# Discipline without threats



## SundayCrepes (Feb 15, 2008)

I've started lurking here. We're pretty GD in general. Then I read something about raising kids without threatening them. I realized we do that. "If you don't...I will..." We don't do it all the time. Do a lot of other stuff more than we do that. "The dog is sad you're doing that..." or making it fun or whatever. (It's late, I'm tired, don't want to get into a lot of details on what I think we do right.)

Anyway, what examples do people have to avoid the threats?

"Stop throwing your toys or I'll take them away from you."

"Stop banging my chair with your toy or I'll take it away from you."

"Stop... or I'll take it away from you."

What do you do that's effective without being a threat.


----------



## LilyGrace (Jun 10, 2007)

We ended up phrasing it as a positive statement - needs vs. don'ts:

_Don't throw the toys or I'll take them away_
becomes
_You need to play with the toys gently/vroom the car_ or _Throwing hurts_ followed by the preferred action/choice : _you can roll it or bounce it._

If the action persisted, the consequence would be logical: _You're having trouble with the rules. It's time to give the toy a break. Do you want to go outside or help me color this picture?_

No if-then, but I'm not sure if it's any better.


----------



## SundayCrepes (Feb 15, 2008)

It is better. I hope to see what other people suggest, but this is great.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

I think sometimes there's a fine line. Here's how I'd phrase your above statements...and wouldn't consider them threats - I'd consider them the reality of them playing unsafely, etc.

"Stop throwing your toys or I'll take them away from you."
"That isn't safe to throw, you can throw X instead." If they throw it again, "Since you can't play safely with this toy, you'll need to play with another." and put it out of the way for a while. No specific time limit - if they ask for it again in a minute, they can have another try.

"Stop banging my chair with your toy or I'll take it away from you."
"Please stop banging my chair" (they don't stop) "If you need to bang, you can bang X". If they keep banging, then I gently take the toy saying something like, "I'm not going to let you keep X. It's Y (not safe, too loud, whatever)"

"Stop... or I'll take it away from you."
"If you can't use that (safely, gently, fill in the proper adjective), it will have to go away for a bit and we'll find something else to do."

These aren't threats IMO, because I'm giving the reasons behind why I want them to stop, giving them alternatives to help them still get the experience they want, but in the end setting and enforcing a limit. To me, threats usually don't involve explaining to the child why you don't want them doing something, or are just blurted out when the parent doesn't necessarily want to follow through, ,they just want the kid to stop or do whatever it is and threatening to take stuff away usually is a short term fix to that. I see threats usually turn into empty threats (I have several friends IRL who do the empty threat thing and it drives me NUTS), or giving kids multiple chances to do or stop doing something (if you don't, then I'll.....I swear I will, I mean it, .....then it finally happens). I tend to just ask once maybe twice, and then DO. I'm not mad or mean about it, I just do whatever it is.


----------



## SundayCrepes (Feb 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
I tend to just ask once maybe twice, and then DO. I'm not mad or mean about it, I just do whatever it is.

Yeah, we don't do empty threats. I just want to reword things a little nicer.

We do give short explanations as to why--you're hurting me. I don't want anything to get broke.

It seems like it's all semantics.


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

I am such a fan of How to Talk so Kids will Listen and Listen so Kids Will Talk. My favorite quote from the book is:

Quote:

The attitude that children thrive upon is one that communicates, "You're basically a lovable, capable person. Right now, there's a problem that needs attention. Once you're aware of it, you'll probably respond responsibly."
I think the "stop or I'll" short-circuits this message in two ways. "Stop" (or any other direct command without qualification) doesn't give them a chance to solve the problem without your telling them exactly how, and using the "or I'll" communicates doubt that they'll handle it appropriately.

The five tools given in that book for 'engaging a child's cooperation' (which is in itself a fabulous twist of semantics/spin):

Quote:

-- Describe what you see, or describe the problem
-- Give information
-- Say it with a word
-- Describe what you feel
-- write a note
In you first example, I think things like "if you throw toys, they may break", "I'm worried that you might break something of mine", and even "it makes me anxious to have toys thrown in the house" fit the bill. If they are old enough, a sign "Throw-Free Zone"?

The next chapter of the book discusses how to address instances where cooperation is not forthcoming. But how you phrase the original message can make all the difference IMO.

It's semantics, to a point, but IMO very important semantics. These messages are so much more internalized by children for whom what we communicate to them, and how, is their primary method for learning what the world is about.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mybabysmama* 
Yeah, we don't do empty threats. I just want to reword things a little nicer.

We do give short explanations as to why--you're hurting me. I don't want anything to get broke.

It seems like it's all semantics.

I think the "if you...then I'll" emphasizes the dynamic of YOU (generic you, not you specifically OP) doing something TO them because they misbehaved. Whereas if you phrase it differently/more positively, focusing on the situation itself, it's more emphasizing how their actions have affected something. It seems like a subtle difference, but I've noticed that with parenting (my kids especially) the devil is, in fact, in the details. I can phrase something one way and get figuratively pushed back, but if I phrase it another (more positive, less personal) way I'll get happy compliance. I try to take the "I'll" out of things, and make it more about the situation, KIWM?


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I often avoid threatening by not stating the consequence in advance. I say that the behavior needs to stop. I explain why. If the behavior does not stop, I explain what I am doing AS I DO IT: "I see that you can't stop banging the glass. I will take the glass away. When you're ready to use it responsibly, you can have a second chance." When EnviroKid first became able to understand this (around 18 months), he would ask for the second chance almost immediately--after a few seconds of crestfallenness, his demeanor would change, and he'd say something like, "I nice now."--so I'd give back the object and closely supervise his use of it until I could see he was using it appropriately. Later, when he got more willfull and tantrummy, he started to have more prolonged and angry reactions to getting things taken away...so now, typically he takes so long to calm down that he's forgotten about the object in question by the time he's in a mood to use it appropriately. We have all kinds of strange things on top of our bookcases.









In a lot of parenting advice, I see a belief that it's not fair to take an action without warning the child in advance. There are two problems with that, IMO:
1. The assumption that good behavior is motivated by avoidance of negative consequences, rather than by positive concepts.
2. The "if...then" warning basically offers the child the option of repeating the misbehavior one more time, if he is willing to take the consequence. There's a particularly clear example of this in this article: "If you choose to hit your sister again instead of talking to her, you will play in your room alone for the rest of the day."

I do use "if...then" sometimes, but I think it's best to avoid.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

"Stop throwing your toys or I'll take them away from you."
becomes: "Don't throw that, it could hurt something/someone. Keep the toy low. If you want to throw, you can go outside/throw the nerf ball/etc."
If they keep doing it: "I see that you are still throwing. Maybe we should put the toy up to take away the temptation." (my ds would generally agree with that). or asking HIM to put it away and then help him find something else to do.

But...if he doesn't, I'm not really all that opposed to telling him I'm not going to let him do something harmful, and taking something away.

Ime, explaining and offering an acceptable alternative is often enough. If it's not, then usually it's because he's "stuck" in that activity and can't move out of it. I *try* to address it with that pov.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
I often avoid threatening by not stating the consequence in advance. I say that the behavior needs to stop. I explain why. If the behavior does not stop, I explain what I am doing AS I DO IT: "I see that you can't stop banging the glass. I will take the glass away. When you're ready to use it responsibly, you can have a second chance." When EnviroKid first became able to understand this (around 18 months), he would ask for the second chance almost immediately--after a few seconds of crestfallenness, his demeanor would change, and he'd say something like, "I nice now."--so I'd give back the object and closely supervise his use of it until I could see he was using it appropriately. Later, when he got more willfull and tantrummy, he started to have more prolonged and angry reactions to getting things taken away...so now, typically he takes so long to calm down that he's forgotten about the object in question by the time he's in a mood to use it appropriately. We have all kinds of strange things on top of our bookcases.









In a lot of parenting advice, I see a belief that it's not fair to take an action without warning the child in advance. There are two problems with that, IMO:
1. The assumption that good behavior is motivated by avoidance of negative consequences, rather than by positive concepts.
2. The "if...then" warning basically offers the child the option of repeating the misbehavior one more time, if he is willing to take the consequence. There's a particularly clear example of this in this article: "If you choose to hit your sister again instead of talking to her, you will play in your room alone for the rest of the day."

I do use "if...then" sometimes, but I think it's best to avoid.

I like this, a LOT. Especially your viewpoint on the If....then. thing and not warning the kids. Sometimes I don't state consequences beforehand, either.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Those things are only threats if you don't follow through. If you are going to take something, be it a toy or a privelage, it is nice for the child to have a warning and a chance to keep their possession as well as some information about why they lost the opportunity to have or do something. You can minimize some of that by redirecting to appropriate behaviors. Some people find it possible to let their kids just bang, jump, and run around their house and tear it up as much as they want to when they are young, that is another direction you could go in if you are able to cope well with that type of situation, I believe it is called Consentual Living. You might also try getting things that can be thrown or banged and substituting them in until that phase stops. A nice toy drum or some pots and pans are really nice for young kids.

There is a great section in Raising your spirited child, that talks about setting up clear consequences before hand and then reminding the child of what they are choosing by their actions and giving them a chance to make a different choice before following through. It is geared more towards tantrums and preschoolers, but it is something that can probably be applied very well for older kids.


----------



## aschmied (Apr 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
"Stop throwing your toys or I'll take them away from you."
becomes: "Don't throw that, it could hurt something/someone. Keep the toy low. If you want to throw, you can go outside/throw the nerf ball/etc."
If they keep doing it: "I see that you are still throwing. Maybe we should put the toy up to take away the temptation." (my ds would generally agree with that). or asking HIM to put it away and then help him find something else to do.

But...if he doesn't, I'm not really all that opposed to telling him I'm not going to let him do something harmful, and taking something away.

Ime, explaining and offering an acceptable alternative is often enough. If it's not, then usually it's because he's "stuck" in that activity and can't move out of it. I *try* to address it with that pov.

This is what I do. DD has even occasionally suddenly handed me something saying "please take this mommy" When asked why, it's usually something like "I wanted to hit T with it." I always thank her for it. I think it's GREAT that she can do that occasionally.







:


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LilyGrace* 
We ended up phrasing it as a positive statement - needs vs. don'ts:

_Don't throw the toys or I'll take them away_
becomes
_You need to play with the toys gently/vroom the car_ or _Throwing hurts_ followed by the preferred action/choice : _you can roll it or bounce it._

If the action persisted, the consequence would be logical: *You're having trouble with the rules. It's time to give the toy a break. Do you want to go outside or help me color this picture?*

No if-then, but I'm not sure if it's any better.









See, I love that, but its so many words, my 5 yr old and my 2 yr old dont usually stick with me for that long winded of a sentance. kwim?

GD seems to use much more long winded stuff.

I am glad you asked OP because I have hopped on the threatening train and its going so fast I cant seem to get off! Whew!
















:


----------



## LilyGrace (Jun 10, 2007)

It all goes by age, Transformed. When I'm working with two year olds the sentence becomes something more like: _Swing? (show swinging sign) or color now? (show art sign)_ As they get older I use more words when discussing new ideas, but still try to keep it short (around 5 words) for directives. _You need to play gently/gentle touch/soooooft_ all say the same thing to different ages, but the most important part is that I'm modeling it for them, too.

By 5, they're able to understand more of the long talking - especially since the action is still going along with it. I describe what I'm seeing at the same time I'm doing something about it: _You're having trouble with the rules. It's time to give the toy a break_ as I pick up the toy and take it to a safe spot.


----------



## SundayCrepes (Feb 15, 2008)

Thanks for lots of great ideas. For the most part we don't do threats, but they have been there and I don't like it. The time we have most problems is when he throws toys. It's usually something hard that could break something/hurt someone.

I've been practicing the different ideas here and will keep at it until I figure out "my" style.

I'll keep an eye on this thread in case anyone else has some more great ideas.


----------



## zoe196 (Mar 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LilyGrace* 
We ended up phrasing it as a positive statement - needs vs. don'ts:

_Don't throw the toys or I'll take them away_
becomes
_You need to play with the toys gently/vroom the car_ or _Throwing hurts_ followed by the preferred action/choice : _you can roll it or bounce it._

If the action persisted, the consequence would be logical: _You're having trouble with the rules. It's time to give the toy a break. Do you want to go outside or help me color this picture?_

No if-then, but I'm not sure if it's any better.









This is great, thank you!!!

zoe, mama to Thomas 01/06


----------



## mingus (Apr 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
I often avoid threatening by not stating the consequence in advance. I say that the behavior needs to stop. I explain why. If the behavior does not stop, I explain what I am doing AS I DO IT: "I see that you can't stop banging the glass. I will take the glass away. When you're ready to use it responsibly, you can have a second chance."

Thank you for this. This feels actually different to me. I've tried a lot of more positive rephrasing of "If...then..." statements as described in this thread, but I think DS hears them as my expressing a preference or request rather than as expectations. Also, I can end up doing too much explaining and feeling permissive, frustrated, etc. and end right back up with threatening. I'm definitely going to give your approach a try.


----------



## lovemyfamily6 (Dec 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
I often avoid threatening by not stating the consequence in advance. I say that the behavior needs to stop. I explain why. If the behavior does not stop, I explain what I am doing AS I DO IT: "I see that you can't stop banging the glass. I will take the glass away. When you're ready to use it responsibly, you can have a second chance."

I really like this! I've always made sure to give advance warning, feeling it more fair to do that. This explanation may have just answered my question in a thread I posted earlier about GD parents that say it once and then act. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LilyGrace* 
We ended up phrasing it as a positive statement - needs vs. don'ts:

_Don't throw the toys or I'll take them away_
becomes
_You need to play with the toys gently/vroom the car_ or _Throwing hurts_ followed by the preferred action/choice : _you can roll it or bounce it._

If the action persisted, the consequence would be logical: _You're having trouble with the rules. It's time to give the toy a break. Do you want to go outside or help me color this picture?_

No if-then, but I'm not sure if it's any better.









I like this approach!









I try to do something similar to this always...the first, second, sometimes third time I ask, redirect, or suggest another behavior.

We're pretty GD in general.

However, I'll be honest. When I've asked nicely and gently and respectfully and politely for the 4th time and am ignored, hit, told "No!", or screamed at, etc, then I'm a little less GD.

I do find myself using threats (light ones, of course) and also treats. I wish I didn't do this and I never do it right away, but I totally find myself promising treats for good behavior and compliance and threats for bad behavior and non-compliance.


----------



## SundayCrepes (Feb 15, 2008)

So, philosophical time.

If I say, "No more throwing or I will take the toy away," and then take it if it is thrown, how is that different than saying the consequence in advance?

We actually do include the idea that you can break things when you throw them (most of the time.) So, I'm trying to figure out the difference in the above two scenarios.

I think it's much gentler to say:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LilyGrace* 
_Don't throw the toys or I'll take them away_
becomes
_You need to play with the toys gently/vroom the car_ or _Throwing hurts_ followed by the preferred action/choice : _you can roll it or bounce it._

If the action persisted, the consequence would be logical: _You're having trouble with the rules. It's time to give the toy a break. Do you want to go outside or help me color this picture?_

Though ultimately, we're doing about the same thing. LilyGrace is just gentler in the words she chooses. (And I think that makes a HUGE difference.)

So, really, it seems it's all just a semantics thing.

Does my philosophical pondering here make sense? Does anyone have any ideas?

I do think it is fair to give the child warning if the behavior is new and they've never been told it's not okay. However, it's probably best to act without delay for a behavior they've been told about before.


----------



## ktmama (Jan 21, 2004)

_Stop throwing your toys or I'll take them away from you."
I realize that just about anything can and will be thrown. In this instance, I would say, "Please don't throw that." If it was thrown again, I would say, "Please bring that to me. I'm concerned that you will hurt someone with that toy" and I would put it away. Then I would re-think having that toy at all.

"Stop banging my chair with your toy or I'll take it away from you."
I would simply move and say, if asked, "I'm moving because I don't like my chair to be banged".

"Stop... or I'll take it away from you."
I try to always aim for prevention. If my kids had things they just couldn't stand to not throw, I would probably re-evaluate having those toys in the house. Most of the time, these things are phases and pass._


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Some people find it possible to let their kids just bang, jump, and run around their house and tear it up as much as they want to when they are young, that is another direction you could go in if you are able to cope well with that type of situation, I believe it is called Consentual Living.
Completely untrue. Consensual living, the root word being consent, is a living situation where the goal in every situation involving any member of the family is a mututally agreeable solution. It is not just letting your child "tear up the house" as much as they want.

To the OP, we try not to do threats of any kind. We do follow the advice given above of describing the scene, stating our concerns, asking for our preference, distracting, or if it is a situation that needs immediate attention (dangerous) taking action then talking about it after.

For example, "I see you are throwing the ball around the house. My concern is that it might break a lamp. I would prefer it if we played outside with the ball...will you play ball with me outside?" That (or similar) typically works 99% of the time. If it is a situation of immediate concern -- say, a child is ready to slam grandmom's antique vase on to the floor.. I will save the vase first .. .then say something like "I want to talk about the vase. I apologize for taking it out of your hands but I was scared it was going to break and that belongs to grandma....etc" Then, we can explore the vase together (supervised) and whatnot.

For smaller children not quite cable of that, distraction and redirection works really well. My daughter is 3 and redirection/distraction still works pretty well.


----------



## USAmma (Nov 29, 2001)

I don't believe in threats; I believe in promises and in consequences. My strong willed kids just did not respond to feelings talks very often. Especially my oldest. Natural consequences work very well. If you are not gentle to the animal, it might get hurt so I'd better take it away now and you are not allowed to pet it until you can show me you can be gentle all the time.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *USAmma* 
I don't believe in threats; I believe in promises and in consequences. My strong willed kids just did not respond to feelings talks very often...Natural consequences work very well.

I really agree with this. I guess it's all about tone and context. Promises and consequences can be gentle, and logical.

That's basically what we do in terms of discipline, rather than threats.

The feelings talks don't work around here, either. I wonder if you have to have certain personalities for that to work? I've tried and tried, and promises and consequences seem to have better results.


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

I LOVE the idea of Consensual Living, but in my reality, I just don't have time to figure out how to accommodate what 5 people (well, usually 4) want or need 24 hours a day. However, I do think it is the guiding light, the gold standard, if you will!

A major problem is figuring out what exactly it IS that people want/need in a timely fashion. Take jumping on the sofa . . .I don't allow this in the living room, but if the kids want to do it, I say go for it on the playroom sofa. Yet, they never do. They keep laughing (esp. my 3 yo) and trying to jump on the sofa. Why? Well, I realize, usually too late, that my 3 yo doesn't want to jump on a sofa, she just wants my attention. Instead of realizing that, I get more and more frustrated that she just won't go to the playroom and jump there. Get the idea?







: I am usually too slow!

Anyway, to the OP-- how old are your children? I think that makes a huge difference. I would personally not spend a lot of time explaining to an 18 mo or young 2 yo why he/she can't do or have something. Even gifted children are usually EMOTIONALLY acting their age, so all they are hearing is "no." With a young child, I think it's best to redirect and distract without a long explanation. Heck, that can work with older children, too, if the reason they are acting out is due to something like being tired or hungry (it's too hard to be reasonable).


----------



## aschmied (Apr 22, 2007)

Wise mamas, a question? What about the situation where they are doing something TO you. So the example is that my 3 yo, who adores being up in the ergo was throwing herself from side to side in it this morning. Now, I find this annoying in a baby. In a 35 lb 3 yo, it's REALLY annoying, and verging on dangerous. (Verging, I have good balance.) I asked her to stop, and she said, very 3 "But I LIKE to do this. It's fun" "It's not fun for me, and could throw me off balance, sweetie" *no verbal comment, some extra emphatic repositionings*

I could think of nothing other than the simple threat "If you don't stop, you'll have to get down." Now, I don't feel too bad about this, but if there was a non-threat way to deal with it, I'd prefer it.


----------



## SundayCrepes (Feb 15, 2008)

I think we are really getting into some semantics here. After reading all these posts, I don't think there's a difference between a threat (that is carried out) and a promise or a consequence.

I think what is different is how the message is conveyed. Even in a gentle tone,

"Don't throw your toys or I'll take them away" and taking the toy away the next time

is harsher than

"Please don't throw that." If it was thrown again, I would say, "Please bring that to me. I'm concerned that you will hurt someone with that toy" and I would put it away.

So, what I'm getting after all these posts is it is how something is phrased that is key here. No one, not even the consensual living folk, are saying it's ok for a child to throw a toy. No one is saying that the child should be allowed to continue throwing the toy in the house. Most people are saying they would take the toy away if the throwing persists.

It seems like it really is all about how you say it.


----------



## SundayCrepes (Feb 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mizelenius* 
Anyway, to the OP-- how old are your children? I think that makes a huge difference. I would personally not spend a lot of time explaining to an 18 mo or young 2 yo why he/she can't do or have something.

My son is 2.5. We do simple explanations, "No throwing. You can break something." He actually gets quite a bit, though I'm not going to say he always gets it. He got lost once so I bought him a whistle and taught him to blow it if he couldn't see me. Then one day when we were going somewhere crowded he refused to wear the whistle. I reminded him of how scary it was when he got lost and that if he'd wear the whistle I could find him. He immediately consented to wearing the whistle.


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mybabysmama* 
My son is 2.5. We do simple explanations, "No throwing. You can break something." He actually gets quite a bit, though I'm not going to say he always gets it. He got lost once so I bought him a whistle and taught him to blow it if he couldn't see me. Then one day when we were going somewhere crowded he refused to wear the whistle. I reminded him of how scary it was when he got lost and that if he'd wear the whistle I could find him. He immediately consented to wearing the whistle.

By 2.5, I would also do explanations (though again, not necessarily when DC is overtired), but here is my BIG issue with explanations . . .the theory is, if I explain why _x_ is a bad idea, the other person won't do _x_. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, with people of any age. Most people know how bad smoking is for you, but they do it anyway. 1 out of 4 people in the US are now obese (not just overweight, but obese). Clearly, being reasonable does not always keep us on track, doing the things we "should" do, at any age. I'm really just reminding myself here, to see why my DC don't always go along with my explanations!


----------

