after day after day........


----------



## jmmom (Sep 11, 2007)

I've never been the parent of a 4yr old - mine is still only 20 months - but if you're having a lot of trouble with hitting, some of the GD principles might help - in other words, trying to get at the root of the hitting: is she hungry, tired, does she need extra mama time without her sister, is she struggling to communicate something she needs, are there ways her sister is provoking her that could be addressed. Also, I still sometimes *want* to hit one of my siblings - some of it's normal, lol! I do know that my husband had a reputation in his family for violent outbursts, and knowing him as I do I also know that in his case a lot of it was provoked by his younger sister with those provocations never addressed - basically, really intense sibling jealously. (He's not actually a violent person as an adult, this was as a child and teenager.) So if you're having a lot of violence, I would give lots and lots of love and attention (a hard thing to do with a child who is misbehaving) and see if that helps!

I hope I'm not being preachy, I just thought I would respond to your post.


----------



## Greenmama2AJ (Jan 10, 2008)

I think there is a difference between allowing a child to cool down to have some 'space' and the timeouts where a child is forced into isolation as a form of punishment.

Its kind of like the difference between allowing your child to cry in your arms and letting your child CIO. They are worlds apart.

In response to what do schools do that dont use timeout?
Simple.
The teachers have to actually identify and deal with the real underlying cause of the misbehaviour. Instead of saying "Johnny, dont hit Mary, go sit on that step for 5 minutes until I say you can get up" - they are forced to ask themselves _why_ did Johnny hit Mary.

Is Johnny tired? Did Mary take something from Johnny? Does Johnny need attention? Is Johnny getting revenge? Is Johnny hungry? Is Johnny embarrassed? etc etc

NONE of the above under lying reasons for Johnny hitting would be resolved with a timeout. Therefore its a useless and punitive measure.
The only time when a timeout would be appropriate would be if Johnny was over stimulated and need to regather himself - sometimes introverted children need some space - but I wouldn't say "Johnny go to timeout" I would take Johnny aside and give him a quiet activity. I teach appropriate behaviour. I deal with inappropriate behaviour.

I find it a little sad that people doubt that there are other effective ways to discipline children.
I am a teacher and I have never used time out. Ever.
Discipline should be a thoughtful process, not just a system of punishment and reward.


----------



## seawind (Sep 28, 2007)

Efficacy of time-outs would depend upon the child's individual temperament. Even then, it would be counter-productive if used too often and indiscriminately.It should not be the primary approach to address problematic behavior.


----------



## momma_unlimited (Aug 10, 2008)

Quote:

The thing is that it's not an age appropriate expectation for him to stop himself. It's not fair to ask that of him at this age.
So I totally agree with the first statement. I should not "expect" him to stop himself; meaning that if he doesn't, I wouldn't be angry, frustrated, display negative emotions.

But, not ASKING it of him; I think I disagree. I feel like, no matter where they are at, I always model & verbalize the behaviour I want to teach. Example, when ds 1 was a baby and I new nothing about babies, I was tense. I never smiled or really even talked to him since I didn't think he could understand my words, not realizing just speaking and smiling would be taken in by him even if he didn't understand the content. Result? He never smiled at me til he was like 6 months old, and didn't talk til after 12 months. The whole time I thought he was mad at me. With number two, I smiled and talked from day one. By 7 weeks he smiled nonstop, and by 6 months he could say hi and did, to everyone! Also, with ds1, I didn't try teach him not to touch (I would say no! when he was in danger out of frustration, but didn't think he could comprehend) til after he was one; at that point he had already come to expect he could touch whatever he wanted and mommy would just remove him or the object if it wasn't ok. So he didn't respond to don't touch til I could turn it into a game much later on- the "Don't touch game". With ds 2, AS SOON AS he began to reach for things, we had some sessions where as soon as his little hand reached out I would say "NO!!! DON'T TOUCH!" loudly and firmly and remove his hand. After a few weeks he would just not touch.

So I am saying, I feel like we should always be "asking" things of them, knowing that they often comprehend much earlier than we expect and if a precendent isn't set the first time an unwanted behaviour occurs, we are actually training them that it is ok. But I don't think we should get upset if they don't achieve; that's where we need to be realistic.

So with time out- I haven't been doing it as "You're bad- I don't want to be near you- go be by yourself". I always say "This is where you can have a negative attitude without being contagious. This is where you can work through being angry." He is the type who gets even madder if I try to console (hmmm.... maybe I should use the bach flower essence for that!) so he calms down when I let him be. So, I am trying not to make it a punishment.

I guess from some I am hearing its not the physical aspect of "time out" that is a negative- rather the emotional intent behind it?


----------



## sweetpeppers (Dec 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rabbitmum* 
I'm completely opposed to time-outs. I didn't grow up with them (or any other form of punishment) so I know they are not necessary. The "naughty corner" was something horrible and scary they had in the old days, like having to swallow a lunch box lid full of cod liver oil if you had forgotten to bring your spoon to school, or spanking (which has been illegal in Norway for many years).

Unfortunately time-outs are becoming more common in Norwegian homes now, due to nanny TV programs imported from the US and UK.







But kindergartens and schools are not allowed to use time-outs in my town. In "GD circles" in Norway time-outs are not considered GD.

When my eldest was little, around four years old, I read a parenting book that advocated time-outs, and I tried using them. Never again! She was really, really hurt and humiliated, and it didn't help the situation one bit - it only moved the focus away from what was currently the issue and over to the humiliation and hurt she felt from being excluded and pushed away from me (not literally speaking, I didn't push her, I carried her to her room and closed the door). After this had happened a few times she said one day: "Mummy, do you know what? Sometimes it almost feels like you don't love me anymore." She still remembers it.









It didn't feel like a useful and appropriate thing to do even to me, I just felt completely defeated and didn't know what to do. I never tried it with my two boys.

I have seen other parents (in the UK) use time-outs where they force the child to sit on a chair for some minutes, and from the child's reaction it was obvious to me that this is not right. They cry "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I won't do it again, I didn't mean it" while being carried to the chair, obviously genuinely fearing the humiliation and exclusion, even if they know that the parent is going to be sitting only a couple of meters away from them.

I can see that using time-outs is one step better than hitting the child, which is the alternative in many families in the US and UK, I suppose. But it's still punishment, humiliation, exclusion, and disrespect.

As for the situations you describe:

16 months old is to young to expect him to really follow instructions on a regular basis.

Too close to the woodstove: Block his access with something, I would have used an overturned chair. If he gets too close, I would move him away and distract him with a toy.

Woodstove tools: I would put them somewhere out of his reach, along with the toilet brush and my camera.

Sticking body parts in the toilet: Lift him away, distract.

Refusing to change a poopy diaper: I would just change the diaper. It's not optional, as my youngest have so sensitive skin that he gets a rash unless it's changed immediately.

Throwing himself on the floor, arcing his back, etc.: This is behaviour that has to be expected from a child this age. On his way to developing self-determination and independance he is experiencing a lot of frustration and strong emotions that he doesn't yet have the maturity to handle by himself. I would comfort him if possible, be available and understanding. He needs my help to learn how to go trough these strong emotions, understand them, knowing that he is loved and accepted no matter what, so that he can learn to accept his anger and frustration and eventually express them in a different way, with words.

As for whether time-outs "work" or not, I'm suspecting that putting him in the playpen works for you right now BECAUSE he is too young to understand. He is being moved away from the situation and distracted. I think you would get a different response from him in a couple of years when he is old enough to understand that he is being punished.









:

My parents did use time outs when I was younger, and I hated them almost as much as being spanked. They are equally humiliating in my book.


----------



## lisad1 (Aug 7, 2007)

Here is a great book which covers a lot of research showing that while time-outs, rewards, and other threats and bribes work to obtain temporary compliance - the results aren't lasting and are actually harmful in the long run. It's an easy read and it really challenged my perspective on parenting!

*Unconditional Parenting by Alfie Kohn*

_
Most advice for parents begins with the question ?How can we get kids to do what they?re told?? -- and then proceeds to offer various techniques for controlling them. In his landmark book Unconditional Parenting ? and in this talk based on that book -- Alfie Kohn begins instead by asking ?What are our long-term goals for our children?? It follows that we need to work with them, rather than doing things to them, in order to reach those goals.

Kohn argues that punishments (including time-outs) and rewards (including positive reinforcement) may sometimes produce temporary compliance, but they do nothing to help kids grow into responsible, caring, ethical, happy people. Moreover, he suggests that permissiveness is less worrisome than a fear of permissiveness that leads us to overcontrol our children. Kohn concludes with ten important guidelines to help viewers reconnect to their own best instincts as parents.

Author of nine books, including the controversial Punished by Rewards, Kohn expands upon the theme of what's wrong with our society's emphasis on punishments and rewards. Kohn, the father of young children, sprinkles his text with anecdotes that shore up his well-researched hypothesis that children do best with unconditional love, respect and the opportunity to make their own choices. Kohn questions why parents and parenting literature focus on compliance and quick fixes, and points out that docility and short-term obedience are not what most parents desire of their children in the long run. He insists that "controlling parents" are actually conveying to their kids that they love them conditionally-that is, only when they achieve or behave. Tactics like time-out, bribes and threats, Kohn claims, just worsen matters. Caustic, witty and thought-provoking, Kohn's arguments challenge much of today's parenting wisdom, yet his assertion that "the way kids learn to make good decisions is by making decisions, not by following directions" rings true. Kohn suggests parents help kids solve problems; provide them with choices; and use reason, humor and, as a last resort, a restorative time away (not a punitive time-out). This lively book will surely rile parents who want to be boss. Those seeking alternative methods of raising confident, well-loved children, however, will warmly embrace Kohn's message._


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Lots of great responses here, I'm just going to highlight some stuff I agree with, or want to comment on:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rabbitmum* 
Refusing to change a poopy diaper: I would just change the diaper. It's not optional, as my youngest have so sensitive skin that he gets a rash unless it's changed immediately.

Throwing himself on the floor, arcing his back, etc.: This is behaviour that has to be expected from a child this age. On his way to developing self-determination and independance he is experiencing a lot of frustration and strong emotions that he doesn't yet have the maturity to handle by himself. I would comfort him if possible, be available and understanding. He needs my help to learn how to go trough these strong emotions, understand them, knowing that he is loved and accepted no matter what, so that he can learn to accept his anger and frustration and eventually express them in a different way, with words.

As for whether time-outs "work" or not, I'm suspecting that putting him in the playpen works for you right now BECAUSE he is too young to understand. He is being moved away from the situation and distracted. I think you would get a different response from him in a couple of years when he is old enough to understand that he is being punished.

Yes to *all* of this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momma_unlimited* 
He looks at me with full understanding, and makes a conscious decision to do it anyways. I get it that he might be truly overwhelmed with curiosity; and that this curiosity is good.

He may "understand" that you don't want him to touch it, but at 16 months he is unable to control the impulse to do it anyway - so punishing it out of him only "works" in a behaviorist way by squashing the curiosity. Which isn't the worst thing in the world, but also not my long term goal for my own kids.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
For the question of removing things... I have never found a world where there is never ever a limit. Car seat belts, smearing poo, gravity... something. I myself don't worry too much that my child will never learn that there are limits. If you count in a day the number of things a child has no control over - when diapers are changed, food comes, which food comes, clothing, room he is placed in, etc. etc. etc. - I think it becomes pretty clear that limits are not really the issue, as an overriding thing.

I think the question really is that given your limits (whatever they are) how will you present them? Will you say "stoves are not for touching" and... redirect? place in time out? smack on the hand?

I am not suggesting any of these are equivalent to each other. I'm just saying that time out is not a magic bullet limit. (Except on TV where there are no alternatives presented between "chaos" and "naughty spots.") You can have expectations and limits without having artificial negative consequences.

I LOVE this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shoes* 
What would you do if you don't use time outs when your preschooler is violent with their younger sibling? This happens to be a reoccuring issue that doesn't seem to be getting better. I almost think that the time outs aren't harsh ENOUGH because it doesn't seem to be changing anything.

We go in phases here - I do immediately separate kids that are physically aggressing against each other, by inserting my body between them. I realize tht with my particular kids, most of the time there is not _unprovoked_ aggression, so that both parties had a part in it...so I address both of them, and tell them that it's unacceptable to play in a way that hurts each other with words or actions. But once I'm done talking to them and making sure both parties are OK, they get right back to playing.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momma_unlimited* 
I always say "This is where you can have a negative attitude without being contagious. This is where you can work through being angry."

But by isolating him, you are in essence saying that you don't want to be around his negative feelings, that they are undesirable..which in a behaviorist model would lead the kid to not express the negative feelings in an effort to not be separated from you because you disapprove of him expressing himself that way. IMO, suppressing negative feelings just leads them to bottle up and come out in other ways. Negative feelings have just as much importance and right as positive ones...I never want my kids to suppress their negative feelings. The thing is, in the early years, expressing negative feelings is often LOUD and physical...but that's where modeling and teaching come in. Let them have the feelings, and slowly guide them as they get older (around 2, 2-1/2 ish for most kids, IME) into more appropriate ways to handle and express their anger. But that takes time...and maturity.

I'm not saying that you don't address the kid and their outburst. When my kids were younger, and even now when their reactions are out of proportion or inappropriate, I validate their feeling (WOW - you're mad!) then as they get older, something like, "that's really loud, how about we X instead?" and give another outlet for the anger. My general goal in parenting is not to *extinguish* behaviors, but replace inappropriate behaviors with more appropriate ones. And I've found that the replacement method works pretty well because it gives them something concrete to do instead of just stopping what they were doing before.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momma_unlimited*
I guess from some I am hearing its not the physical aspect of "time out" that is a negative- rather the emotional intent behind it?

For me, yes. Because I _do_ separate kids who are aggressive, or remove a kid from a dangerous situation, or a situation that they are having a hard time handling...but there is no, "You did X, so you have to sit here and think about it because you don't deserve to be around us right now because you did it" kind of thing. It's an interaction between us about the situation (which connects), instead of an isolation from the situation and people (which disconnects). I want them to understand the whys of a situation so as they get older they can begin to make judgement calls on their own, instead of just "behaving" to avoid a punishment...because then what happens when they're older and I'm not around to punish them?....

I don't think time outs are the worst thing, and in some situations separating a child physically from a situation is a good idea...but isolating them and shaming them (either directly or indirectly) IMO shouldn't be part of that equation.


----------



## RasJi7 (Sep 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momma_unlimited* 
From the time my son was 6 months old, he has responded to no and don't touch- I taught him too. 99% of the time from 6-7 mos til just recently, if I said "Don't touch" he would remove his hand; if I said "Come to mama" he would run to me; if I said "No!" He would stop what he was doing and look to me for guidance.

Now that he is coming into his own will, and separating from the extension of me he perceived himself as, he is testing the limits; he is struggling to determine more about his individuality. So, whereas, before he would meander over to the woodstove or tools (which, btw, there is absolutely nowhere to put them as we live in a wide open house with little furniture and without a single closet!), I would say "Don't touch" and it would be a rather mute point, now he has more determination to match his ability and is less distractable... but he also has not lost his understanding of what "don't touch" means, he is just choosing to follow his own inclinations instead. He looks at me with full understanding, and makes a conscious decision to do it anyways. I get it that he might be truly overwhelmed with curiosity; and that this curiosity is good. I don't want to punish him; but my perception of just trying to remove anything that could possibly cause conflict, rather than consistently helping him to follow through when I guide him, is that it would be... permissive... child-centered rather than family-centered? Obviously I do some things to make our house more toddler friendly. No valuables within reach, no cleaning products in low places... But if I just removed anything that could cause a conflict, how will he ever learn to develop his will when it is contrary to his desires (self-control I guess) and accept guidance from those who know better than him?

I am not trying to argue- I love to see everyone's point of view to develop a more well-rounded one for myself.

Open house, no furniture here as well... we use top of fridge and kitchen counters or i put things outside. I am lurking on this thread.

I don't know the exact age but at some age he will develop impulse control. Even a school-age child however doesn't have perfect impulse control, I think it comes much later. I am going to try and parent the child I have and watch where he is at and until then keep dangerous things away from him.


----------



## momma_unlimited (Aug 10, 2008)

Wonder if there is some way to hang my woodstove tools up on the wall!


----------



## karne (Jul 6, 2005)

I have school aged children and I don't use time outs very specifically because enforced seperation that feels punative to them is incredibly distressing. What I value most in my relationship with my children is our connection and communication-it has seen us through some tough times. So, I do lots of the good suggestions of pp's. I have a dd entering the pre-teen years. We more than occasionally need a break from each other for reflection, cooling off, or just space. But verbalizing that has taught us more as individuals than sitting in time out, or being sent punatively to her bedroom. I am finding the same thing with my younger son.


----------



## kristinseto (Mar 24, 2008)

Not to hyjak, but...
What are some opinions on the following:
You are having a playdate at your house with your 3 yr old and another 3 yrd old. Your lo will not share. What would you do?
I would not want to take said toy away, bc my lo already had a turn and the friend did not, so that is not fair.
What do you all think?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kristinseto* 
Not to hyjak, but...
What are some opinions on the following:
You are having a playdate at your house with your 3 yr old and another 3 yrd old. Your lo will not share. What would you do?
I would not want to take said toy away, bc my lo already had a turn and the friend did not, so that is not fair.
What do you all think?

In that case I would enforce a turn for the friend while explaining to my child what was going on and acknowledging their feelings about it.

-Angela


----------



## kristinseto (Mar 24, 2008)

That is what I did last time.
I said something like, you can be upset and I underdtand this is your toy, but you had a turn, now X gets a turn.

He is great at sharing, when the items are public, like at the Children's Museam or something, but at his house, he is just not used to it yet.
He has a 6 mo. old baby sister, so I hope he learns soon







I try my best.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kristinseto* 
Not to hyjak, but...
What are some opinions on the following:
You are having a playdate at your house with your 3 yr old and another 3 yrd old. Your lo will not share. What would you do?
I would not want to take said toy away, bc my lo already had a turn and the friend did not, so that is not fair.
What do you all think?

First just be aware it's totally normal.

Given the situation I might just enforce the sharing or I might come up with a third option like "let's all fingerpaint."

But just FYI, this doesn't work all the time with my son but it does a lot of the time... before the playdate we talk about how when guests come, we share with them, and then we pick three special toys to be put away that the guest does not get to play with. It gives my son a sense of control and it does seem to help. Just something you can try.

For sharing I know this is OT (sorry OP) but I did want to do my little rant on how complex sharing is: we share our toys. However we don't generally share our cars with our neighbours. We don't share glasses if someone has drunk out of them! Grown ups may or may not share things like coffee and wine. And so on and so forth. So just remember it's not a super simple task even if we make it out to be.


----------



## ABmom (Mar 6, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rabbitmum* 
16 months old is to young to expect him to really follow instructions on a regular basis.

Too close to the woodstove: Block his access with something, I would have used an overturned chair. If he gets too close, I would move him away and distract him with a toy.

Woodstove tools: I would put them somewhere out of his reach, along with the toilet brush and my camera.

Sticking body parts in the toilet: Lift him away, distract.

Refusing to change a poopy diaper: I would just change the diaper. It's not optional, as my youngest have so sensitive skin that he gets a rash unless it's changed immediately.

Throwing himself on the floor, arcing his back, etc.: This is behaviour that has to be expected from a child this age. On his way to developing self-determination and independance he is experiencing a lot of frustration and strong emotions that he doesn't yet have the maturity to handle by himself. I would comfort him if possible, be available and understanding. He needs my help to learn how to go trough these strong emotions, understand them, knowing that he is loved and accepted no matter what, so that he can learn to accept his anger and frustration and eventually express them in a different way, with words.

As for whether time-outs "work" or not, I'm suspecting that putting him in the playpen works for you right now BECAUSE he is too young to understand. He is being moved away from the situation and distracted. I think you would get a different response from him in a couple of years when he is old enough to understand that he is being punished.


ITA. We don't have TO in our house. I was raised with TO and spanking and I refuses to use the same methods. It is tiring and frustrating but I truly believe that if you put in the time and effort (like a million times) to distract and redirect then eventually they will get it. Recently ds has learned NOT to play with the garbage bins, toilet bowl, unroll the toilet tissue and rip pages from a book (well almost there.)

We don't child-proof our house to the point of everything being off limits and chained down or locked away. The dangerous items (knives, glassware, cords, etc) are locked away or taken from view but everything else is there. We don't use the NO often, just for the dangerous stuff. We use DANGER, HOT, WAIT, and STOP. We found that this works better as dd hardly used NO with us. We hope that this tactic will work with ds as well.

kristenseto, we had this happened and I just calmly tell dd that if she wants her friend to come and play again then she needs to share. Then I get dd involve into something else. If this does not work (which happens sometimes) then I get them both to play with something the involves both of them. Sharing is one of the things that I feel need to be reinforce again and again. But I wouldn't punish dd for not sharing. I try to project myself in her shoes. I wouldn't like it if I was punished for not wanting to share my things.


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

Just to comment on the verbal message you're giving...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momma_unlimited* 
I always say "This is where you can have a negative attitude without being contagious. This is where you can work through being angry."


Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
But by isolating him, you are in essence saying that you don't want to be around his negative feelings, that they are undesirable..which in a behaviorist model would lead the kid to not express the negative feelings in an effort to not be separated from you because you disapprove of him expressing himself that way.

I very much agree with 4OfUs, I think there's more than one potential pitfall with the "you have to stay here until you're not angry anymore" or "if you're angry you have to be in here" type time-out, or anything that hints at rejection because of the way he feels.

More than that, I really wanted to encourage you to re-examine the message you are sending by telling him that anger is contagious. To me, that's not the best way to look at it. There's a boundary problem when we go too far toward thinking that other people and their emotions change/control the way _we_ feel.

I'm not naive, being around someone with a negative attitude gets anyone grumpy. But even if it's a matter of semantics, that mood change is coming from within. If I'm grumpy, it's because there's something going on with me, I'm uncomfortable or feeling powerless or whatever. That concept is important enough to me that I would avoid any message to my daughter that would imply that somebody else's mood might be 'catching' or that I didn't want to be around her because I might catch her mood.

I think the number one way, by far, that we teach children how to regulate their behavior and work through anger is by role-modeling it. All the limits and talk and punishments and consequences can't compete with the little eyes watching you get angry and work through it yourself. That's why so many of us find we have our parents' tempers, rather than having learned the lessons they were trying to teach (is there a :raises hand: smilie?)

If you are modeling for him that feelings are something you might catch so you handle it by distancing yourself from people with unpleasant emotions, it's something to reconsider IMO. Even when she is not helped by consoling, I'd rather the message be "I know you're upset and all worked up, but I'm not, and we can pause here together until you are feeling more ready to move on."

For an older child who wants to be alone and walks away, I'd absolutely let her go, but I wouldn't choose to put a baby who is too young to make that choice in a playpen. It almost comes down to: is going into the playpen optional or compulsory? And at 16 months old I think we have to be careful because almost everything is compulsory to some degree.

And now that I've completely parsed this one sentence with a fine tooth comb, I'll apologize if it comes of as over-examining or ridiculous. Obviously, this is one sentence said to a baby, and pretty innocuous in the grand scheme of things. But I find it really helpful and worthwhile to look at the attitudes I have behind those kinds of sentences and the messages they all add up to send taken as whole.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momma_unlimited* 
I guess from some I am hearing its not the physical aspect of "time out" that is a negative- rather the emotional intent behind it?

I completely agree with Alfie Kohn in his assertion that what you intend isn't nearly as important as what they hear (i.e. what message you send.) Again, hair-splitting maybe, but it's an important hair IMO. With a child so young in these cases of 'disobedience' or fit-throwing, I think you have to look at what the difference between "I don't want to be with you" and "here's a place where you have to calm down" might look like if it's even possible to make the distinction.


----------



## nancy926 (Mar 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momma_unlimited* 
my perception of just trying to remove anything that could possibly cause conflict, rather than consistently helping him to follow through when I guide him, is that it would be... permissive... child-centered rather than family-centered? Obviously I do some things to make our house more toddler friendly. No valuables within reach, no cleaning products in low places... But if I just removed anything that could cause a conflict, how will he ever learn to develop his will when it is contrary to his desires (self-control I guess) and accept guidance from those who know better than him?

At this age, I think being child centered is useful. It's useful for you, because it minimizes conflict. It's useful for him, because it minimizes situations in which he might get into something dangerous.

I also think it doesn't harm him, and in fact will help in the future. He has plenty, plenty of time to develop self control! If you minimize the times when you "guide" your child, she is much more likely to listen. If you are constantly telling your child "don't touch that; leave that alone; no" then it starts to sound like Miss Othmar - "wahhh wahhh wahhh" - the child stops listening.


----------



## jmmom (Sep 11, 2007)

I've been thinking more about the whole time-out thing, and about how it really isn't very effective. Imagine applying it to an adult. Let's say there's something that you really, really want to do, but shouldn't - say, flirt with a handsome stranger, or even worse. (Assuming you're in a relationship already.) So now you should...go sit by yourself and think about it? Absolutely not - you should go for a run or something! Of course, removing yourself from a tempting situation is a good thing, but as we've noted, that's _different_ from _isolating yourself to ponder what you've done/want to do._ Even with ourselves we redirect, redirect, redirect. So much more important to do it with a child, who has even less impulse control than we do. And let's face it, none of us has perfect impulse control! I know I can't resist chocolate...but I certainly don't need time-outs over it.

Part of what I've been thinking about is that redirection is a good way to habituate a child into how to behave, time-out, not so much. So even if you think behaviorism is partly true - which I do (sorry, I'm a philosophy Phd) - that doesn't mean you need to administer time-outs. There are different ways of addressing the behavior.

Also, with regard to sharing, I think it's way overrated. I mean, kids need to learn to be nice and take turns, but really, if you were reading a book at a coffee shop, and another person wanted it, would you share? No.


----------



## AndVeeGeeMakes3 (Mar 16, 2007)

I don't use them for a few reasons.

First off, my dd is an only child - always will be, so I don't see the point of sending her off to be by herself (especially characterizing that as a punishment or consequence or however we want to call it). She's by herself too much already, I'm afraid.

Also, I think it kind of works in the reverse. Her "bad" behavior is usually in response to a request or instruction from me. I don't want to give her an "out" of whatever it is that we need to be doing at the moment. As in real life - we just, sometimes, have to power through.

And that leads to the next reason: time-outs aren't "natural consequences." I know some people think that yelling at a friend will end up making that friend go away and so the separation of time-out mimics that consequence - I don't think my dd could make that connection, and I don't think that's really how it works in real life. What happens, I think, is that things escalate because people don't know how to harness their emotions or control their impulses or whatever. That's what I want to help my daughter learn to do, so, staying _inside_ of the situation gives me a better teaching opportunity. Sure, it can be hard on my ears/emotions/headache/whatever, but I do think that it's a much more productive way of parenting.

All that said, I do ask my daughter sometimes if she needs some rest when she's behaving in a way that's not appropriate (and I reluctantly use that word, because I think "bad" behavior _is_ appropriate as children learn to navigate the world - I don't think we should encourage it, of course, but I do think it's developmentally appropriate). Sometimes she does need a few minutes alone, talking to her animals (her toys).


----------



## RasJi7 (Sep 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momma_unlimited* 
Wonder if there is some way to hang my woodstove tools up on the wall!

ooh great idea! or tie them to the top of the woodstove somehow ??? is that possible? I've only seen one and it was in vermont- and it was years ago









ikea has some cool things as far as wall mounted rails and hook systems and even a (pricey) ceiling hanging thing too.


----------



## carinj (Oct 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jmmom* 
I've been thinking more about the whole time-out thing, and about how it really isn't very effective. Imagine applying it to an adult. Let's say there's something that you really, really want to do, but shouldn't - say, flirt with a handsome stranger, or even worse. (Assuming you're in a relationship already.) So now you should...go sit by yourself and think about it? Absolutely not - you should go for a run or something! Of course, removing yourself from a tempting situation is a good thing, but as we've noted, that's _different_ from _isolating yourself to ponder what you've done/want to do._ Even with ourselves we redirect, redirect, redirect. So much more important to do it with a child, who has even less impulse control than we do. And let's face it, none of us has perfect impulse control! I know I can't resist chocolate...but I certainly don't need time-outs over it.

Why on earth would taking time to privately think about a potentially life-altering action be a *bad* thing? Further, you seem to forget that, as adults, most of us have learned to think before we act. Children, who often act impulsively, need to learn to think first, then act. It is our job as parents to teach them that which they need to know in order to co-exist in their communities.

Quote:

Also, with regard to sharing, I think it's way overrated. I mean, kids need to learn to be nice and take turns, but really, if you were reading a book at a coffee shop, and another person wanted it, would you share? No.
But I have learned that being generous and sharing my fortunes with others is the right thing to do. And, I believe that my parents taught me this lesson in many ways, including sharing my toys with my friends when I was small.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carinj* 
Why on earth would taking time to privately think about a potentially life-altering action be a *bad* thing? Further, you seem to forget that, as adults, most of us have learned to think before we act. Children, who often act impulsively, need to learn to think first, then act. It is our job as parents to teach them that which they need to know in order to co-exist in their communities.

Of course. But I personally don't believe time out teaches to think first and then act (at least not all implementations of it). I think like most punishment its first lesson is "don't get caught."

What I think teaches to think and then act is coming up with an action plan together for how to handle it the next time (once the child is old enough).


----------



## KnitLady (Jul 6, 2006)

I haven't read all the responses, so hopefully not a repeat.

I believe time-outs are a withdrawal of love. I think it communicates that the child is only loved when he is "good." Instead of communicating that the behavior isn't acceptable, I think it feels to the child that she isn't acceptable.

I don't use time-outs. However I think time-ins can be wonderful. The difference is that a parent is with the child. If things aren't going well I sometimes take my DS and we sit on the couch together. I hold him (if he wants) reassure him, explain that we're sitting there because he was destroying a book and I need to protect the book. We might nurse, or read. None of it is by force. He usually calms down quickly and we can move on.

I also don't oppose self-directed time-outs. Some children start to get angry and go off for some alone time.


----------

