is it possible to never punish--really never?

[captain optimism]

Our 18 year old niece visited this weekend. Her mom is a lot like my mom was--a yeller and a hitter, flying off the handle easily, etc. Except I think her mom might be worse? Anyway my niece lies to her regularly, in a vain attempt to stop her from getting angry. One thing that makes my SIL angry is when my niece forgets things. At 18, dn forgets things all the time. It's amazing to me that she is so forgetful! I think being yelled at and hit for it made things a lot worse. (Of course the lying has exacerbated the existing lack of mutual trust to a point that is totally ridiculous...)

So last night my dh and I were talking, and I said, "that's why I don't want to punish ds at all." He thought I meant that I wanted to be completely permissive! I said, no. I want to have discipline and guidance, just no punishment.

Then we got into a conversation about the difference between "consequences" and punishment.

Is there any model of parenting where you don't use "consequences" at all? I don't like the idea of being on the opposite team from my son. For instance, if he forgets things, I don't want him to lie to me about it. I want to be able to help him with behavior, not force him to behave.

He's not a toddler yet so we haven't dealt with anything more serious than constant biting. (Oy! he bites me! But of course we don't use "consequences" on a 10 month old, that would be crazy! We just move our bodies out of the range of the teeth!) We are going to be moving into toddler-land soon. Can we stop bad behavior without using punishments, or are we going to be stuck being punitive?

[simonee]

Look in the archives here, or do a google, for Taking Children Seriously. It's a taboo-ish subject here because fo the way previous discussions went, but it might be inspiring for you.

[captain optimism]

I've read about Taking Children Seriously. I didn't know it was taboo here, but I don't think it's my thing.

I'm a little too mainstream for that.

I guess, rereading my OP, that does sound like a match to what I was asking.

[NoraJadesMama]

Hi captain optimism,

I sometimes think of "non-punitive disicpline" as a short-hand for gentle-discipline.

To my mind the concept of punishments is based on the ideas that (1) a child learns best by feeling bad, and that (2) the parent's job is to shape them by supplying the right bad experiences to shape behavior. We don't agree with either. As for #1, I think each person learns in their own style, and some may benefit from suffering/regret (eg., going outside without a hat, feeling cold, and then remembering it in the future) but some may benefit more from positive experiences without needing negative ones to keep them on track (eg., it feels warm to wear my hat--I will put it on). Many good lessons can be learned without suffering/shame/guilt/etc. As for #2, I feel that my best chances for guiding my children lie in being on their team, like you said. So if anything we're trying to build ever more positives into our discipline approaches.

If my dd gets out of control, it often helps for her to be alone for a while (perhaps because it helps her become grounded again, I'm not sure) and I will require that she do so, but not as a punishment, simply as my best idea for what might help. I would give her options of where she could go. Often she goes to the nursery, and we have a great selection of books-on-tape for her to listen to and a guinea pig for her to pet. Even when she goes reluctantly (after all, she was out of control) she always gets lost in her own world there and re-emerges in a brighter space. For us this in non-punitive because the intention is not to have her suffer and therefore be more motivated to try harder to be "good", indeed I try to make it as pleasant as possible for her--the whole intention is just to solve the problem in the best way I know how (while also trying to figure out the underlying problem).

Each situation that arises we try to address in the most positive and effective way we can. If we slip into an oppositional role, it's not because the situation requires it, but because we are too tired/ confused/ cranky/ overwhelmed to see the positive opportunity that is available to us. Our intention is always to be on her team, always striving to be more empathic to her needs, feelings, and perceptions, and always seeking to treat her with respect, helping her feel good/strong/whole whatever her behavior.

Warmly,
Hilary

Edited to say: I used the being-alone example because It's one of the few things we do "against her will", and therefore shows (to my mind) the difference that our intention makes in whether it is a punishment or not. Fortunately we can solve most problems more overtly as a team.

[Dar]

A punishment is either adding something unpleasant or taking away something pleasant when a behavior occurs, with the goal that this will decrease the likelihood that the behavior will recur. Generally what people call a "consequence" or a "logical consequence" is a punishment with a prettier name. Saying "You didn't clean your legos up when I asked so now they're going to be put away in the closet for a while" is an example of a punishment.

I try very hard to parent without punishment, and I'm about 99% succesful. The exceptions come when I'm stressed or triggered and feel trapped, and I generally rescind it when I calm down. That happens maybe twice a year. I also try to help my child avoid "natural consequences", because I think that's the kind thing to do. So if she seems to be dressed inappropriately for the weather but says she won't be cold, I will throw a jacket in the car anyway. I'd rather model kindness and being prepared and allow her to learn from that than model "tough luck, you should have brought a jacket".

dar

[captain optimism]

Okay! This sounds more like it.

Now, let me bring up my dh's objection. I said, "I want to help ds shape his goals for his behavior, and help him achieve those goals." he said, "You are assuming that children behave rationally toward a well-articulated goal." So then we each brought up examples from our childhoods.

My dh used to sneak candy. he was a very sneaky little guy, apparently! He did a lot of secretive things. His parents never hit but he did have consequences. He said, "What if ds wants to eat a lot of candy, and sneaks it behind your back?"

So I said, "Well, first we would talk about it, and try to come to some solution to the behavior. After all, the reason we don't want him to eat a lot of candy is that the 'natural consequence' of eating a lot of candy is a tummy ache, and also potentially cavities and other health problems. So maybe we would decide to give him sweets regularly so that he wouldn't feel like he had to sneak them."

My dh said, "I had sweets regularly, I just really wanted to eat more."

Uh oh. I'm getting boxed in, not by my own child, but by the child my dh used to be!

I know that my MIL believes in being interventionistic with her children NOW, when they are adults. maybe my dh was sneaking candy to express his desire for autonomy?

What if my ds feels like he needs autonomy, and does something bad for him? Wait, doesn't that happen like all the time with 2 and 3 year olds?

[pamelamama]

very interesting thread

captain optimism, you have great posts. I'm gonna start following you around mdc.

[NoraJadesMama]

With a punitive discipline style it may be more possible to come up with an advance plan (or penalty) for such things as candy sneaking. With GD it's always so much more individual. Problem solving is much more relationship-based than based on a specific behavior, since the meaning of the behavior and the family's options are so individual.

With the candy sneaking, if we had candy around I certainly wouldn't blame my little ones for just helping themselves, and wouldn't try to make them see it my way so that they resist the temptation. What a recipe for a battle! While our children are small we have solved the problem by not having candy around (we don't eat it ourselves). Since all of the foods that are around are ones we are fully comfortable with, they can eat anything at any time. Then when we go somewhere where there's likely to be junk food we let them have whatever they want. That way they get a "green light" in both situations. When they're older if they want to have candy at home, we'll talk to them about their desires and thoughts and we'll share our perspective/ personal needs and as a team we'll come up with a solution that everyone is comfortable with.

But the larger issue with sneaking is the relationship--it's a red flag for communication break-down, and thus an opportunity to improve the relationship. Your dh did not feel he could trust his parents to listen to his problem (including listening for unspoken but important unmet needs, eg., autonomy, attention, fun things to *do*...) and come to a real solution.

To me this example is a great argument IN FAVOR of GD. Wouldn't he have preferred it if his parents had thought about things from his perspective instead of leaving the candy out and then condemning him for "sneaking"? Wouldn't it have been great if he'd been able to trust them to work through the problem with him?

Lots of us are afraid when we consider our own childhoods! But keep in mind all of the things that are different, including the type of relationship you and your partner are already forging with your sweet baby. Working together you will be able to respond in positive ways to whatever problems do arise.

[Suzetta]

As a classroom teacher, I see discipline as something I teach children to have for themselves, not as 'punishment' or 'consequences'. I have yet to meet a child (even the ones who seem the most defiant and rude) who does not wish to please an adult who shows them respect, kindness and love. The harsh/rude children often behave that way because they are doing what is 'expected' of them, as their reputations precede them.

Obviously, that approach is workable, as I can reason with them once they reach school age

Society has consequences for poor behavior...if you speed, you might get a ticket. Children need to be raised to understand that is the case. That does not necessarily mean that every single infraction a child causes needs to be followed up with a consequence. This is where parents get tired and frustrated. Nobody can keep up with such a ridiculous system. However, if adults consistently let the children know what to do/not to do in certain situations, they will eventually get it.

Too many times I see folks endlessly telling kids what not to do, and yelling at them for it. When do they tell their kids what to do? When do children see a role model for good behavior?

In this respect, I see that discipline should be pro-active, rather than re-active.

Adults who yell, get frustrated, and spank kids are often (not always) out of control and angry. They are reacting. Their behavior at this time is time is not geared to 'help' the child who is the focus of the discipline. It is more of a way of venting their frustrations. In my opinion if you must yell or hit, you should do it to someone your own size...then they can defend themselves. To treat a small child that way is no better than the schoolyard bully picking on a younger child.

When dealing with smaller children and babies, you must be creative at promoting good behavior proactively. Even your infant knows the difference between a smiling face and sweet voice and an unsmiling face and stern voice. When you like their behavior, tell them how proud you are of them. Before going some place, tell them how you want them to behave. When they fill your expectation, make sure to tell them how you like this behavior.

Also...I must add that as much as I do not believe in 'punishing' poor behavior, I also do not believe in giving material 'rewards' such as gifts and treats for good behavior. Giving rewards makes children behave for rewards. They eventually realize that the reward is insignificant, and as a result they do not feel the need to do the proper behavior unless the reward is better. By making their reward your approval, they internalize the need to behave as a result of their respect for the adult.

[Piglet68]

What a fabulous thread!

I was just like your DH, Captain. I had a sweet tooth and I snuck candy. As an older child, and especially as a teenager, I lied any time I figured that asking would result in "NO". Obviously their reasons for saying no meant nothing to me, as I honestly didn't believe they cared about my feelings in the matter. I felt they had "my best interests at heart", but a very warped sense of what my best interests were.

Avoiding punishment was foremost in my mind, but I didn't do that by submitting, I did it by becoming subversive. I was always *desperate* to be independent, from the time I can remember, I hated rules and restrictions and to this day I still do. The distinction being that when a rule makes sense to me I have no problem following it. The phrase I hated most as a child was "Because I am your parent and I said so". I was spanked, not severely, but looking back that is not what really bothered me, it was the in-your-face inequality in power that I struggled against from day one.

I think what people are saying about the nature of the relationship is key. Your son should not feel any reason to lie to you, if you raise him to believe that his feelings matter, and that limits are not placed on him at random. At least, this is what I'm hoping to acheive. That by being someone who helps DD resolve problems, and who validates her feelings, that she will be free to come to me with issues, questions, requests, desires and will also be able to truly "hear" me if I offer reasons why maybe it's not a good idea, because she won't be in "defense" mode, or mistrusting of my motives.

[sparklemom]

To answer the original question, it is absolutely possible to parent without punishing. We live our life that way---our dds are 4 1/2 yrs and 3 yrs. We do NOT nor have we ever punished them.

I agree that the sneaking is the bigger issue with the story about your dh sneaking candy as a child---not the candy.
As far as the candy part, we don't make any issue of food in our home (food being anything you eat including candy). We keep healthy food in our home and they eat what they want when they want. And if they ask for something while we're out, including candy, they get it. Because of that it's just no big deal to them. They can take or leave candy and desert, and they love healthy food. It's just not an issue.

What I value most about having a non-punitive home is the amazing trust within our family. This is something I never felt with my parents as a child.

Rewards and punishments are the lowest form of education.

[JeanetteL]

I agree with the others, what a great thread!!

I struggle with this often. I WANT badly to parent non-punitively - and in our house we don't use time-outs, or hitting, etc.

I'm very interested in what you said, Dar, about consequences being a nice way to say punishments. That does make sense. I try to read each and every one of your posts - because you always have such incredible wisdom to share. Do ya wanna write a book?

Where I'm failing though, is in punishing with words. I'm struggling with how to express my feelings about something, especially if they are negative feelings, without shaming or punishing. I know there has to be a way, but I'm just not sure how to do it.

I'll be following this thread with great interest. Thanks Captain Optimism for starting it!

Jeanette

[Dar]

It has helped me to think of and practice the lines I will use when I'm angry at my kid. I'm always better at it when I have half an hour to refine it. I try to talk about my feelings, if it's about me "I'm feeling really frustrated now because food was left in your room again and now there are ants all over the dresser." I try to say things like "I'm frustrated because..", or "I wish..." or "I would really appreciate it if you..." I try not to focus on "you did this thing", but on how I'm affected and what I would like to happen in the future.

It seems like since Rain knows there isn't a punishment waiting, she's more apt to try to problem-solve, or in some way work with me.

Sometimes I really need to get some space before I talk to her, or I will explode. She, otoh, likes to settle things right away, so we have struggled on and off over my trying to get space and calm down and her following me around saying, "No, I want to talk about it *now*." Sometimes giving her an actual time to talk helps, like 1:30 - I usually give it 20 minutes or so.

And occasionally I just explode and yell mean things, but I'm working on it, always.

I don't like the idea of "training" children to do the things that make you happy and not do the things that annoy you. I mean, to some degree that's part of living harmoniously with another person, but generally it's a give and take, and it's not a conscious manipulation. I want Rain consciously chosing her behaviors, not being "trained". I rarely tell her what to do at all; instead, I tell her my concerns about things she's doing or thinking of doing, and I try to help her find a way to do what she's wanting to do in a way that seems reasonable to me.

She rarely sneaks; the only thing I can think of that she's been sneaky about is brushing her teeth. Perhaps not coincidentally, when she was really little I was really anal about her doing this, and I think the first time I ever got angry at her was when she was 15 months or so and refusing to have her teeth brushed. I've come a long way, although I still get more upset of this issue than probably any other.... and I think the effects are still there, and so we walk a fine line over tooth-brushing.

I think she still has Halloween candy somewhere. It's not an issue, and for eveyrone we know who has never restricted sweets, it's been a non-issue.

And thanks, Jeanette... maybe someday I'll wrote a book! I started a novel for National Novel Writing Month in Novemeber, but I didn't finish it...

Dar

[Mommiska]

I, too, really want to parent non-punitively. But I struggle with that, having a 4 year old and a 2.5 year old (and a 3.5 month old, but he's easy, at the moment!).

Those of you who do parent non-punitively - how do you deal with it when your children completely ignore you? We try to engage them in creative ways, make things fun for them, try to help them to want to do what needs to be done.

Often, these kinds of techniques work. But sometimes they don't. So - what would you do if your 4 year old and 2.5 year old were crawling all over the car, having a ball, and refusing to get into their carseats to go home? And you needed to be home in 10 minutes, as company was arriving?

This situation happened to me just the other day - I resorted to picking them up and putting them in their car seats. Which wasn't too bad, as they both just thought that was a laugh as well, but I was sooooo frustrated at the time.

I'm also curious about how it works when you don't restrict sweets. I keep no candy in the house, but dh is a chocoholic, so we always have chocolate floating around. Mostly, the girls don't see it, so it isn't an issue. But there have been a couple of times when they have found chocolate and just eaten it all - for example, a few months ago, they found a 100 g bar of dark (70% cocoa solids) chocolate and ate almost the whole thing between them before breakfast one morning (I was in the shower and thought they were with dh. He thought they were with me, so he was working in the study. : ).

So - it scares me to give them free-reign with stuff like that! They were both in pretty rotten moods the rest of the day - I'm sure the chocolate gave them headaches, etc, in addition to making them not want to eat anything else until mid-afternoon, which didn't help their moods.

Anyway - a couple of different issues here, I realise. I'd love to hear any and all ideas. Sorry this is so long!

[NoraJadesMama]

FWIW, to my mind, it is possible to use consequences without them being punitive. Here are three examples.

When my two-and-a-half-year-old boy was learning to "aim" at the toilet I found myself talking to him about the need to "aim" and then cleaning up the mess frequently. Then we got some dilute Dr. Bronner's in a spray bottle (he loves spray bottles) and put it with a sponge by the toilet. When he "misses" we are right there talking to him about cleaning up and we stay with him while he cleans it up. He loves it so much I almost worried that he would spray more!--but instead within a day or two he had really made the connection that "aiming" makes sense. This was not a punishment--it was enjoyable by everyone. It helped him take responsibility for the consequences of his choices and helped me not care if he missed since I didn't have to clean it up five times a day. Even though Kids Are Worth It doesn't have much on toddlers, this approach came out of my reading that book.

As for the example of carseat avoidance, we have only rarely encountered this, but when we have it has been frustrating for everyone. Now when carseat avoidance we have a two-tier plan: (1) talk to them about why they are avoiding, and see if a compromise can be worked out (often it's because they would prefer to stay "out" than go home, and we can set a new time for departure that everyone can live with, and if it comes to it, we move to (2) we say that they have one minute to get strapped in (which is ample) and if they don't, we will do it gently for them. We are consistent and carseats are no longer a battle. Worst case scenario we have to put them in and do the strap, but it's not done in anger or to teach a lesson, just to move everyone forward and avoid a stalemate in which everyone gets angry.

As for the legos, I agree that there's a way of threatening toy removal that is punitive, the objective being to motivate with fear. But I recently removed the legos and it was not a punishment in my book. We have a policy for the study that they can have toys in here that they are willing to put away--and that the many-little-pieces-toys must stay in the study (so that they don't get evenly distributed throughout the house). They adore their blocks and will put them away pretty regularly, not always right away, and often with help--fine. Legos...Legos seem more like a confetti toy to them; they love to get them out, throw them in the air or shoop them across the wood floor, and then walk away. So I talk to them about whether they really like to play with legos enough to put them away, or should I put them in the toy closet for a while. After a few days of me being the one to put them away, I suggested they may not be ready to really enjoy legos enough to want to put them away when they're done. My almost-three-year-old said, "No mama, just put them in the toy closet." To me this was a problem-solving session and we both felt good about the outcome. I am certainly not trying to "teach" or "train" them to put toys away by giving them a sad/guilty experience of losing toys--indeed the discussions have always been no judgement, matter of fact, "what's the best thing to do about this problem" sort of discussions. This overall approach to study toys seems to keep me from feeling resentful about cleaning up toys they don't seem to value, and gives them a way to have out all the toys that they do value (and have my help cleaning them up when it's a good time for them).

Each parent sorts through the meaning behind their options/choices differently. This is just how we've worked it out and it feels right to us for now.

[Dar]

I'm not sure I consider those things to be "consequences", at least in the way the term seems to usually be used regarding discipline. It sounds like you used good, creative problem-solving skills with the toilet thing, and you encouraged him to take responsibility in this area and he was agreeable - or thrilled, even - to do so. That's a good thing. FWIW, anything involving spraying and wiping has been something Rain considers fun for the last 8 years! Learning that they are competent in real ways is really important for kids, IMO. And your goal (or at least a large part of your goal) was to solve the problem, not to "teach him a lesson" or make him experience something unpleasant as a result of doing something he didn't want to do. If he had been unhappy about having to clean up, I assume things wopuld have gone differently.

I don't know about the lego, since the "policy" about them didn't seem negotiable; it seemed like they were trapped by your rules into doing something they didn't want to do. saying yes, put them away seemed to mean "I'd rather have no legos than have to put them away", not "I don't want to have legos to play with anymore". I don't know if you tried things like "Let's spread a big blanket that covers the floor of the study before we play legos", or getting one of those bulldozer-type lego cleanup toys that make it actually fun, or moving legos play into a smaller area that makes cleanup easier (Rain used to play inside a shower stall sometimes, she thought it was charming and cleanup was a snap).

Dar

[Piglet68]

Originally posted by JeanetteL
I try to read each and every one of your posts - because you always have such incredible wisdom to share. Do ya wanna write a book?

No kidding! I'll be jostling Jeanette for a place in line to buy that book, Dar!

Seriously though, I really do love your posts. You are SUCH a big help to us mamas of younger kids as we tackle all these issues.

[JeanetteL]

Out of my way Piglet - I'm first in line for that book. I'll pay in advance Dar, if you'd like

[captain optimism]

Originally posted by Piglet68

Avoiding punishment was foremost in my mind, but I didn't do that by submitting, I did it by becoming subversive. I was always *desperate* to be independent, from the time I can remember, I hated rules and restrictions and to this day I still do. The distinction being that when a rule makes sense to me I have no problem following it. The phrase I hated most as a child was "Because I am your parent and I said so". I was spanked, not severely, but looking back that is not what really bothered me, it was the in-your-face inequality in power that I struggled against from day one.

This is what I saw happening with my niece for the last 8 or 9 years. With me it was a little different.

I mean, my mom was a hitter, not a spanker--it wasn't like, "oh, you did something wrong, and your punishment is a spanking" it was more, "something you said or did has set me off and I am going to get wound up until I am totally screaming and hit you." Kind of a scary adult tantrum. Obviously I have my dh's strong support not to parent like my mom!

(My mom also did use punishment to discipline me, sometimes appropriately. She also did some of the other kind of discipline, the more reasonable kind. It wasn't all abusive craziness, that's just the part I really don't want to emulate!)

What I'm thinking right now is that punishment, even punitive use of time-outs, shouldn't be part of our repetoire. Not that punishment is never effective. I just think it's so rarely useful in the way it's supposed to be.

So, my dear mamas, what would you do with Carolyn's chocolate example? Here's what she said:

I keep no candy in the house, but dh is a chocoholic, so we always have chocolate floating around. Mostly, the girls don't see it, so it isn't an issue. But there have been a couple of times when they have found chocolate and just eaten it all - for example, a few months ago, they found a 100 g bar of dark (70% cocoa solids) chocolate and ate almost the whole thing between them before breakfast one morning...They were both in pretty rotten moods the rest of the day - I'm sure the chocolate gave them headaches, etc, in addition to making them not want to eat anything else until mid-afternoon, which didn't help their moods.

Would you, if your child ate way too much candy, have something good to say to her to help her not want to try that again? Something to help her connect that behavior with the unfortunate consequence?

[JeanetteL]

Would you, if your child ate way too much candy, have something good to say to her to help her not want to try that again? Something to help her connect that behavior with the unfortunate consequence?

Hmmm...

Well, I'm thinking that the ill effects of the chocolate overload could be thought of as a true natural consequence in that it was a direct result of the action, and not externally applied as a way to "teach" the children that sneaking chocolate is wrong.

In this instance, I'd think that simply discussing the situation with the child, and helping them to connect the physical side effects with the chocolate consumption would be the extent of my response. It might be that they just don't connect the two things by themselves in a cause/effect manner and I could (with the benefit of many chocolate overloads in my past) explain that too much junk food can have real physical consequences. I think I'd probably start by observing that they seem to feel crappy, and are acting unhappy - and ask them if they knew why that might be so. I hope that I'd be able to guide them to the correct answer, without heaping on guilt or shaming them for swiping the chocolate stash.

Other than that, I don't believe I'd do anything. And - if they found chocolate again and experienced the same thing, I'd just repeat my earlier discussion. After all - it has often taken me more than one mistake before I made a change to my behaviour (how many college hangovers did I endure before becoming mature enough to realize that the drinking itself was silly?). AND - I know that there are times in life when even grownups (myself included) say "To heck with the after-affects, I just want the immediate gratification". I think it would be unreasonable to expect that my child could be more mature and reasonable about it than I could.

Can't wait to hear from others!

J.