I don't understand non-punitive

[MegBoz]

My DS is only 6.5 mos, so thankfully, I've got time to learn! But I don't understand the concept of never using punishments. Of course, I know how damaging physical punishments are & how awful it is to belittle or humiliate a child.

But what I don't understand is never having negative consequences. Negative consequence for negative actions is just part of life. Shouldn't children learn that their actions have consequences and - if the actions are bad, there could be a price to pay? (Like losing privledges or time-outs.)

I think I'm probably just misunderstanding the concept of non-punitive, so I'd greatly appreciate you all enlightening me!

[kiwiva]

I'm no expert. DD is 28 mos but I've done some reading. My take on it is that when punishment has nothing to do with the "infraction" it can be counterproductive and the child can learn just to try to avoid punishment, rather than learn to do the right thing for the right reason.

They can learn to avoid punishment by not getting caught, rather than not doing something bad to avoid the natural consequence.

There are always consequences for doing things. If DD hits me, I put her down (and tell her why). That is a consequence, but it isn't punitive. If she wants up again I pick her up again, I don't shun her or put her in time out or whatever but she has learned quickly that hitting is not appropriate. If she throws her plate on the floor and makes a big mess, I get her to help me clean it up. So the lesson here is, when you throw your food on the floor, you pick it up. Makes more sense to me than when you throw your food on the floor, mum gets really mad and makes you sit on a naughty chair or whatever.

Non punitive doesn't mean you let your kids run around like maniacs doing whatever they want without any consequences. It seems like it may take a bit more effort to discipline without punishment, but I think it may be better in the long run.

I like Unconditional Parenting for explaining all this. He does a better job than me! It really had never occurred to me that you could not punish, but make perfect sense to me now.

[qimama]

I struggle with the same thing myself. I love the book "Unconditional Parenting", but I'm not exactly sure how to do it in real life. It's the antithesis of the way I was raised, so my automatic response tends to be to reinforce or punish behaviors. I'm sure someone who doesn't struggle with this will have a better answer for you, but I think maybe it has to do with there being a difference between natural consequences and parent inflicted punishments. If your child throws his favorite toy and it breaks, that's a natural consequence. But if your child throws a tantrum, so you refuse to read him/her a bedtime story, that's not. The lesson you are trying to teach is that it isn't ok to throw tantrums, but the lesson your child might be learning is that you only love him/her when (s)he is well behaved. That's my understanding of it, but I would love to hear what others have to say on the subject.

[Super Glue Mommy]

i think its about punishment verus discipline. There are always "consequences" to our actions. I think punishment is more of a parent lashing out at the child (I have to make them wish they never did that) instead of guiding them so realize why they acted that way, a better way to get their needs met, how to handle emotions, and letting them see for themselves the effects of their actions were.

Example:
We have a rule: get ready for school, then we can play.
choice: get ready quickly, lots of time to play, take a long time getting ready, not a lot or no time to play.
helping: i help him with reminders and encouragement and don't withold help when needed or getting a power struggle over whether or not he really needs my help. sometimes "needing my help" with something he knows how to do is really "needing to connect with mom before school"
guidance: I offer him guidance and insight "I'm going to miss you while you are at school today. we will do xyz when you get home. give me a big hug!" instead of "i dont have time for this! you know how to put your jacket on! lets go or we wont play!" I may let him know "lets get ready superfast! then we will have a lot of time to play!"

[Super Glue Mommy]

i also think its about addressing the feelings behind the behavior (source) versus punishing the behavior. does a child who is hitting need to be yelled at? or are they hurting? you stop the hitting of course, but is ignoring a child who NEEDS attention to resultion? or is it better to teach them how to handle their feelings, and that positive behavior is a better way to get attention. come up with a special signal that means "mom I really need you right now" like maybe squeeze your hands 2 times or something. different things like this, where you recognize the source so you can elimate more behaviors related to that feeling in the future, instead of jus trying to get rid of one behavior and then they trade it for another behavior (or just dont care and keep on with the same old behaviors because they feel like you dont really care).

example: child feels mad.
parent - gentle: each time child expresses anger inappropriately, teaches child how to express anger appropriately, and tries to figure out what is causing the anger so they can support the child and show they love them.
parent - punitive: does not address the source, just gives the child a time out.

next time child gets mad:
parent:gentle: child says "im so mad!" parent says "draw me a picture of how mad you are" "really? THAT mad? thats pretty mad" lets child open up about what is bothering them
parentunitive: child thinks "im so mad! i cant hit, so I'll throw this book instead!" parent "you cant throw things either! time out!" child thinks: she doesnt care im upset! she doesnt want to help.

[nd_deadhead]

Cheers to you for looking for ways to teach your child in a gentle manner, while he's still young!

Remember one thing; Discipline means "To Teach", not "to punish". There are many, many ways to teach our children without punishing them, and I'll bet you've started doing a lot of these things already. For example, when your baby smiles and gurgles at you, don't you smile and talk back to him? He's learning that his actions - smiling and cooing - have positive consequences. If he hurts himself, do you pick him up and comfort him? He's learning that Mommy is a source of comfort - someone to be trusted.

I am a firm believer that it is easier (and more effective) to teach a child what TO do, instead of what NOT to do. And toddlers - up to about 3 or 4 - simply can't comprehend the word "don't". You can start practicing now using Do statements instead of Don't statements. For example: Sit on your bottom (instead of don't stand on the chair); pet nicely (instead of don't hit the dog); that's just to look at (instead of don't pull the leves off that plant). Kids tend to hear the last words we say, so if you say "Don't jump on the bed", not only do they hear "jump on the bed, jump on the bed", they can't think of anythng ELSE to do. If you say "Jump on the cushions on the floor", or "Sit on the bed!" you are much more likely to get them to follow directions - and they learn what TO do, instead of what NOT to do.

Much of parenting gently comes from having reasonable expectations for each age and maturity level. It is perfectly reasonable to expect your 8-month-old to drop cheerios off his high chair over and over again - he's testing to see how the world works, and he isn't convinced that gravity is full-time until he's proven it to himself over and over. If there is a dog involved, it's even more fun!

By age 3, however, it is reasonable to expect food to stay on the plate. Make sure the child understands the expectations. Timing is important too - a hungry, tired, or sick child of any age cannot be expected to be polite and quite in a grocery cart for an hour.

Negative consequences are not the same thing as punitive discipline AT ALL. If your son bites you and you put him down, that is a negative (and natural) consequence for him - he doesn't get to be held when he bites. If he doesn't bite, you continue to hold him. You don't have to bite him back, or yell at him, or anything punitive - you simply say "Ouch! That hurts!" and set him on the floor.

As he's older, if he colors on the wall or opurs a full glass of milk on the floor, the negative consequence is that he has to clean up the mess (or at least help, depending on his age). You don't need to get mad, simply state what you see: "Ooops, milk on the floor - you know where the towels are". When the mess is cleaned up, you thank him for taking care of his mess and move on. He learns that he is responsible for his actions.

There are a million more examples, and I'm sure other will recommend terrific resources for you. For us, the bottom line has always been to treat our children the way WE want to be treated - with respect and courtesy.

We used "time-out" as a cooling-off period - never as a punishment. If one of the boys was very upset about something, we would bring him to another room to cool off and regain control - after all, a tantrum is no more than loss of control. We always said "You may come out when you feel better, when you're ready to stop crying (or talk about what's bothering you, or whatever). I always gave them the choice of sitting on the bed or the chair, lights on or off, door open or closed. I tried to give them as much control over the situation as possible. Sometimes they would follow me out of the room - no longer upset; sometimes they would stay in for an hour (with frequent visits by me).

Being consistent is HUGE. It is so much easier for a child to learn what is expected of him if the rules are the same every day - and especially if the rules are the same for everyone in the family (for example, if he can't eat in the living room, neither can his Dad). No hitting is an absolute non-negotiable rule in our family - and that goes for EVERYONE.

You'll get the hang of it - after all, you'll have plenty of opportunities to practice! Please read the stickies on this board - there are wonderful resources that can help you come up with non-punitive ways to raise a polite, respectful, happy (not fearful) child.

Good luck!

[suprgrl]

Originally Posted by nd_deadhead

Cheers to you for looking for ways to teach your child in a gentle manner, while he's still young!

Remember one thing; Discipline means "To Teach", not "to punish". There are many, many ways to teach our children without punishing them, and I'll bet you've started doing a lot of these things already. For example, when your baby smiles and gurgles at you, don't you smile and talk back to him? He's learning that his actions - smiling and cooing - have positive consequences. If he hurts himself, do you pick him up and comfort him? He's learning that Mommy is a source of comfort - someone to be trusted.

I am a firm believer that it is easier (and more effective) to teach a child what TO do, instead of what NOT to do. And toddlers - up to about 3 or 4 - simply can't comprehend the word "don't". You can start practicing now using Do statements instead of Don't statements. For example: Sit on your bottom (instead of don't stand on the chair); pet nicely (instead of don't hit the dog); that's just to look at (instead of don't pull the leves off that plant). Kids tend to hear the last words we say, so if you say "Don't jump on the bed", not only do they hear "jump on the bed, jump on the bed", they can't think of anythng ELSE to do. If you say "Jump on the cushions on the floor", or "Sit on the bed!" you are much more likely to get them to follow directions - and they learn what TO do, instead of what NOT to do.

Much of parenting gently comes from having reasonable expectations for each age and maturity level. It is perfectly reasonable to expect your 8-month-old to drop cheerios off his high chair over and over again - he's testing to see how the world works, and he isn't convinced that gravity is full-time until he's proven it to himself over and over. If there is a dog involved, it's even more fun!

By age 3, however, it is reasonable to expect food to stay on the plate. Make sure the child understands the expectations. Timing is important too - a hungry, tired, or sick child of any age cannot be expected to be polite and quite in a grocery cart for an hour.

Negative consequences are not the same thing as punitive discipline AT ALL. If your son bites you and you put him down, that is a negative (and natural) consequence for him - he doesn't get to be held when he bites. If he doesn't bite, you continue to hold him. You don't have to bite him back, or yell at him, or anything punitive - you simply say "Ouch! That hurts!" and set him on the floor.

As he's older, if he colors on the wall or opurs a full glass of milk on the floor, the negative consequence is that he has to clean up the mess (or at least help, depending on his age). You don't need to get mad, simply state what you see: "Ooops, milk on the floor - you know where the towels are". When the mess is cleaned up, you thank him for taking care of his mess and move on. He learns that he is responsible for his actions.

There are a million more examples, and I'm sure other will recommend terrific resources for you. For us, the bottom line has always been to treat our children the way WE want to be treated - with respect and courtesy.

We used "time-out" as a cooling-off period - never as a punishment. If one of the boys was very upset about something, we would bring him to another room to cool off and regain control - after all, a tantrum is no more than loss of control. We always said "You may come out when you feel better, when you're ready to stop crying (or talk about what's bothering you, or whatever). I always gave them the choice of sitting on the bed or the chair, lights on or off, door open or closed. I tried to give them as much control over the situation as possible. Sometimes they would follow me out of the room - no longer upset; sometimes they would stay in for an hour (with frequent visits by me).

Being consistent is HUGE. It is so much easier for a child to learn what is expected of him if the rules are the same every day - and especially if the rules are the same for everyone in the family (for example, if he can't eat in the living room, neither can his Dad). No hitting is an absolute non-negotiable rule in our family - and that goes for EVERYONE.

You'll get the hang of it - after all, you'll have plenty of opportunities to practice! Please read the stickies on this board - there are wonderful resources that can help you come up with non-punitive ways to raise a polite, respectful, happy (not fearful) child.

Good luck!

This is an excellent post. This is what I would have tried to say if I were not nak'ing.

[alegna]

Most things in life have natural consequences.

I strive to avoid punishments and can usually manage it. Perhaps you could post a situation/infraction where you think a punishment is the only option?

-Angela

[VroomieMama]

THIS IS A VERY GOOD READ THREAD!

Today I went to the library and borrowed two books:

"Your Six-Year-Old: Loving and Defiant" by Lousie Bates Ames. PH.D. & Frances L. Ilg, M.D.

and

Parenting Guide to Positive Discipline" by Paula Spencer with the editors of Parenting magazine.


Hopefully those books are good books.

[Storm Bride]

I've only skimmed the other replies, and I think I'm coming at things from a different angle than some, but that's okay.

I'm not an expert on GD, but I try. Let's take one of my current problem areas. DS2 hits - a lot.

On two occasions when he's hit me, he's hurt me a lot - and I hit him back. Not gentle - not effective - not okay...and punitive. It did/does nothing to stop him from hitting.

My usual approach when he hits is to get him off whomever he is hitting (often dd, but the rest of us get it, too) and remove him from the situation. This is one time when we use a form of time-out, or time-in, depending. We ask him to sit down and stay in one place, away from the victim, until he's calmed down and isn't hitting, anymore. If he's really beside himself, one of us stays with him (so he can cry on a shoulder). Once he's calmed down, we talk to him about hitting not being okay and ways to try to calm down and remove himself from the situation before he gets to the hitting stage (this is complicated, sometimes he's not upset when he hits). What we want to accomplish is to remove him, so he can't hurt anyone else, and guide him into ways to deal with being so angry. That's if it's an anger thing - the sense of humour is more difficult to address. (This is showing some signs of effectiveness, but I suspect it's going to take a long time to stop this particular kid from hitting.) None of what we're doing is meant to punish - it's meant to address the behaviour.

Related, but kind of random. DS1 has a friend who is grounded all the time. He gets grounded for being mouthy to his stepmom. He gets grounded for not finishing his lunch. He gets grounded for not doing his homework. It doesn't matter what the offense is, he gets grounded. This, imo, is purely punitive. Not being allowed to leave your house has nothing to do with not eating your lunch, yk? It's a consequence, but not a natural or logical one. It's just designed to assert control. And...he still skips lunch, doesn't complete his homework and occasionally mouths off his stepmom (apparently, although it's hard to imagine - he's a super friendly, polite, nice kid). The grounding has been going on for at least 5 years (that's how long ds1 has known him) and nothing has changed.

[umsami]

The only time (well, usually ) we use a punitive punishment in our home... typically a time-out.... is for intentionally hurting somebody else. DS1 is 5, DS2 is 3... it happens.

But as our goal is to really teach better behavior, often times, we'll do things like.... have the offender repeat the behavior but in an appropriate method. So, instead of kicking your brother because he's still playing with the Leapster, we'll practice asking nicely....and possibly talk about how that feels, and how it gets us what we wanted much better.

Or... to address empathy... when say DS2 gets hurt, sometimes I'll say to DS1... what would DS2 say happened? That avoids the blaming... he did this, no I didn't.. type behavior.

If DS1 slams the door, instead of yelling at him, counting at him, or whatever... I'll say, "Please go shut the door again, this time as quietly as you can." It's really worth it in the long-term to teach/model the behavior you want to see, rather than just yelling, throwing them in time-out, etc. IMHO, that teaches nothing... and really is unlikely to change behavior the next time a similar situation occurs.

[Daffodil]

Originally Posted by MegBoz

Shouldn't children learn that their actions have consequences and - if the actions are bad, there could be a price to pay? (Like losing privledges or time-outs.)

Don't you want your kids to think about why those actions are bad? (Because they hurt someone, make someone feel sad, cost other people money, etc.) And don't you want them to avoid doing those bad things because they're thinking about the consequences to other people, not just because they want to avoid punishment? I'd rather talk to my kids about the real consequences of their actions, the consequences that make those actions either good or bad, and not confuse things by creating made-up consequences like time-outs or losing privileges that just take the focus away from how the actions actually affect other people.

[MegBoz]

nd_deadhead - Great post! Thanks! I really get it. That was a great explanation, thank you!

Originally Posted by alegna

Perhaps you could post a situation/infraction where you think a punishment is the only option?

Good Q! Hitting is the one thing that comes to mind. As a PP mentioned, if DS hits me, then I put him down or maybe just don't sit next to him as a negative consequence.

But if he hits one of our dogs, they do NOT negatively react when DS grabs ears or fur - and I wouldn't have it any other way. I wouldn't feel safe with dogs around children unless I was certain the dog would tolerate being pinched & poked & smacked. Obviously, DS now doesn't do these things intentionally! I supervise baby-dog interaction & already try to teach him to be "gentle" - modeling gentle petting & using the 'gentle' baby sign.) I know he doesn't have the fine motor skill at this point to control it anyway. But when he does have control over his little hands, deliberate mistreatment of pets shouldn't be tolerated.

I believe the first step would be empathy - "You wouldn't like being hit, neither does Geddy."

Then also the natural consequence that Geddy won't want to sit with you & play with you if you hit him... but that's further out in the future. Geddy loves DS and it would take a lot of smacking before he would give up & steer clear of DS, so that's mostly an empty threat.

Originally Posted by Daffodil

Don't you want your kids to think about why those actions are bad? ... And don't you want them to avoid doing those bad things because they're thinking about the consequences to other people,

Well, yes, definitely! That is ideal. But how effective is that? I mean, at 2 years old, how much can they really understand, for example, about costing someone money? The child can't experience that negative consequence the way they could with having to clean up a mess he made, or being put down for hitting me. That's a consequence I just verbalize to him - and is having to listen to me talk effective as a negative consequence? - I can hear DH cracking a joke now in response to that Q.

Of course, I'm not saying it's NOT effective! Not at all - I really feel clueless about interacting with toddlers, so I'm really just asking.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by MegBoz

Good Q! Hitting is the one thing that comes to mind. As a PP mentioned, if DS hits me, then I put him down or maybe just don't sit next to him as a negative consequence.

But if he hits one of our dogs, they do NOT negatively react when DS grabs ears or fur - and I wouldn't have it any other way. I wouldn't feel safe with dogs around children unless I was certain the dog would tolerate being pinched & poked & smacked. Obviously, DS now doesn't do these things intentionally! I supervise baby-dog interaction & already try to teach him to be "gentle" - modeling gentle petting & using the 'gentle' baby sign.) I know he doesn't have the fine motor skill at this point to control it anyway. But when he does have control over his little hands, deliberate mistreatment of pets shouldn't be tolerated.

I believe the first step would be empathy - "You wouldn't like being hit, neither does Geddy."

Then also the natural consequence that Geddy won't want to sit with you & play with you if you hit him... but that's further out in the future. Geddy loves DS and it would take a lot of smacking before he would give up & steer clear of DS, so that's mostly an empty threat.

Answering in parts- Depends on the age. A toddler, while they can CONTROL their hands, they can't always control the *impulse* A 2 yr old hitting a dog and I would keep them apart.

IMO the biggest, most important part of discipline is for the parents to understand appropriate developmental behavior for the age and stage of their child. So many people assume that because a 2 yr old can control their hands they should be able to control the impulses about what to do with their hands. When that is really not developmentally appropriate.

-Angela

[alegna]

Originally Posted by MegBoz

Well, yes, definitely! That is ideal. But how effective is that? I mean, at 2 years old, how much can they really understand, for example, about costing someone money? The child can't experience that negative consequence the way they could with having to clean up a mess he made, or being put down for hitting me. That's a consequence I just verbalize to him - and is having to listen to me talk effective as a negative consequence? - I can hear DH cracking a joke now in response to that Q.

Of course, I'm not saying it's NOT effective! Not at all - I really feel clueless about interacting with toddlers, so I'm really just asking.

Back to expectations. Set your child up for success It wouldn't be fair to anyone to hand a 2 yr old a priceless antique dish on a tile floor and walk away if you know they like to throw things. Make sense?

With enough information, and respect for where they are developmentally, kids WANT to please and they WILL

-Angela

[Super Glue Mommy]

I think it would be very confusing to the child if you were to hit him for hitting the dog. VERY confusing. and increase his hitting and/or make him fear you.

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by MegBoz

Well, yes, definitely! That is ideal. But how effective is that? I mean, at 2 years old, how much can they really understand, for example, about costing someone money? The child can't experience that negative consequence the way they could with having to clean up a mess he made, or being put down for hitting me. That's a consequence I just verbalize to him - and is having to listen to me talk effective as a negative consequence? - I can hear DH cracking a joke now in response to that Q.

Ime, when ds was a toddler, he didn't really understand the *true* consequences of doing something (ie, costing money, hurting someone by hitting them, etc). But he definitely understood that I was telling him NOT to do something, and that I had a reason. I am fairly certain that my giving him a reason was important and helped him to understand that I do not make unreasonable requests- I have a reason, and I will tell him that reason (even if he doesn't quite get it yet). kwim?

The understanding built up as he got older, and now that he's 4, he's quite aware of the consequences that his actions have on other people.
I do believe, though, that knowing that his actions have consequences wouldn't be ALL that was necessary at this point. He knows that it is important to ME that we treat other people with respect, don't hurt others or damage their property, and don't mistreat animals.

Just to add to this, the most important piece of discipline advice that I ever read was "honor the impulse." It's from the book "Becoming the Parent You Want to Be" and it's described in part here.

A similar idea is talked about here.

Basically, the way I look at it, is that everything that younger kids do, is done for a legitimate reason. They are trying to get a need met, to explore, etc etc. But sometimes the WAY they are trying to get that need met is unacceptable. So, you figure out what that need is and work with them to find a way that they can get that need met in a socially acceptable way.

A simple example- dc is hitting a window with a block. I'm personally not ok with that. So I try to figure out the need behind it- is his goal to play with the blocks? If so, I show him other things he can do with the blocks- build, lay them all out, etc. Or was his goal to bang the block on something? If so, I show him that he can bang the block on the floor, the couch, the door, and talk about the different sounds that it makes. Or was he having fun standing at the window, and wanted something along those lines? If so, I give him a cloth and have him help me wipe the window down.

Ime, when you come at it this way, it's much easier for kids to change gears and stop doing the unacceptable activity. You're working with them (and they know it) and letting them know that you WANT them to explore, and you want to help them do what they want to do. You're also letting them know that you will help them do so in a socially acceptable way.

Enough rambling from me- I hope some of that is helpful

[MegBoz]

Originally Posted by DevaMajka

the most important piece of discipline advice that I ever read was "honor the impulse."....
Basically, the way I look at it, is that everything that younger kids do, is done for a legitimate reason. They are trying to get a need met, to explore, etc etc.

What do you do when the impulse is defiance? Don't kids often do what they know (or strongly suspect) they shouldn't do just to test limits? In that case, I guess re-directing (as you wrote, showing them what they CAN do with the blocks or the window) is still effective.

Originally Posted by alegna

With enough information, and respect for where they are developmentally, kids WANT to please and they WILL

(emphasis mine)
Ya know, you're right & I need to keep that in mind. I remember hearing a quote, "Treat everyone as if they were what they ought to be and you will help them to become what they are capable of being." I thought of it in terms of business... I always got annoyed when a boss treated me like a moron or someone who wasn't reliable & didn't care about her job (i.e. needed micro-management) - I had trouble working hard for a person like that. It felt so disrespectful. But when a boss respects me and realizes I'm self-motivated & gives me a degree of autonomy, I work MUCH harder.

I need to constantly keep this simple fact in mind with my parenting as well. Actually, I think both my Mom & MIL did a great job with this. Both are mainstream ladies on many fronts, but they never hit & did a good job setting boundaries & guiding us gently.

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by MegBoz

What do you do when the impulse is defiance? Don't kids often do what they know (or strongly suspect) they shouldn't do just to test limits? In that case, I guess re-directing (as you wrote, showing them what they CAN do with the blocks or the window) is still effective.

I don't know about "defiance" but ds definitely did some "testing of boundaries".

I think there are a few reasons that a child might do something that they "know" they shouldn't do: they might not have the impulse control to stop (heck, I *know* I shouldn't eat oreos, but sometimes my willpower gives way ); they might not *really* know that it's not ok (even if you think you've made it painfully clear, sometimes it's not really clear to them);
they might be testing boundaries; I'm sure there are other reasons too.

Ds used to do some testing- for example, I'd tell him not to hit me because it hurt. Then he'd tap me. At first, it made me mad (hitting is something I do not tolerate). But then I realized that he was tapping me lightly- I'd told him that hitting hurt me. When he tapped me, it didn't hurt. lol He was checking out WHAT was ok and what wasn't.
So I had to clarify my stance, and tell him that I didn't like being hit at all.

Oh, and I think it's really hard for kids to stop what they are doing without being redirected to something similar. So, if you tell a young kid to stop hitting the window, Imo, you really can't *expect* them to actually stop unless you help them. When they keep doing it, they aren't being defiant- they are just stuck in the activity and can't get out.
And the more you help them by redirecting to something similar, the more that helps THEM develop the same ability. I remember being totally amazed when ds was under 2 and redirected himself from hitting the dog. He went to hit the dog, paused for a second, and hit the ottoman instead.

I'm not sure how much has to do with parenting, and how much is just my ds's personality, but he is a seriously easy 4yo. I CAN say for sure that being non-punitive doesn't necessarily have you end up with an out of control 4yo

eta- when ds was a baby, both dp and I couldn't wrap our heads around being non-punitive. It just didn't make sense to us. I posted here with questions like "ok, but what if he writes on the wall, and keeps doing it, and never stops" lol.
Once I actually started using discipline (and had tools from a few non-punitive discipline books) it ALL came so clear, and made so much sense- for me and dp (only dp didn't need any books- it just comes naturally to him). kwim?
Seeing it in action (even though I've been far from perfect) was enough for me to be a believer

[Materfamilias]

Originally Posted by alegna

IMO the biggest, most important part of discipline is for the parents to understand appropriate developmental behavior for the age and stage of their child.

I think this is very true. I know I STILL have huge issues with this -- expecting ds to be able to do more than he is capable of. Now, can anyone suggest a good resource that explains this well?