Logical Consquences - GD? or NOT GD? - Page 2

[~member~]

Originally Posted by CarenSwan

If a child is late for dinner, we're supposed to let her go hungry.

The natural consequence of missing dinner, is that you missed sitting with family and eating with us. It has nothing to do with making your child go hungry. If my child misses a meal or chooses not to eat the food that was prepared, there is a cupboard with food that they can eat. No, I will not cook an entirely different meal for each child, I am not their servant, I am their parent.

Originally Posted by CarenSwan

As two authors note in their discussion of the practice, "When you stand by and let bad things happen, your child experiences the twin disappointments that something went wrong and you did not seem to care enough about her to lift a finger to help prevent the mishap. The 'natural consequences' approach is really a form of punishment." --Kohn, p. 66[/I]

ITA with the part of standing by while letting bad things happen to your child, but IMO, that is not a natural consequence, as it is natural to have parents who love and cherish you and will keep you safe.

[btlsmum]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

Suffice it to say, it matters how its done, why, and how the child interprets it.
"You keep throwing the ball, so now I'm taking it" is punishment imo.
"Lets put the ball up, to take away the temptation to throw it, and we'll find something else to do" is not imo.

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

I would never take my child's bike away. That is not gentle. Riding a bike without a helmet is a safety issue, if my children do not wear their helmets, then they do not ride the bike. There is no leeway when it comes to the safety of ourselves, and my children know this.
Just like wearing your seatbelt when in a vehicle.

Now granted, I'm fairly new to this board and I am probably more punative than some others here but these two things seem more an arguement of semantics than discipline. If a child cannot do something (in these cases because it is unsafe or something may be broken) the message is the same regardless of the delivery. You are still removing the object that is the focus of the unsafe behavior until the child is able to use it appropriately. Removal of said object is still a form of "punishment".

[allgirls]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

You are right about the falling out of the chair part, but completely off-base with the car and street one. There is a huge difference between safety and consequences of behavior-actions, words, and thoughts.


I would never take my child's bike away. That is not gentle. Riding a bike without a helmet is a safety issue, if my children do not wear their helmets, then they do not ride the bike. There is no leeway when it comes to the safety of ourselves, and my children know this.
Just like wearing your seatbelt when in a vehicle.

What is the difference between climbing up on chair and running in street besides the severity of the possible injury? I don't quite understand.

I am also a little confused about the second part....you say you wouldn't take your child's bike away, that it is not gentle but if your child doesn't wear the helmet, they do not ride the bike...isn't that the same thing?

That is what I mean by "taking the bike away" not permitting her to ride it.(I didn't take it away off the property, in fact it just went in the garage next to all the bikes where it's normally kept, it wasn't a physical taking away of the bike)

She took off on her bike without a helmet so she couldn't have the bike to ride for a while, I asked her to put it in the garage and then told her no more bike. I originally said a week.

I gave it back to her after we talked about it and she convinced me she wouldn't do it again. It probably wasn't particularly gentle, I was angry at her and had every right to be. Again, at that time it was something I could do to once again try to impress upon her the importance of wearing her helmet every time...oh, and for what it's worth..she's 11, she's been riding bike since she was 5, she would never have gone without an helmet in the first 5 years..but suddenly she's doing it. We live in a small town and the kids go off on their bikes on their own quite a bit.

[allgirls]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

ITA with the part of standing by while letting bad things happen to your child, but IMO, that is not a natural consequence, as it is natural to have parents who love and cherish you and will keep you safe.

Good point...and it is equally natural for parents to want to keep their children safe.

[writermommy]

I think it depends on how they are used. Yes, in my opinion the intention does count. Logical consequences like taking away a marker when the child is writing on the wall aren't intended to punish the child, but to stop the action. Markers can be used on paper at the table for younger children in my house. Allowing her to write all over the walls is not an option for us. DH would seriously freak and that's not gentle for them or me. Sometimes people use punishment and call them logical consequences. It depends on how they are used.

Natural consequences can be good, but can also be punitive. I went to a parenting seminar once where the presentor said if your child forgets her lunch, the natural consequence is to go hungry for the day. That is ridiculous in my opinion. I could never and would never let her starve to teach her a lesson. I couldn't get through the day knowing she was hungry. She leaves for school at 7 am and barely eats breakfast, so that "natural consequence" feels like punishment to me. Also, at the same seminar they said if your child doesn't bring the dirty laundry to the hamper or laundry room, let them wear dirty clothes to school. Also, not an option for me. Yeah, I'll let her go dirty and get made fun of to teach her a lesson, right.

I think some natural and logical consequences can be good, but it depends on the situation and how they are used.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by btlsmum

Now granted, I'm fairly new to this board and I am probably more punative than some others here but these two things seem more an arguement of semantics than discipline. If a child cannot do something (in these cases because it is unsafe or something may be broken) the message is the same regardless of the delivery. You are still removing the object that is the focus of the unsafe behavior until the child is able to use it appropriately. Removal of said object is still a form of "punishment".

You are not understanding. I never removed the bike. They can push the bike, twirl the pedals, decorate it, etc., but they cannot ride it.
It is the riding part where the safety issues come into play, not the part about ownership.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by allgirls

What is the difference between climbing up on chair and running in street besides the severity of the possible injury? I don't quite understand.

We don't own a ladder, so, sometimes we need to use the chair. It is important that my children learn how to safely climb upon the chair.
You cannot always keep someone from falling off a chair.
You can keep someone from getting hit by a vehicle.

Originally Posted by allgirls

I am also a little confused about the second part....you say you wouldn't take your child's bike away, that it is not gentle but if your child doesn't wear the helmet, they do not ride the bike...isn't that the same thing?

No. Just like i would never allow anyone to ride in my vehicle without using a seatbelt. Learning how to be safe is not a form of punishment.

[allgirls]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

You are not understanding. I never removed the bike. They can push the bike, twirl the pedals, decorate it, etc., but they cannot ride it.
It is the riding part where the safety issues come into play, not the part about ownership.

ah(is there a lightbulb smiley?)..I was a bit confused about that. I am assuming your kids are younger than mine...my eleven year old only uses the bike for transportation. Also I think even when she was younger I might have had to remove it...she was very impulsive and it would have tortured her to not be able to ride it...I think it would have been meaner to leave it in sight than put it away Of course I probably would have been outside monitoring her play at a younger age anyway so it wouldn't have happened.

[maya44]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

(I've recently decided I'm only comfortable with that in situations where someone or something is likely to be harmed)

This is when I use logical consequences: to protect the person or property of another.

I think that it is GD in that circumstance.

[allgirls]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

We don't own a ladder, so, sometimes we need to use the chair. It is important that my children learn how to safely climb upon the chair.
You cannot always keep someone from falling off a chair.
You can keep someone from getting hit by a vehicle.


No. Just like i would never allow anyone to ride in my vehicle without using a seatbelt. Learning how to be safe is not a form of punishment.

Well sometimes we have to cross the street and it's important that children learn how to safely go into the street. I am not really seeing a difference except in the degree of the injury. And you cannot keep someone from getting hit by a vehicle all the time either. An 11 year old and her dog were killed in a city nearby a couple days ago.

as to the second part. That's not what I was asking..I get that...I just didn't get how what you did was different from what I did..you explained it in another post though.

[johub]

Originally Posted by allgirls

Of course I probably would have been outside monitoring her play at a younger age anyway so it wouldn't have happened.

Bingo! I think this is the crux. Logical consequences are really not necessary at all when children are so little that prevention and supervision are constants in their life.
If dd ONLY rides her bike when mom is present, then it is pretty easy to make sure she always has her helmet on.
But when kids reach an age where they have more independance and they are testing boundaries they might take it as punishment either way.
"you may not ride your bike for a week" is perceived as no more a "punishment" than "you may not ride your bike for a week without supervision" Because an older child doesnt want to just ride in circles around the cul de sac.
Requiring supervision for a child who had previously had independance is a logical consequence as well. One that might FEEL punative to the child too.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by writermommy

Logical consequences like taking away a marker when the child is writing on the wall aren't intended to punish the child, but to stop the action.

Redirection is more gentle than taking something away. Give them paper. Then you are giving, not taking.

Originally Posted by writermommy

Natural consequences can be good, but can also be punitive. I went to a parenting seminar once where the presentor said if your child forgets her lunch, the natural consequence is to go hungry for the day. That is ridiculous in my opinion. I could never and would never let her starve to teach her a lesson. I couldn't get through the day knowing she was hungry. She leaves for school at 7 am and barely eats breakfast, so that "natural consequence" feels like punishment to me. Also, at the same seminar they said if your child doesn't bring the dirty laundry to the hamper or laundry room, let them wear dirty clothes to school. Also, not an option for me. Yeah, I'll let her go dirty and get made fun of to teach her a lesson, right.

WOW!!! We obviously had very different teachers!! As the parent, you are responsible for keeping your child fed, clothed, and sheltered, ie-basic needs.
They have all their adulthood to learn what it's like to forget to eat, not make time for laundering their clothes, etc.

A natural consequence is when you lie in the snow and get cold.
You run in the rain and get wet.
You fall and skin your knees.

When a parent uses natural consequences, it means they allow their child to bond with nature, understand nature, and learn respect for nature.

It is not natural to be punished, but it is natural to have guidance and be taught how to stay safe.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by johub

"you may not ride your bike for a week" is perceived as no more a "punishment" than "you may not ride your bike for a week without supervision"

I would never offer either of these, as neither addresses the safety issue. I tell my children, "Once your helmet is on your head, you may ride your bike." That is not a punishment, nor is it discipline.

You are not punishing nor disciplining a person when you require them to wear a seatbelt.

[Emmom]

Originally Posted by CarenSwan

Here's what Kohn has to say:
Another version of what might be called Punishment Lite is known as "natural consequences," which invites parents to discipline by inaction--that is, by refusing to help. If a child is late for dinner, we're supposed to let her go hungry. If she leaves her raincoat at school, we're supposed to let her get wet the following day. This is said to teach her to be more punctual, or less forgetful, or whatever. But the far more powerful lesson that she's likely to take away is that we could have helped--but didn't. As two authors note in their discussion of the practice, "When you stand by and let bad things happen, your child experiences the twin disappointments that something went wrong and you did not seem to care enough about her to lift a finger to help prevent the mishap. The 'natural consequences' approach is really a form of punishment." --Kohn, p. 66

I just wanted to point out that--from my observations lurking on this forum--it seems to me that nobody who posts here is this harsh in their "natural consequences." In fact, the situation that AK describes is more like "logical consequences." The parent is imposing a consequence: "refusing to help."


This seems like a more typical definition of natural consequences from this forum:

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

The natural consequence of missing dinner, is that you missed sitting with family and eating with us. It has nothing to do with making your child go hungry. If my child misses a meal or chooses not to eat the food that was prepared, there is a cupboard with food that they can eat. No, I will not cook an entirely different meal for each child, I am not their servant, I am their parent.
ITA with the part of standing by while letting bad things happen to your child, but IMO, that is not a natural consequence, as it is natural to have parents who love and cherish you and will keep you safe.

In short (just kidding ), the natural consequence of being late to dinner is eating dinner later/making it yourself, not being hungry all night.

[TripMom]

Ok - jumping in again -

The literature I've read on "natural consequences" says that NC is inappropriate in a circumstance where the child's safety is at issue (not that we need a book to teach us that).

As to "consequences" - I am seeing a lot of chatter on this thread sort of objecting to "any" consequences whatsoever?? I just don't think that is the point of GD. GD is an approach to discipline without shaming or hurting - not the complete removal of consequences for actions. I just think that distorts the whole thing.

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by Emmom

In short (just kidding ), the natural consequence of being late to dinner is eating dinner later/making it yourself, not being hungry all night.

We have a different approach - and this is right out of Positive Discipline - if you don't eat your dinner during dinner time (which is a tactic in my household commonly used to delay bath and bedtime) - dinner ends at the appointed time - and you wait until the next meal to eat. Its not done with any shaming or any "I told you so" - and a lot of sympathy is given to the child and we try to focus on "OK DS - breakfast is the next meal - should we make your favorite pancakes for breakfast?" etc. etc. But the child is allowed to feel the natural consequences of not eating during mealtime - i.e. hungry.

[btlsmum]

Originally Posted by TripMom

As to "consequences" - I am seeing a lot of chatter on this thread sort of objecting to "any" consequences whatsoever?? I just don't think that is the point of GD. GD is an approach to discipline without shaming or hurting - not the complete removal of consequences for actions. I just think that distorts the whole thing.

I could really use some clarification on this one too. I am interested in GD but not if it means no consequences or if it's a semantics game. I am also interested in GD as it applies to families with more than one or two children and families with a mix of ages. Of course, that's another post. LOL

[~member~]

Originally Posted by TripMom

But the child is allowed to feel the natural consequences of not eating during mealtime - i.e. hungry.

IMO, that is cruel. No child should ever go hungry.

Nature dictates that when the human body feels hunger, it is time to eat.

[CarenSwan]

I hope I'm not hijacking this thread by bringing Kohn into it, but I'm just reading his book for the first time and find it interesting (I don't buy it all, but it is challenging!) I agree with the PP that I'm not interested in GD if it means no consequences at all. However, one major point of Kohn's book is that a consequence for a behavior, be it punishment, praise, whatever, forcuses on the behavior rather than the underlying motivation. This is what I find interesting--certainly there are plenty of times when you do need to deal with the behavior decisively (safety issues, for one) but what if the drawing on the wall (for example) was not really about freedom of expression, but about the child looking to get more attention? Kohn's point is that as parents we need to take the time to look beyond the behavior and deal with underlying issues, forming partnerships with our children in the process (we need them to help us understand their motivations). So, back to drawing on the wall, perhaps one response could be, offer some paper, and also offer to take a few minutes to draw a picture with the child. I don't know if I'm understanding his perspective correctly here, but thought I'd take a shot at it...

[writermommy]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

Redirection is more gentle than taking something away. Give them paper. Then you are giving, not taking.

.

In my case, paper is available and on the table. My youngest just chose to get up every time our backs were turned for even one second and start scribbling on literally every wall in the downstairs of our home. At first I just brought her back to the table. My husband spent an entire day cleaning and painting walls. The very next day, she did it again. I mean the entire wall from her height down. It really is amazing how fast they move when given even a minute or two. I then took the marker from her. For a while, she was only allowed to color when dh or I were able to sit right next to her and not move. I should mention that she was given several opportunities to do this throughout the day. But, when I was busy cooking dinner, going to the bathroom or whatever and couldn't sit by her, she couldn't have the markers. She has pretty much outgrown it. Still happens occassionally, but not constantly like it did before.

My first 2 had markers from the time they were 1 year old and never, ever drew on anything but paper. My littlest loved to write on the walls. We painted one wall in her playroom with chalk board paint, so she can enjoy "writing" on that wall with chalk, but it really isn't fair to dh to let her scribble all over the walls when he has to clean it up.