Logical Consquences - GD? or NOT GD? - Page 8

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom

No one is "determining" anything. She asked if ppl thought what she was doing was GD. People are answering.

No, I didn't "ask if ppl thought what I was doing was GD". I posted an NC scenario as an example of NC -- and people chose to jump on it and mischaracterize it as you and others have done. Never did I "ask" if it was GD - I know darn well it is.

[johub]

Originally Posted by TripMom

Yeah - I just emailed a moderator. If this is a forum for more extreme left approaches to discipline - its not for me - and I shouldn't waste my/or anyone elses time here. But if the board really is suppose to be a GD discussion board - I wish the mods would post a sticky and make some rules. I mean people come here wanting to learn/discuss this topic - fights about differing philosophies altogether is not helpful.

I have been thinking the same thing myself.
If you find a place PM me.

[captain crunchy]

Extreme left approaches to discipline????????

Giving food to a child who is expressing desire and/or hunger for food is extreme???

Woah, where am I?

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

Extreme left approaches to discipline????????

Giving food to a child who is expressing desire and/or hunger for food is extreme???

Woah, where am I?

I don't know where you are CC. I honestly don't. Because, in my scenario - the child was repeatedly offered food. If you honestly feel that the cycle I described should have been repeated ad infinitum . . . I am sorry, but that approach is somewhere left of most GD philosophy. And if this board is meant to discuss those approaches . . . please post a sticky to that effect so it is clear to all what the philosophy is here.

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by TripMom

No, I didn't "ask if ppl thought what I was doing was GD". I posted an NC scenario as an example of NC -- and people chose to jump on it and mischaracterize it as you and others have done. Never did I "ask" if it was GD - I know darn well it is.

The title of the thread is: "Are logical consequences GD or not?" You brought up a scenario you said is right out of Positive Discipline and said that it occurred at your home and that you thought it was GD.

Some people agreed with you and you seem to be welcoming their comments and support.

Other people have not agreed with you and you are being sarcastic and saying that we are missing something, but not pointing to where that something is.

I feel entirely lost in all of this and am trying to understand your position.

Johub, please show me where I've been sarcastic or rude and I will apologize immediately. I am very frustrated right now, so perhaps I'm not doing a good job of communicating. I have STRONGLY disagreed with TripMom's posts, and I stand by that. But, that's not the same thing as being rude.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by TripMom

And if this board is meant to discuss those approaches . . . please post a sticky to that effect so it is clear to all what the philosophy is here.

There are three sticky's, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom

Other people have not agreed with you and you are being sarcastic and saying that we are missing something, but not pointing to where that something is.

Oh my goodnes - there must be at least 5 posts "pointing out" that the child was repeatedly offered food?

[johub]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom

Johub, please show me where I've been sarcastic or rude and I will apologize immediately. I am very frustrated right now, so perhaps I'm not doing a good job of communicating. I have STRONGLY disagreed with TripMom's posts, and I stand by that. But, that's not the same thing as being rude.

Monkey, I am not going to go through your threads to locate instances of you being rude.
Regardless the way Tripmom is being treated on this thread is abysmal and there have been almost countless instances of rude and inflammatory remarks made at HER expense.
And then you turn around and call her rude and sarcastic.
Regardless of who was being rude to Tripmom, I am not accusing you. ONly showing utter shock and disbelief that the horrible tone of this thread is being attributed to its victim.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

Extreme left approaches to discipline????????

Giving food to a child who is expressing desire and/or hunger for food is extreme???

Woah, where am I?

Sounds like you are in the same place I am. Are you hungry? I'm getting ready to make stroganoff,string beans with a garlic and butter sauce, and mandarin oranges and blueberries.

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

There are three sticky's, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

You are right . . . From the Sticky about "The Long Awaited GD Book List" - The scenario I posted about - is taken as an example of NC from this book - which appears on the GD book list.

Positive Discipline and Positive Discipline A to Z.
by Jane Nelsen, PhD

This is suppose to be a GD board? My scenario is straight from this book. Mild criticism of it would be one thing - a "spectrum" debate, as I've seen here before is tolerable. But calling the approach a "criminal offense" . . . is apalling. How are we suppose to discuss GD when we have posters taking core GD methods . . . and calling it child abuse?

So if Jane Nelsen's writings on Positive Discipline are NOT considered GD here - MODS, PLEASE SO STATE IN THE STICKY AND I WiLL GLADLY LEAVE.

[MamaE]

TripMom, I'm still on your side. I suspect there are many more lurkers on your side too, but they're afraid to enter the fray lest they be pounced on as well.

It's really disappointing to me to watch mothers villify other mothers for their own self-satisfaction or to prove to them or anyone watching that they are are Master Mothers. Being the judge and jury of others is a lonely place to be.

The GD forum is looking less and less attractive to me with every post I read. Sad, but true. I agree with johub that the definition of GD in this forum is being determined by a radical, vocal, and judgmental camp. It's too bad because it will alienate those of us that don't consider TCS or Alfie Kohn to be the be-all/end-all of GD.

[captain crunchy]

To me, the whole point of food being offered is moot (though I am glad you did offer)...

My whole point is, when the child asked for food, at some point, it was denied with the comment of "breakfast is the next meal"....and also you said you are in favor of "allowing" the natural consequence of hunger...your words.

Now, I am reasoning that if there is a "consequence" at all, there must be a need or desire (the child must be hungry at some point) and that that need or desire is not being met to "allow" for the consequence of being hungry.

That is where I disagree, strongly.

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by TripMom

Oh my goodnes - there must be at least 5 posts "pointing out" that the child was repeatedly offered food?

But within a specific time frame, is how I understood it. And after that it was made clear to the child that essentially "time was up" and he would need to wait until the following day, right?

I disagree with this approach. I think it sucks and is mean. That's all I'm saying.

Johub, TripMom's posts were clearly sarcastic and rude and in violation of MDC's UA. I wasn't the only one who thought so, but I'll leave it up for a mod to make that call.

[captain crunchy]

Wait... who called your actions criminal? Who said you were abusing your kids or starving them? Certainly I DID NOT....

...and also, I don't claim to be a "master mother" because I don't allow my child the consequence of feeling hungry when they don't eat dinner...

[~member~]

Originally Posted by TripMom

This is suppose to be a GD board? My scenario is straight from this book.

Okay, I'll admit I never read that book. I never read a book and follow it word for word.
I disagree with allowing a child to feel hunger as a discipline method.

[sunnysideup]

I don't know where you are CC. I honestly don't. Because, in my scenario - the child was repeatedly offered food. If you honestly feel that the cycle I described should have been repeated ad infinitum . . . I am sorry, but that approach is somewhere left of most GD philosophy. And if this board is meant to discuss those approaches . . . please post a sticky to that effect so it is clear to all what the philosophy is here.

I think maybe CC and others are trying to say that there might have been other, gentler solutions to your problem (since you said yourself that going to bed hungry was the NC and part of the solution to your problem). How about, instead of repeating the cycle you had just said "you know where the food is" and let him get himself something. In my house we try to avoid making food a control issue by letting everyone eat when and what they want. It works out well for us.

This is from the GD forum guidelines:
Effective discipline is based on loving guidance. It is based on the belief that children are born innately good and that our role as parents is to nurture their spirits as they learn about limits and boundaries, rather than to curb their tendencies toward wrongdoing. Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems. I thought I'd post that, since there seems to be some debate about what is/is not a radical view point. I think if you are using "consequences" to try to curb your child's tendencies toward wrongdoing, then that does not fit the definition of GD above.

[captain crunchy]

I don't understand why sentiments change when a child reaches toddlerhood. If the same situation would have been described in the breastfeeding forum, people would have gone nuts over it... I mean nuts.

Suppose the same situation was regarding a breastfeeding 6 month old. "I offered my breast and he just tweaked the nipple and played with them and didn't want any. He didn't seem hungry, but I offered the breast several times before I went to bed and he didn't seem to want any. I decided that he would have to wait until his morning feeding if he wanted to breastfeed"..... Look at it in that context...to me it is no different really. If a child expresses hunger, whether it is at 7 pm, 4 am, 7 am, or whatever... I will offer food or have it readily available. That does not change for me. Obviously as they get older they are more self sufficient in that they can help themselves to healthy snacks available or whatever, but it should always be available in my opinion.

Deciding a time where the kitchen is "closed" or telling a child that they must wait for the next meal to eat even if they are expressing hunger, is something I do not agree with and never will.

If that makes me "extreme" well, so be it. I have been called far worse I am sure, by people whos methods I respect far more.

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by sunnysideup

I think maybe CC and others are trying to say that there might have been other, gentler solutions to your problem (since you said yourself that going to bed hungry was the NC and part of the solution to your problem). How about, instead of repeating the cycle you had just said "you know where the food is" and let him get himself something. In my house we try to avoid making food a control issue by letting everyone eat when and what they want. It works out well for us.

This is from the GD forum guidelines:
Effective discipline is based on loving guidance. It is based on the belief that children are born innately good and that our role as parents is to nurture their spirits as they learn about limits and boundaries, rather than to curb their tendencies toward wrongdoing. Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems. I thought I'd post that, since there seems to be some debate about what is/is not a radical view point. I think if you are using "consequences" to try to curb your child's tendencies toward wrongdoing, then that does not fit the definition of GD above.

That's good for you Sunnyside. I really like Jane Nelson's approach in Positive Discipline. If this board is tending to be a forum for approaches to the left of Jane Nelson's Positive Discipline - I reiterate my request that be made clear in the Sticky - and I wil vamos for parts elsewhere.

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

I don't understand why sentiments change when a child reaches toddlerhood. If the same situation would have been described in the breastfeeding forum, people would have gone nuts over it... I mean nuts. .

You do not see a difference between the needs of a BFing infant and a 3 yo?

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

Deciding a time where the kitchen is "closed" or telling a child that they must wait for the next meal to eat even if they are expressing hunger, is something I do not agree with and never will.

If that makes me "extreme" well, so be it. I have been called far worse I am sure, by people whos methods I respect far more.

But that's just it CC - the child was not "expressing hunger" -- he was "expressing control". The NC was a very effective and GD way to handle a 3 yo power struggle.

[johub]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

Wait... who called your actions criminal? Who said you were abusing your kids or starving them? Certainly I DID NOT....

It was scubamom not you captain, who stated that in her county withholding food was a criminal offense.