a matter of semantics?

[famousmockngbrd]

I have been reading "Kids Are Worth It" (Coloroso) and I was wondering about a few things - here is one: What is the difference, really, between "You can go outside as soon as you make your bed," and "You can't go outside until you make your bed"? My understanding of what Coloroso is saying is that statement #1 is empowering and statement #2 is punitive. But isn't the end result the same? Isn't #1 just a more positive way of saying #2? And if that *is* the only difference, is it an important one?

[LoveBeads]

Yes and yes.

Not only is it empowering, it is respectful. I think semantics are essential not only in how we raise our children, but how we deal with everyone around us. The end result of "shut up, I can't think while you're talking" might be the same as "I'm really trying to concentrate, could we continue our conversation in a few minutes?" but the difference in how I would feel is enormous.

I haven't read this book but it sounds like a good one.

[famousmockngbrd]

It is a good book - I'm still mentally hashing over a lot of it. Especially the consequences/punishment part. I just read + skimmed Captain Optimism's thread "Is it possible to really never punish" - it's a good one, very helpful, but I still wonder if sometimes consequences aren't just punishments in sheep's clothing? I think I believe that consequences are not so much necessary as unavoidable - natural consequences I have no problem with, it's her idea of "reasonable consequences" that I am wondering about. (For those who haven't read the book - natural consequences are those that arise by themselves as a direct result of the actions - reasonable consequences are imposed by the parent when the natural consequence is non-existent or too dangerous to experience, like running out in traffic.)

For instance - Cole keeps dribbling water down his chin when he drinks, deliberately. He spits it out in a spray sometimes, too. : He is immensely entertained by both these activities. Now, I could let him experience the natural consequence of doing this, i.e. his wet and clammy shirt. However, he is only 14 months old and I really can't let him just wear the wet shirt, I have a responsibility to keep him comfortable since he can't do it for himself right now. I could take the sippy away when he starts doing it - saying "You can have it back when you are thirsty." Of course he howls when I do this, and he's a bit young for this approach too. And isn't it a punishment in disguise? "You can have it back when you are thirsty" is the same as "You can't have it until then."

I agree that we should be pleasant to each other, and it is better to say something positively rather than negatively when you can. But "you're grounded" is "you're grounded" whether you yell "Go to your room!!" or you say "I think you should spend some time alone for a while." The method is still the same, you're just being nicer about it.

[LoveBeads]

I hear what you're saying about the "You're grounded" example. But I think that is the whole point of GD (or what GD means to me) which is to leave a person's dignity intact even when you are angry at them or need to take disciplinary action with them. It's all about teaching respect, not only so your children will respect you and others, but so they will learn to respect *themselves*. After all, if your own mother doesn't give you respect, why would you grow up thinking that you are worthy?

I, too, struggle daily with "natural" or reasonable consequences. They are difficult to think of in the heat of the moment. And I cannot honestly say that I have never sent my dd to her room in anger. I have. But it really doesn't work so well.

The example you gave of Cole spitting is a tricky one. I think that the only thing I could suggest is that you give him an outlet for it which you can both live with. The first thing that came to mind is that maybe you can have special bathtime dribbling time and get him to differentiate between mealtime sippy cups and bathtime sippy cups where he can dribble and spit to his heart's content. I would then take the sippy away when he is spitting and bring him right up to the bathroom where he can sit in the tub and spit away. I always try to remember "forbidden fruit is the sweetest" and try to limit the activities that I won't allow, it only makes them more enticing. Or maybe you can give him an opportunity to blow bubbles when he is in a "spitting mood" so that he can have the experience he is craving.

Having children, especially challenging children, can make one very creative.

[famousmockngbrd]

Those are good ideas, LoveBeads, thank you.

[scoutycat]

Originally posted by famousmockngbrd
it's a good one, very helpful, but I still wonder if sometimes consequences aren't just punishments in sheep's clothing? I think I believe that consequences are not so much necessary as unavoidable - natural consequences I have no problem with, it's her idea of "reasonable consequences" that I am wondering about.

I really, really like Coloroso's books! I struggle with the 'reasonable' consequences, too, but I think I've decided that it is not punishment for me to create an appropriate consequence if the real consequence is too harsh or developmentally inappropriate or something. Like the dribbling example, a 6 yo could figure out the natural consequences and go change their own shirt - at that point, they've chosen the action and can deal with the consequences. A 14 mo baby can't. So, it's reasonable for me to intervene on their behalf. I think that's why she talks a lot about health, safety, respect for others/ourselves etc. I forget exactly what her criteria is, but I think she means that those are the times when we need to intervene - when our kids are in jeopardy and unable to deal with it themselves. Otherwise, the situation may be distasteful to us, but we are guides not tyrants. Kwim?

Originally posted by famousmockngbrd
I agree that we should be pleasant to each other, and it is better to say something positively rather than negatively when you can. But "you're grounded" is "you're grounded" whether you yell "Go to your room!!" or you say "I think you should spend some time alone for a while." The method is still the same, you're just being nicer about it.

I don't totally agree. The method is similar, except that you are not intimidating, stressing or attempting to emotionally manipulate your kid. There's also a lot more room for your kid to respond; you are probably more receptive, and they are probably more comfortable. I think that's more than just being nicer.
-scoutycat

[Dragonfly]

Originally posted by LoveBeads
[suggestion about giving an acceptable outlet for spitting]

Just wanted to second this. Ds has been very much enthused about spitting (much to my chagrin) for almost two years now. When he first started, I would take him to the bathroom and we'd have a grand old time spitting in the bathtub or the sink.

He still starts to spit sometimes when he gets very excited. It now just takes a gentle reminder, "Ds, where can you spit?" And he'll very cheerily tell me, "In the bathtub! Or in the sink!"

It's so much more positive and empowering than just flat out telling him to, "Stop spitting!" This way, he makes the decision to follow the rule.

And to everything else LoveBeads said, as well. IMO, the choice of language is incredibly important. The more positive approach gives a child some context for the rule. Whereas, the command approach simply lays down a rule that likely seems arbitrary.

Regarding the grounding example: I think I wouldn't be inclined to say either. "I think you should spend some time alone," may sound more gentle, but it is still a consequence that has no context. I'd be more inclined to say, "I think it's a good idea for you to spend some time thinking about how you can make this situation better / avoid this happening in the future and then get back to me with what you've decided" or some such similar, relevant statement.

[mamaduck]

In the examples Coloroso gives -- I think the primary difference is the focus of the statement, or the emphasis. Instead of emphasizing your power to control, you emphasize the connection between actions and behavior. Instead of dominating your child, you are teaching/guiding your child. In one case, your child responds by focusing on the lesson. In the other, your child responds by feeling controlled and resentful.

"We'll play outside when your bed is made," teaches my child that for our day to progress on schedule -- we experience things that are fun, and we also experience things that obligatory whether we like them or not. They learn that when we ignore responsibilities, our day gets messed up and somewhere along the line we miss out on fun.

"You can't go outside until you make your bed," teaches my child that I am controlling their day to make them obey me. The result is frustration and anger.

The other nice tihng about the first statement, is that there is no threat implied. There is no suggestion that we will not go outside. There is no suggestion that the child may not make his bed. It is assumed from the outset that certain things will happen today.

In the second statement, you set yourself up for a power struggle. You both suggest that you might withold something fun, and you suggest that your child might not do what he is supposed to do. The immediate implication is that you are at odds with your child. And your child will pick up on this implication and become defensive.