Natural consequence? - Page 2

[kalimay]

Thanks Mamazee. Your explanation clarified using natural consequences as punishment for me. I think because the author in the link was calling her interruption of what was happening the natural consequences it was confusing to me. I think there is a line in there somewhere that will probably be defined individually. I think by allowing my kids to experience some possibly negative effects of natural consequences I may just be letting them learn without the intent of punishing them. I guess because I don't think things have to always be easy for them. All of the examples would be totally age and kid dependent too.

[sgmom]

mamazee I understood the link perfectly (with the exception of the comment of a natural consequence being that the child would feel loved), but thank you for rewording.

But this thread isn't about what a natural consequence is or isn't. I only brought it up because it's the title of this thread, and what the OP did was to teach a lesson, and that's not a natural consequence (no matter how you interpret it). Whether it was the "right" thing to do or not, isn't applicable. I don't believe there is a right or wrong... only what is healthy (or what is not) to the child.

[mamazee]

Originally Posted by kalimay

Thanks Mamazee. Your explanation clarified using natural consequences as punishment for me. I think because the author in the link was calling her interruption of what was happening the natural consequences it was confusing to me. I think there is a line in there somewhere that will probably be defined individually. I think by allowing my kids to experience some possibly negative effects of natural consequences I may just be letting them learn without the intent of punishing them. I guess because I don't think things have to always be easy for them. All of the examples would be totally age and kid dependent too.

The issue for me isn't whether things have to be easy for them, but what benefit there is to things being difficult. I agree with Kohn's assertion that punishment doesn't teach what we intend it to teach, and therefore I don't see a benefit to allowing negative consequences to happen. I know my kids can handle it if bad things happen, and bad things will happen no matter what. I just hope that I will be the soft spot to land when bad things happen rather than the one who creates (or doesn't help to take away) their difficulties.

[mamazee]

Originally Posted by sgmom

mamazee I understood the link perfectly (with the exception of the comment of a natural consequence being that the child would feel loved), but thank you for rewording.

But this thread isn't about what a natural consequence is or isn't. I only brought it up because it's the title of this thread, and what the OP did was to teach a lesson, and that's not a natural consequence (no matter how you interpret it). Whether it was the "right" thing to do or not, isn't applicable. I don't believe there is a right or wrong... only what is healthy (or what is not) to the child.

I agree with you. I just found that part of the conversation to be the most interesting. Particularly the part where someone said that if a child falls and you don't catch them, that you're punishing them with gravity. That was a very well worded statement and an interesting thought for me to roll around my head.

[mom2grrls]

Instead of reminding him about what he will do/already has, reaffirming his feelings at that point may have diffused the anger a bit. I've read that in a couple different GD books, saying something like "it's hard to see someone else get something you really like" or giving him a name for his feelings (jealousy). I see nothing wrong with him walking home if that's what he prefers.

[junipermommy]

wow you sound like a phenonimal mother I wish we could all be as perfect as you. I only pray for the insight to make choices as well as you do when it comes to my children.