or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Gentle Discipline › Do you "punish" your child?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you "punish" your child? - Page 6

post #101 of 154
I assumed you weren't using GD when you said that GD is a bunch of talk and doesn't really work, and then described a situation when you spanked.

My daughter is pretty high needs - certainly not soft and sweet LOL - and I haven't needed to punish her, HOWEVER I don't need to work so I'm home with her and she has my attention full time. I imagine that having her in day care and needing to work makes it more complicated.

Regardless of whether you want changes within a week or your work does, I don't see how a change of that sort can come about in one week. I'm sorry you're in that situation.
post #102 of 154
<<<"We want to say that if they absolutely refuse they do risk our displeasure. We can let them know that we still want them to do it, that we expect them to do it, that we are displeased that they are not doing it and that we expect them to do it in the future"

As Dr. Wolf says, so long as the expectation never goes away, but children's rights are still respected, it does not turn into a battle of the wills and children really do obey most of the time.>>>>

1) expectations are premeditated resentments-- i can't imagine keeping expecting something that never manifests. i don't for one red hot minute respect the "right" of someone to persistantly disrespect me or life in general.
2) they may obey most of the time, but mine does not *at all* when it *really* counts.

we get kicked out of places, and kindly unwelcomed back to others, even by my close friends, because of my son's behavior and my lack of ability to control him, or help him or whatever-him (choose your phrasing).

again, i haven't read all the way through this thread-- *STILL* on page 2! but it is very interesting. i have to say that so far, i'm still on joline's page.
it depends on the temperament of the kid. mine is very, very spirited, strong-willed, and all that. he tells ME what to do (or tries), and has since he was verbal.

parenting him has gotten harder, not easier (he's 4.5 now). and i have turned to harsher ways of parenting (bargaining and/or threatening), in desperation. i've always wanted to be a GD parent-- still do! we talk and talk and talk, not during the crisis times. but it DOESN'T WORK. not with my child. not 95% of the time. when the sh*t hits the fan, when push comes to shove, when it comes time to actually *implement* the "good" behaviors we've talked (in calmer times) about using (in the hard times), he can't or won't.

i'll keep reading, though, and trying things, and looking for new ways. otherwise i'll end up with one of those 13yo's that get brought home at 3am by the police, drunk out of his mind...~shakes head~ i really, really hope not...i hope i find something that gets him to be more social, more caring, better behaved, more respectful...before then.

pamela
post #103 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by maya44
I am really curious. When do you think true "punishment" is required?

In other words, not a 'removing the means of misbehavaior consequence' but a "I am going to do something bad to you because you did something I consider bad"

Or maybe you really don't believe in true punishment.

For example, in the situations we discussed,
Consequences of throwing food would be being given only one bite of food at a time, being fed by mom etc...so that the food could not be thrown.

Punishment would be anything from being slapped for this behavior to having a favorite toy being taken away to having a meal taken away before the child was done.


It is this what I call true punishment that I beleive is wrong, really just not a moral choice.

I know some would consider these consequences "punishment" but to me since their only purpose it to immediatley stop the behavior, they are not.
I use punishment, meaning time out or grounding as a TRUE last resort.
What i mean is that I go through every gentle means I can think of to encourage my child to stop the behavior. I consider whether or not this is really an issue as well. (I pick my battles so to speak).
In addition I ONLY use punishment if I truly believe that my child understands the expectation and has the ability to control his behavior. (meaning I do not use it to teach the acceptable behavior, only to reinforce that it is expected).
So I do not "time out" my child for every infraction.
I agree that punishment is used to immediately stop the behavior and is not a good tool to teach appropriate behavior. However once appropriate behavior is learned and internalized, I believe that time out can be an effective reminder that mom expects the appropriate behavior to continue.
I very rarely "need" to use time out. And obviously it is only on a child old enough to already have learned the appropriate behavior.


And as for this definition of punishment "I am going to do something bad to you because you did something I consider bad". Well I certainly have never done anythign bad to my children. You make punishment sound like petty vengeance. That is simply not how it works.
If my child takes of his seatbelt in the car. The car stops and we dont go anywhere until that seatbelt is back on.
That is how time out works. (grounding as well for an older child)
Just as stopping the car isnt "bad" or "suffering" for the child.
Timeout is just like the car stopping. All activity stops for a minute for the parent to really get the child's attention that she is serious and the behavior must be stopped.
For an older child all "activity" stops for a longer period, usually to remind that child about the importance of following certain safety rules or trust issues. (I dont know about you, but if my child lies about where she is going and what she is doing, nothign is going to compell me to trust her the next day. So is this punishment or natural consequences? You might say it is punishment. I say sometimes punishment IS the natural consequence of violating the trust of your parents)

So the answer is YES I do truly to the bottom of my heart believe that true gentle and respectful punishment is sometimes necessary and good. And that not only is it not morally wrong. It is my moral obligation to continue to lead my children to correct behavior even if that means imposing my will upon them.

I do not believe that a parent should use punishment for their own purposes and call it discipline. Punishment is not an outlet for a parent's anger or frustration. Punishment is not to make a child pay for his behavior or the inconvenience to his parents.
Punishment (when applied respectfully) is just a pause button. A way to "stop everything" and deal with a problem behavior. A way to get your chld's attention and say "this is really important to us that you control this behavior" . It removes distractions.

It has its bad points. Like everything, it loses its usefulness when overused. It can be misused as discussed above. It is a highly INeffective primary learning technique, and when it is unjust or makes your child angry it shuts off their brain and makes learning from the experience impossible.

Joline
post #104 of 154
You have limits too, I imagine. Will you spank if your time-outs don't work? So you are willing to accept the behavior as an alternative to spanking? I'm sure you'll say something like your methods have worked ok for you, or whatever. Well, for me, we have been able to use cooperation and creative problem solving. I don't feel I accept behavior of which I don't approve, but I don't want my kids to just obey me. That is not enough. My goal is long-term. I want my kids to grow into adults who are not just obedient, but do the right thing because they want to.

Hey I agree. I have faced limits where GD had not worked. You have not.
I have not faced limits where gentle consequences have not worked, probably because I use them so sparingly so they do not lose there effectiveness.
I do not consider spanking a discipline technique as it is violent and has no learning value. Whereas a quiet time out does.
You may think that a quiet time out has no learning value. And you have a right to your own opinion. I have also heard it said that time out is "causing suffering" or "withdrawal of love". And as such if you believed that you might find it almost as undesirable as spanking. I however think that is bunk pure and simple. As such time out and spanking have no comparison.
My goal is the same as yours. However I do expect a "reasonable" amount of obedience, in order to keep them safe and alive and out of serious trouble before they reach that adulthood.
I do not in any way believe that an obedient child precludes a morally mature and responsible adult.
Joline
post #105 of 154
Quote:
However I do expect a "reasonable" amount of obedience, in order to keep them safe and alive and out of serious trouble before they reach that adulthood.
There's the difference. I do not expect "obedience." I expect my kids to do the right thing. I teach them and help them to make good choices, so that when faced with difficult dicisions -when mom (or another authority figure) is not around- they know how to do the right thing. I think that will keep them safe, alive, out of serious trouble, and help them to be the best people they can be.
post #106 of 154
Potty Diva - When I was reading your first post, and then you mentioned that your daughter was 4 already, I started thinking about food allergies. It might be worth it to try an elimination diet or get her tested. I don't know if you have considered this, but agree with the others that this could be the issue. I wonder, if you spoke to your supervisor and told her that you were going to try this approach, but that it might take longer than a week to see results, if she wouldn't give you a little more time. Perhaps she just wants to see something being done.

I'm sorry you are frustrated and having a hard time. You sound like you are at the end of your rope. I hope things get better for you soon.


Bec
post #107 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly
I wouldn't see that as bullying; I would see it as protecting. I have to say, though, that your last statement seems out of place to me... but I'm sure that's just because I have a different perspective on this whole thing. When I read the first part, I thought, "Yeah, I'd remove her, too. It's incredibly unsafe and she probably isn't capable of understanding the extent of harm that could come from it." But why is it about telling her that she has limited freedom in choice-making? That's more of an authoritarian mindset. Why isn't it just about letting her know that you're looking out for her and will help her not to endanger herself?

Sorry if I'm picking that apart too much. It just seems like an odd statement.
That may be a bad example.. it's hard to think of examples off the top of my head even though I live them daily I simply meant that there are many situations in which I must make the decision.. not her. But my point is that MY child doesn't respond to "I don't want you to get hurt so please don't do that". I DO explain things to her, but at this point, that is unimportant to her. She doesn't fully grasp that I'm "helping" her. As far as she can see, I'm simply not allowing her to do what she wants. Even older children are very self centered and very often feel that way and react based on that feeling.


I guess I'm just missing how dangerous situations are handled. The kid that chooses thug friends for example. You find him smoking pot and staying out late. Well.. I'm living proof that a parent that says "I don't like that and expect more from you than that" isn't going to be enough to keep them away from drugs, sex and other terrible situatins that could have major consequences. AND, I know that you cannot physically keep a child away from things like that if they make that choice. I KNOW that for myself, what kept me from actually getting hurt when I was a teenager was that my mother imposed punishments. I wasn't capable of realizing that if I didn't stay at the arcade and went walking the streets with a boy instead.. I could get raped. So, when I was caught doing that, my mother talked to me about it (yet I still didn't GET it.. I was too wraped up in my own selfish motives as a teen) and then grounded me from some things that were important to me like giong to the football games and I wasn't allowed to go to a friends birthday party. THOSE consequences imposed by my mother .. what most here would consider punishment.. were what kept me safe. Otherwise, I'd have just done it again. It wasn't that I didn't respect my mother, but at that age, I just wasn't capapble of making big decisions like that and she wasn't capable of forcing me to stay home (or at least, it would have caused more problems than it solved). I can only look at things from personal experience. I'm GLAD my mother set some limits for me and gave me consequences/punishment that I was able to grasp since I wasn't able to fully grap the impact of things like going somewhere alone with a man/boy. My daughter doesn't GET that running out in the street can hurt or kill her. No matter how much I explain that, at that age, there is no way her mind can grasp the magnitude of what I'm saying. So, if I just never allow her near the street at all without having a firm grip on her (removing the situaltion), she's not learning that there are grave consequences from running ito a street. And, a disapproving attitude will NOT keep a 3.5 year old out of the street. So, when we were playing in our front yard and she decided to run into the street after I explained to her that we do not play there, I promptly put her in the corner. To her, that's an unpleasant thing that happens when she runs into the street. And now, we can play in the front yard without worrying that she'll run into the street, because she at least understand that there are consequences she doesn't like if she does. Yes, I punished her, but i punished her not to "make her pay" but so that she could understand it could cause something unpelasant. Pretty soon, she'll be able to fully graps what running in the street can mean, but until then, I feel like I need to break it down and show her in terms she can understand.

I'm really not arguing.. I'm just showing you how I see things and why I don't quite understand what some of you are saying. I thought GD was no hitting, belittling, yelling and focusing more on the root of behavior instead of just focusing on "fixing" situations. I didn't realize that there are parents that don't have any kind of consequences beyond a disapproving attitude. This is all VERY difficult for me to take in and even if I don't use it, I'd very much like ot understand it.

I have one more question if anyone cares to answer them (respectfully please.. I'm serious when I say I want to learn and I'm in over my head in this conversation to debate.. I'm simply trying to comprehend a little better).
If you never have any final consequences.. how do your children react when you aren't around? What about school? after they are out on their own? Everywhere else if they misbehave, they will be punshied. Do you ALL homeschool? If a 5 year old is in a restaruante and throw food and don't cease after a warning, they'll be asked to leave (same thing as leaving the table if they don't stop throwing food and I've heard some say that is an unacceptable response). If they are at school and continue to cause distractions during math, they may lose recess. Are your children prepared for this or is it a total shock to them and they have a difficult time dealing with it since it's not how they are raised at home? Rules and punishment for non-compliance are in place in every culture around the world. The reason is to protect not only your rights, but the rights of every citizen. If a theif only got a disapproving attitude from the government.. there would be a LOT of theft. Yes, in a perfect wold, people would not steal because it's not right. And yes we can TRY to teach our children that certain things aren't done because they are inherently wrong but we ourselves don't always follow that creedo unless there is a punishment involved. The reason I didn't speed to our dentist appointment yesterday wasn't because it's wrong and makes other drives angry and isn't safe (yeah.. those SHOULD have been the reasons.. but in all honesty, they weren't) it was because I didn't want to pay a ticket. I find myself a VERY moral person..but I'm not perfect.. nobody is. Therefore, to protect others, punishments are enforced by the government. If my daugher yanks another child's hair repeatedly, doesn't it makes sense that there be some kind of consequence/punishment for that? She caused pain.

Also.. my mother used a lot of sympathy with us. When we were punished (say, sent to our room for five minutes for dumping a glass of milk over someone's head) she would say "I'm really sorry.. that stinks that you have to go to your room. It'll be over soon enough" And I fully remember not thinking SHE was being mean to me.. it was MY actions that caused my misery. That I, and I alone, had chosen to do something to make someone else unhappy and therefore caused my trip to my room. I never felt like she was "you did x so I'm gonna do y to you" kind of thing. If some guy molests my kid, I want him sent to jail (well.. really worse.. but you get the picture ) So, how does your view of parenting mesh with your view of how society deals with punishment? I would like to think that they are separate subjects, but really, they aren't. Many many many adults are just overgrown children and they have to be "parented". Does raising your children with GD prepare them for how the world works? Do you agree or disagree with jails? After the age of 5, aren't most rules in our home there to protect the rights of the other family memebers in your house just like laws in society? If your son hits your daughter had all he gets is a disapproving attitude and an expectation to not do it, doesn't your daughter feel slighted just like if some dude came up and rammed your car with his and the law just says "don't do that again"? I'd be darn mad if I was the daughter or if I was the person with the hit car. Perhaps it was the way I was raised.

Please tell me what I'm missing. I'm not getting a handle on the big picture somehow. It sounds "good" but there seem to be so many holes left in it that it still leaves me confused.

Amber
post #108 of 154
Amber,
Thank you for posting some really good examples you remember from your childhood in which you were punished but it didn't ruin your relationship with your mother or take away your trust in her, didnt cause you "suffering" , didnt make you feel like your parents were unjust, didnt prevent you from internalizing moral values, or didnt make you feel like they were taking away their love.
This is how I also feel.
I have read many of these books and articles which argue against punishments for the above reasons.
But none of it really jives true for me personally.
I like a lot of What Alfie Kohn (for example) says especially about education. But when he tries to tell me how a child feels about something (punishment, even time out for example). I think "what child?" "I was never that child" "I have never met that child"
All children are different as are all parents.
I think it is largely a matter of perspective.

I also thank you for your references to the things you did as a teenager. I feel probably the same way towards my daughters foolish behavior as you mentioned.
She knows better. but often she doesnt do better. Her brain is not functioning properly because it is too busy growing and rewiring itself for preparation for adulthood. It is full of hormones.
Adolescence is a tough time. I personally think it is too much of a burden to place on an adolescent to make them 100% responsible for making 100% of the decisions for themselves and then facing the real life consequences.
Thankfully I have little problem with this because usually my daughter agrees with me.
Joline
post #109 of 154
Thos are a lot of questions Amber. I might have to tackle them over the course of the day.

So here's my first--of course a child doesn't always understand that running into the street means they might be struck dead by a car. That's why the parent has to keep the child safe. If a child can;t understand death, how can she relate that standing in the corner means it will keep her from running into the street? Safety is the parent's job until the child is at a developmental stage to understand. So being in the coner doesn't teach a child that running into the street is dangerous.

If a child has the habit of running into the street, the child needs to watched closely and not be given opportunities to do this. It might mean no playing in the front yard, and it might mean being in a cart of in a sling in parking lots. It means if there is an infant already in a sling, the toddler needs to be in the cart or a stroller or otherwise tethered safely to the parent.

Most of GD in the early years is simply understanding a small child's developmental stages. Once a child develops an understanding of danger and cars and running in the street, you don't even have to worry about that anymore, and you've come out of that stage without punishment. Punishing a toddler does not quicken the pace at which her brains grows.

Ok that's one. I need coffee.
post #110 of 154
It doesnt make their brain grow but it can keep them safe if mom isnt quick enough to catch them.
This might not be a useful tool to a parent of only one child who is capable of catching them every single time.
A parent of three who simply doesnt have enough hands to hold them all might find it compelling to stop the behavior before the child can internalize a fear of death.
post #111 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by tippytoes26
That may be a bad example.. it's hard to think of examples off the top of my head even though I live them daily
Isn't that always the case? It's like the running mental list of coveted CDs I keep that goes flying right out of my head the second I step foot in a record shop.

Quote:
So, when I was caught doing that, my mother talked to me about it (yet I still didn't GET it.. I was too wraped up in my own selfish motives as a teen) and then grounded me from some things that were important to me like giong to the football games and I wasn't allowed to go to a friends birthday party. THOSE consequences imposed by my mother .. what most here would consider punishment.. were what kept me safe.
This is so interesting to me. I had similar circumstances and punishment didn't work. I just hopped out the window after my mom went to sleep and did things that were probably even more dangerous than what I had been caught for. Don't get me wrong - my mom was a great mom in many ways; I just think that if I had been raised with more trust as to my abilities and my awareness, I probably would have responded differently because I would have trusted that she was looking out for me and not just trying to keep me from doing something that I wanted to do. Pure speculation, of course.

Quote:
My daughter doesn't GET that running out in the street can hurt or kill her. No matter how much I explain that, at that age, there is no way her mind can grasp the magnitude of what I'm saying.
Maybe. Did you try showing her what happens to things that get in front of cars, though? Maybe put a melon in the street and have someone run over it?

Quote:
So, if I just never allow her near the street at all without having a firm grip on her (removing the situaltion), she's not learning that there are grave consequences from running ito a street. And, a disapproving attitude will NOT keep a 3.5 year old out of the street.
A mom will keep a 3.5-year-old out of the street. It's our job. My son was always very reliable around the street because from the time he could walk, I'd hold his hand or carry him and talk to him about why. I've also been hit by a car and was able to talk to him about that, show him my scars, etc. Still, when he was about 3.5 he ran into the street, straight into the path of an oncoming bus. Thankfully, my friend was 2 steps behind and yanked him out of the way. I would not have gotten there in time. The thing is that punishment wouldn't have kept him from doing that. He was 3.5, he was racing one of friends to our car, and he was incapable of seeing the path through to its natural course. It was my job to do that for him and I dropped the ball. The natural consequence of that whole escapade was that I was a freaked out mess. That scared the heck out of him and he talked to me for months about how upset I was. He hasn't gone into the street again, but I don't put it past him. He's not even 5. By virtue of his age, it's still a good possibility that he will, no matter how I approach it. So, I don't leave him by streets unsupervised.

Forgive the rambling. Thinking as I type. My point is this: Even with the threat of punishment there, would you leave your 3.5-year-old by the street by herself, trusting that she wouldn't venture into it? If not, then maybe it's an issue of waiting until she's further along in her development instead of trying to rush things (probably unsuccessfully in the long run) by punishing her.


[quote]I'm really not arguing.. I'm just showing you how I see things and why I don't quite understand what some of you are saying. I thought GD was no hitting, belittling, yelling and focusing more on the root of behavior instead of just focusing on "fixing" situations. I didn't realize that there are parents that don't have any kind of consequences beyond a disapproving attitude. [quote]

Natural consequences quite frequently go beyond a disapproving attitude. They're there; they just aren't contrived. I see it as my job to help my son be aware of them and help him figure out how to deal with them (without my making them go away). That's where the benefit of my experience comes in.

Quote:
Do you ALL homeschool?
My son will go to school not this year, but next. I'm honestly not concerned (about the behavioral aspect, anyway). He's shown time and again that he adapts well to just about any situation. He's also incredibly considerate of others.

Quote:
If a 5 year old is in a restaruante and throw food and don't cease after a warning, they'll be asked to leave (same thing as leaving the table if they don't stop throwing food and I've heard some say that is an unacceptable response).
Absolutely. As well they should. I don't think that parenting without punishment means insulating a child from experiencing consequences that the rest of the world imposes on them.

Quote:
If they are at school and continue to cause distractions during math, they may lose recess. Are your children prepared for this or is it a total shock to them and they have a difficult time dealing with it since it's not how they are raised at home?
I'd raise hell if my son lost recess at school. It's a stupid, pointless consequence that's only likely to make the situation worse. But that's really about choosing the right learning environment for our children. If a school imposed a consequence on my son, we'd handle it just the way we would anything else - discuss it; try to work through it; maybe see if we could negotiate alternatives that made more sense (if that was an option).

Quote:
Rules and punishment for non-compliance are in place in every culture around the world. The reason is to protect not only your rights, but the rights of every citizen. If a theif only got a disapproving attitude from the government.. there would be a LOT of theft. Yes, in a perfect wold, people would not steal because it's not right. And yes we can TRY to teach our children that certain things aren't done because they are inherently wrong but we ourselves don't always follow that creedo unless there is a punishment involved.
Rules of behavior are there because people naturally expect them to be. It's my opinion that our laws and our social norms are largely a result of our natural desire for safety and order. They are not just arbitrary rules set out to keep us in line. I think that people naturally want to be a part of that order and that those who walk outside of the bounds do so because their natural needs/instincts have been somehow interrupted. That doesn't mean that I think all people want to conform, by the way; more that there is a wide range of normal human behavior but that there are certain universals).

Quote:
So, how does your view of parenting mesh with your view of how society deals with punishment? I would like to think that they are separate subjects, but really, they aren't. Many many many adults are just overgrown children and they have to be "parented".
They're definitely intertwined! It's my opinion that the retributive focus of our penal system is both necessitated by and further breeds punitive parenting. People who are raised with punishment are taught to listen to external indicators of right and wrong and are taught to respond primarily to external checks on their behavior. By the time they are adults, they are conditioned to respond to an external consequence and are no longer in tune with any inner compass that they once had. Then, these people who spend their lives the subjects of behavioral conditioning, have children and raise their children in the same vein because it's what they've always known and, so, has come to be seen as the only right way.

That's all I have time for right now. This is a really interesting discussion!
post #112 of 154
Amber, indeed many very good questions. I will just take one of the concepts you brought up and try to express my view on it (try being the operative word here)
Laws and punishments for grown ups and GD…
Example of how many grown ups don’t do things because there are “right” but because they want to avoid the punishment…

See, I truly believe GD parents are doing more than providing peaceful environment for kids to grow up. I believe they are actually shifting the paradigm of social thinking of the future generation. I know it sounds “idealistic” and “wishfully spoken”. But I believe this is what is happening in our society and I am happy to see that it is..

The whole paradigm of the society as it is right now IS based on the way people were taught. And many (not all, but majority) were BROUGH UP to do things not because they are right things to do, but because they will be punished. Hence, this is the way the current way of living works. But just because it works this way now, does not mean it has to work this way forever. We evolve as human beings and I do believe that the mentality is slowly but surely changing and I believe GD mamas are greatly contributing to this change.

Now for the laws. Some laws are outright stupid. Other laws were in place because of the different than now awareness.
In my country of origin (USSR) there was a LAW according to which one gets IMPRISONED if gay. Sounds barbaric, doesn’t it? Yet it was an enforced law. Does it mean parents had to see that this is “the way it is” and prohibit and overpower their kid’s different sexuality? No. it meant the law had to be changed.
Earlier yet in some countries if one was caught stealing, his/her right hand would be cut off. Why? Probably because there were a lot of thieves and that was the only way society could deal with them. Awareness IS on the rise. *I* don’t steal because its not a right thing to do, not because I am afraid. I am fully aware that if I decided to steal from a big store I will not be caught (if I do it “right”).

So I guess what I am trying to say (and it’s coming out rather awkwardly, I understand) is - we are changing the future society. Is it too far fetched to think that our kids will be BETTER? Is it too far fetched to think they will do MORE things from the mere consciousness, because they were BROUGHT UP differently?

Ok, open to ridicule now…
post #113 of 154
Well said Irina.
post #114 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by tippytoes26
If you never have any final consequences.. how do your children react when you aren't around? What about school? after they are out on their own? Everywhere else if they misbehave, they will be punshied. Do you ALL homeschool?
Well, we homeschool, but that's really beside the point. Not having consequences doesn't mean that kids aren't TAUGHT anything. They learn what's expected in restaurants by being in restaurants and having others as examples. They learn how to act in a class by being told what the expectations are. They don't hit each other or steal or destroy someone else's belongings out of empathy--they know how they'd feel if it was done to them and they recognize fairness/unfairness. My kids accept that the way we do things at home is not the way others do things, because they're around others all the time and witness this. Some rules they find rediculous but they deal with them because they want to be a part of the activity--other times, they decide not to be involved with something because they don't like the way it's run.

Sometimes they do the "right thing" because they feel it's the right thing, and sometimes they do it because they know it's a rule.

Quote:
Many many many adults are just overgrown children and they have to be "parented". Does raising your children with GD prepare them for how the world works?
It could be argued that maybe those adults were never given the opportunity to regulate themselves. Maybe they still require "parenting" because they've never learned how to act without being told what to do and when to do it. My kids know how their world works and as they've gotten older and their world has expanded, they've had no problem navigating it.

Quote:
Please tell me what I'm missing. I'm not getting a handle on the big picture somehow. It sounds "good" but there seem to be so many holes left in it that it still leaves me confused.
It seems to be a common belief that not punishing means not teaching. That it somehow means parents do nothing. It's not like we're completely ignoring our kids and never discussing right from wrong, we just don't make our points through punishing.
post #115 of 154
Wow.. lots of good responses. Thanks for taking the time to do that. I think those answers will take some time to gel in my head for me to understand. It's so different that my mind is very resistant to it right now and it's not making sense just yet.. but maybe it will soon.

I did want to clear something up so nobody thinks I let my 3.5 year old just run around without supervision. When we cross the street, I do hold her hand (and she hates it) and explain to her why. When we play in the front yard, she has a sidewalk between us and the street. We talk about how past that it's dangerous. But, I'm willing to use a time-out to reinforce that negative things happen when we go in the street until she can fully comprehend something that is just a concept to her and not a reality. I do NOT rely on it as my only means of keeping her safe. But I also know that I cannot be there every time she is near a street and that she is much faster than me. And, she is MUCH faster than my husband who has a prosthetic leg and does not have the ability to run after her if, heaven forbid, she does dart away from us. No matter how much you hold onto your child, at nearly 4, they crave more freedom and can be quite sly about getting it. Just the other day, she learned how turn the deadbolt and open the front door while I was doing laundry. Out she went, but she did NOT go into the street and it wasn't for fear of getting run over. Now we know it's time for a chain lock as well. But so many times, parents can't see situations like that coming until it happens. I really think my one or two time outs will do no (or at the VERY least.. FAR LESS) damage to her than a car going 40mph. That was long.. I just didn't want anything thinking that I don't hold a hand, keep her in the cart or otherwise just trust that punishing her once or twice will be sufficient enough to keep her safe *L*.

Good luck finding a public school teacher that will agree to no enforce any consequences on your child but still on the others. Perhaps you'll be able to find a private school with that philosophy, but even that will be very difficult. With any luck, your child will not do anything to make the teacher feel like imposing any consequenes. But what if another child takes scissors to your childs favorite coat? gives him a black eye? shoves him down stairs? Do you feel that child should not have consequences to face? How would your child feel about that? I'm sure "consequences" are so engrained in me that I just cannot think beyond that. You say to get to the root of the problem. Well.. sometimes kids are just flat out mean and emotional and there is no rational reason for doing something cruel .. in which case, it bothers me very much if there are no consequences enforced. Man this is sending my brain for a roller coaster ride wheeeeew!
post #116 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by TortelliniMama
Actually that's from the authoritarian definition. I was confused at first, too, because the terms are in a different order in that excerpt than the way they usually are. (They're usually presented as a continuum with authoritative in the middle.) It took me a minute, because I read it and went, "She thinks authoritative parents favor punitive, forceful measures to curb self-will?!"
d'oh! I guess I oughta pay more attention before I
Sorry!!!!!!!
post #117 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by johub
I think it was something like this- she didn't differentiate between the "permissive" parents who simply didn't care, or didn't take the time to teach or discipline and the "permissive" parents who DID discipline and take the time to teach their children, albeit without force or punishment (ie they made a conscious decision that was the right way to parent as opposed to just doing what was easiest)

She did not. Later researchers did expand on her definitions either by adding sub categories to both permissive (dividing between uninvolved and involved and permissive) and authoritarian (dividing between highly controlling and abusive). Others just added a fourth category for "uninvolved" in order to make the results of their research more relevant.

Joline
Yeah- uninvolved and involved permissive. hehehe Can you tell yesterday that I was NOT at my best in terms of intelligence? lol.
Oh, and I wanted to say that I really didn't mean to sound argumentative, if I did. I really didn't!
I know that your intent of posting that was to say that YOU were not authoritarian (and I agree with you there). I think it's easy to get defensive of any label- hence my slight defensiveness of possibly being labeled as permissive. But then I realized that I probably would be considered permissive to most people! lol. Oh well. hehehe.
Anyways, it seems like there are BIG similarities between permissive and authoritative, so it would be easy to be a combo of the two.

Ok, that's all I had to say for now

Becky
post #118 of 154
Irina

That totally makes sense. It really does. I guess being a Christian, I'm somewhat unable to get away from the entire concept without a lot of difficulty. Even God (I have no idea how many Christian mamas there are on here.. if there are, I'd like to hear how you work through the contradictions) teaches us to choose right from wrong but still has set up consequences. I REALLY do see what you are saying. That's great.. but something in me says that it's human nature to do things even when we know they aren't right soemtimes. And THAT is the reason society sets up safeguards like prison. The gay thing.. well.. that's because they considered being gay a choice.. just like stealing.. there are many laws like that that are wrong but I'm speaking of other laws that protect other people. These are laws that I don't ever see society being without because of basic human nature (stealing, killing, hurting, abusing). It doesn't mean we shoudn't strive to teach our children to do things because they are right. But knowing that there are consequences for those that never master the internal struggle between right and wrong shouldn't deter from that. I really feel I can still teach my child right from wrong and to listen to that while still using final consequences as a tool in that. Not the only tool.. not the first tool.. and not even a major tool.. but a tool nonetheless. It's when people teach children using those external guides as their first and foremost tool that it becomes a problem in my opinion (do the dishes or you'll be grounded etc.. without any other reasoning or listening). I rather like that there are laws there to safeguard me and my family from those who choose not to care about right and wrong.
post #119 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by tippytoes26
Irina

That totally makes sense. It really does. I guess being a Christian, I'm somewhat unable to get away from the entire concept without a lot of difficulty. Even God (I have no idea how many Christian mamas there are on here.. if there are, I'd like to hear how you work through the contradictions) teaches us to choose right from wrong but still has set up consequences. I REALLY do see what you are saying. That's great.. but something in me says that it's human nature to do things even when we know they aren't right soemtimes. And THAT is the reason society sets up safeguards like prison. The gay thing.. well.. that's because they considered being gay a choice.. just like stealing.. there are many laws like that that are wrong but I'm speaking of other laws that protect other people. These are laws that I don't ever see society being without because of basic human nature (stealing, killing, hurting, abusing). It doesn't mean we shoudn't strive to teach our children to do things because they are right. But knowing that there are consequences for those that never master the internal struggle between right and wrong shouldn't deter from that. I really feel I can still teach my child right from wrong and to listen to that while still using final consequences as a tool in that. Not the only tool.. not the first tool.. and not even a major tool.. but a tool nonetheless. It's when people teach children using those external guides as their first and foremost tool that it becomes a problem in my opinion (do the dishes or you'll be grounded etc.. without any other reasoning or listening). I rather like that there are laws there to safeguard me and my family from those who choose not to care about right and wrong.
Before I say anything I really want to complement you (and other mamas that participated in this discussion) on the grace with which you hold the discussion.

Hey, you did not do it out of fear being punished (just kidding!)

But see, this is where we distinctly differ in our belief. I trully and completely believe that basic human nature is GOOD! I trully and completely believe that stealing and killing ARE NOT basic human nature!

And... I am not even sure I want to go there, but... I also trully believe that God is not punitive (ok, I might have just opened the can of worms )

We as humans, as species, are still learning, very much like kids do.
post #120 of 154
Anyways, it seems like there are BIG similarities between permissive and authoritative, so it would be easy to be a combo of the two.

I was reading a book. It was Dr Phil's Family FIrst.
Now first, I want to say, I did not at ALL like the second half. WHich was very punitive and was focusing on how to get control of your kids once you have lost it.
But the first half had a lot to do with parenting styles and childrens temperaments which was extremely interesting and I very much agreed with a lot of it.
The point was that not only are there three parenting types, but there are different temperaments of children which respond better to the different types. He then described which children tend to respond better to which system of parenting, and even went so far as to say that each style had its strengths and were more appropriate to different children.
For example, I think that one of the types of kids was "rebellious" this is my dd. This type of child really craves control and they respond best to permissive parenting because too much control by parents causes them to want to rebel. (in a nutshell) My dd is like this. And for the most part I am permissive with her unless or until she does something terribly dangerous or over the line. (I overlook chronic lateness or messy room etc. . . and let her control when she wakes and goes to bed). Some children are followers by nature and really want the very concrete guidelines that authoritarian parents set up. (we have all known kids who were obsessed with the rules for example), and there are other kids who are more cooperative by nature and respond best to authoritative parents.
So I guess it was with this in mind that I felt I could use words like "permissive" without sounding judgmental.
Anyway, I really felt that his descriptions were good and it made me feel better about how I handle my oldest daughter. I had often had the nagging feeling I was letting her "get away" with everything, and should be "stricter" with her. It was reading about the rebellious personality and how it was almost exactly the same way my dd responds to me that made me feel better about being more permissive with her than I had felt was "acceptable"
So not only do I agree that they are close, but that the same parent can exhibit qualities of different parenting style when dealing with different children of different temperaments.

Joline
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Gentle Discipline
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Gentle Discipline › Do you "punish" your child?