I don't understand non-punitive - Page 2

[sahmama_12]

The way I think of it is:

if your child has trouble with math or reading, do you sit them in a chair for 1 minute per age then say try that again? Or do you sit down with them and discuss what they are having problems with and help them work through their problems?

Discipline to me is no different. Punishment does nothing except teach how to avoid punishment;

Everything can be dealt with through teaching, active discussion if you do it consistantly; its harder than punishment and takes more thought and creativity.

Its also important to remember that most of kids' "bad" behaviour is completely normal for kids and usually an attempt to get a need met. Punishment does not address the underlying need. "Bad" is defined by parents and other adults who usually do not understand the maturity level of children and are expecting too much of them.

The whole point of punitive discipline is to encourage "acceptable" behaviour through outside motivators. The trick with non-punitive discipline is that you must through modelling, and mutual respect teach "acceptable" behaviour through internal motivators. Your goal is that your child will behave the same in front of you as she/he will when out of your sight. Most punishment centred approaches do not accomplish this, I know from my own experiences.

[heartmama]

I don't like analogies but here is one that illustrates in a mainstream way how we decide/enforce limits with GD:

I am in school, and tonight I got back a graded test.

The mainstream thinking is that you study, take the test, find out what you did/didn't know, and are rewarded or punished depending upon the grade you earn.

I think growing up with GD is just like this without actually being given the grade. Life is the test, and everday moments are the individual questions. When your child seems to be 'failing' in some area, rather than doling out the rewards or punishment, you figure out a plan for solving it. You are like a tutor, or a coach. You are going to "build towards success" but you are going to do it by getting to the bottom of an issue and working with your child until the problem is resolved. But that doesn't mean there are no consequences along the way. What it has meant for me is:

Consequences take the form of my best attempt to reconcile my child's limits within a situation that we either cannot or should not avoid. The child may not always like the consequence, but it is never arbitrary and it never exceeds the minimum restriction necessary to realistically navigate a situation safely/respectfully/responsibly as we learn together.

Here is a common toddler situation:

The expectation is unrealistic/not age appropriate. Example: Your 18 month old develops a passion for putting every handy small object into his mouth. Or the toilet. Or tossing it as far as he can throw. Impulsiveness is a hallmark of toddlers. You can forget about rewarding/punishment a toddler or persuading them to stop being, well, a toddler. What can you do? How are consequences part of this? Let's say my toddler has 'the look' on his face that tells me he is in a 'spirited' moment. He see's my new cell phone. And he wants it NOW. Well, I am not going to just hand it to him. I might offer to let him touch it with 'one finger'. I might offer him my old cell phone. I might distract him with something else. But maybe none of it works, and he persists. He cries, falls down, screams, and is totally inconsolable. I am still not going to give him my new cell phone. That is a kind of consequence. It isn't a punishment. It is the minimum I can do to reconcile his limits with the situation. And I don't feel badly for doing that, although I would feel sad that he was sad. In a calmer moment I will continue to talk about 'gentle touch' and how to 'be careful' with breakable things. But as you said, you can't always rely on rationalizing with a toddler. There are consequences, but they don't have to be excessive or punitive.