Logical Consquences - GD? or NOT GD? - Page 3

[johub]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

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.

Without supervision how do you know they may not ride their bike without their helmet on?
I cant see how this is any different from the second scenario.
If the child rides his or her bike without his helmet on. The family rule is that he must have his helmet on. HE disregards the family rule. You dont check to make sure he is wearing his helmet next time?
And it is discipline to have limits.
I also think that it is discipline to require a person to wear a seatbelt. But it is silly to argue such little points.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by writermommy

it really isn't fair to dh to let her scribble all over the walls when he has to clean it up.

Our rule is, you make a mess, you clean it. And, of course, you can ask for help.

Also, I never give a child anything that is not age appropriate.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by johub

Without supervision how do you know they may not ride their bike without their helmet on?
I cant see how this is any different from the second scenario.
If the child rides his or her bike without his helmet on. The family rule is that he must have his helmet on. HE disregards the family rule. You dont check to make sure he is wearing his helmet next time?
And it is discipline to have limits.
I also think that it is discipline to require a person to wear a seatbelt. But it is silly to argue such little points.

It is not a "family rule", it is a safety issue that is taught from the beginning.

It is not discipline to wear a seat belt. It is life or death. Not only could the person not wearing the belt die, but their body could kill the other passengers.

[Piglet68]

Why are we wasting time discussing whether or not something is "GD". I mean, shouldn't we just discuss the approach itself and its merits or shortcomings?

Sometimes I worry that we are all too focussed on the label and living up to that label, rather than following our guts when it comes to discipline.

btls: I am at a loss to think of any way your child could go through life without experiencing consequences, even if you sat on the sofa and ate cheese doodles for the first three years of their life.

My own approach is that life has consequences; I don't need to go out of my way to impose them on my children. I don't use anything that constitutes "punishment", defined as imposing a negative situation on the child (or deliberately allowing a negative situation to persist). I think most of what is described as "logical consequences" is punishment (JMHO). Until my children are old enough to work on problem-solving with me, I redirect and engage and get down with them to prevent misbehaviours. When they grasp enough verbal skills, then we problem solve ("you want to play with your blocks but you don't want DS to play; instead of pushing him away, what are some things we could do? we could move the toy to a place he can't reach, we can offer him something else to play with, we can put it away until he is napping...")....that sort of thing.

It is entirely possible to discipline without imposing consequences, but I don't think it's possible for children not to experience consequences.

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

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

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

Sorry you feel that way MITB. As I think we are oceans apart on our philosophies here, all I will say is . . . if as his mother I felt that the issue was one of DS' hunger . . . I would have handled things differently.

[johub]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

It is not a "family rule", it is a safety issue that is taught from the beginning.

It is not discipline to wear a seat belt. It is life or death. Not only could the person not wearing the belt die, but their body could kill the other passengers.

Sure it is a family rule. Some people never wear seat belts. You have made safety a priority in your family and have taught it from the beginning. That doesnt make it not a rule or not discipline.
You as the adult have decided that it is not acceptable and there are no alternatives. That is a rule. The fact that you have the best of reasons for it doesnt make it not a rule.

[btlsmum]

Originally Posted by Piglet68

Why are we wasting time discussing whether or not something is "GD". I mean, shouldn't we just discuss the approach itself and its merits or shortcomings?

Sometimes I worry that we are all too focussed on the label and living up to that label, rather than following our guts when it comes to discipline.

btls: I am at a loss to think of any way your child could go through life without experiencing consequences, even if you sat on the sofa and ate cheese doodles for the first three years of their life.

My own approach is that life has consequences; I don't need to go out of my way to impose them on my children. I don't use anything that constitutes "punishment", defined as imposing a negative situation on the child (or deliberately allowing a negative situation to persist). I think most of what is described as "logical consequences" is punishment (JMHO). Until my children are old enough to work on problem-solving with me, I redirect and engage and get down with them to prevent misbehaviours. When they grasp enough verbal skills, then we problem solve ("you want to play with your blocks but you don't want DS to play; instead of pushing him away, what are some things we could do? we could move the toy to a place he can't reach, we can offer him something else to play with, we can put it away until he is napping...")....that sort of thing.

It is entirely possible to discipline without imposing consequences, but I don't think it's possible for children not to experience consequences.

You know, I do think we have differing opinions at the core but (and I hate to be this person) I do think age of children and temperment create many variables that require some flexibility in philosophy. Not that a person who has never given birth can't have valid opinions about childbirth, but they don't carry the same weight as someone who has been there a few times, kwim?

I enjoy your ideas but I must admit that I consider that they are coming from someone with two very young children. I hope that didn't come out wrong.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by johub

Sure it is a family rule. Some people never wear seat belts. You have made safety a priority in your family and have taught it from the beginning. That doesnt make it not a rule or not discipline.
You as the adult have decided that it is not acceptable and there are no alternatives. That is a rule. The fact that you have the best of reasons for it doesnt make it not a rule.

Not sure where you live, but here it is not only a safety issue, but if not followed, is punishable by the law.
It is not something I pulled out of my own little parenting 'tricks'.

[johub]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

I would never offer either of these, as neither addresses the safety issue. .

I wanted to add that I sincerely believe that supervision IS the primary means to address safety issues.

[johub]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

Not sure where you live, but here it is not only a safety issue, but if not followed, is punishable by the law.
It is not something I pulled out of my own little parenting 'tricks'.

Even where it is the law, you choose that for you and your family you will follow it.
Again many people do not make taht choice.
Nobody is saying that just because you choose to enforce this rule that you made it up yourself.

[~member~]

I wanted to add that I sincerely believe that supervision IS the primary means to address safety issues.

I am sorry, but all the supervision in the world will not teach a child how to stay safe.

IMO, someone who choses to not be safe, is not the brightest person. Notice how I bolded the 'choses' part, which implies that the person knows what a seatbelt/helmet/other safety device is and how to use it.

[johub]

Originally Posted by Piglet68

Why are we wasting time discussing whether or not something is "GD". I mean, shouldn't we just discuss the approach itself and its merits or shortcomings?

Sometimes I worry that we are all too focussed on the label and living up to that label, rather than following our guts when it comes to discipline.

.

I think it is very valid to discuss because of how frequently moms get told that they arent being "gd" and that this is a "gd" forum and therefore such things oughtn't even bother being discussed.
I cant even say how many times a mom comes on desparately asking "how can I stop this behavior" and some moms try to offer to help with some suggestions for example involving logical consequences or something else. And invariably somebody comes on and says taht these things are not GD and why does this mom think she should try to control her child's behavior anyway?
I think in order to make room for all of us in this forum, we need to make it clear that we dont all agree on the very definition of GD. We also need to discuss "controversial" subjects to let each other know that we will still be accepted here even if we arent interested in TCS or Alfie Kohn or Anthony Wolf or Sears or whomever one might like and the other might reject.
If half of us think all logical consequences are punishments and all punishments are anti GD, and the other half think that there is room for some logical consequences or even some "gentler" punishments,(and a third "half" somewhere in between we may find that GD is defined by the louder group. And that doesnt really help newcomers who really are tryign to find their way, when we allow the definition of GD to become exclusive to definition of the most vocal posters.

Joline

(eta, a good example of this is the thread on "tokens" . There really is no "consensus" that all rewards and positive reinforcement are not GD. There is a particularly vocal camp that beleives that to be true however. In the end the mom apologised for thinking that positive reinforcement was consistent with GD. )

[writermommy]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

Our rule is, you make a mess, you clean it. And, of course, you can ask for help.

Also, I never give a child anything that is not age appropriate.

They do help, when they can. But, this job is not really one a three year old can do. (painting the kitchen wall)

Also, age appropriate is a matter of opinion. THis was right around her third birthday. I let my kids have art things when they show an interest in them. I also let them finger paint, use playdough and tear up magazines and glue the pictures to paper from a young age. My IRL friends think I'm nuts. To me, these things are important for small motor development. As a Kindergarten teacher, I've seen kids who were unable to cut or even hold a pencil because mom never gave them things for fear of a mess.

[Piglet68]

I enjoy your ideas but I must admit that I consider that they are coming from someone with two very young children. I hope that didn't come out wrong.

Naw, you have a point. All I can do is stay positive and stick to what is working for me now, and have faith that it will all work out when they get to be teens (because really, most of what I do is based on building a relationship that will make the teen years much easier than my own were).

Don't tell anybody, but in rare moments when I least expect it I am struck by a terrifying thought:

Originally Posted by johub

I am ashamed to admit that I now have less respect for a child's innate reasoning skills and sociality and desire to please their parents than I did before having a teen.

[johub]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

I am sorry, but all the supervision in the world will not teach a child how to stay safe.

IMO, someone who choses to not be safe, is not the brightest person. Notice how I bolded the 'choses' part, which implies that the person knows what a seatbelt/helmet/other safety device is and how to use it.

Right, which is why they need to be supervised until they figure it out.
If they are choosing not to be safe. Then they need some extra supervision until they are making wiser choices, coupled with reminders and explanation.
I mean, what meaning is there to say it is an absolute must that children wear bicycle helmets and seatbelts if you arent going to follow through to make sure they did until you can be reasonably certain that the habit has been formed?

[~member~]

Originally Posted by johub

Right, which is why they need to be supervised until they figure it out.
If they are choosing not to be safe. Then they need some extra supervision until they are making wiser choices, coupled with reminders and explanation.

Supervision means using your eyes.
Children need more than just supervision and a few reminders, they first must be taught and what is taught is also modeled by the parent(s).

I mean, what meaning is there to say it is an absolute must that children wear bicycle helmets and seatbelts if you arent going to follow through to make sure they did until you can be reasonably certain that the habit has been formed?

There would be no meaning.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by writermommy

They do help, when they can. But, this job is not really one a three year old can do. (painting the kitchen wall)

When my 3yo wrote on the wall, she was given a soapy rag to wash it off. I was not talking about making a child do something that is not child-friendly nor safe for a small child.

Originally Posted by writermommy

Also, age appropriate is a matter of opinion.

I disagree. A permanant marker has fumes that a small child could inhale and die from. The child could choke on the marker cap.
My friends 3 yo used the scissors to cut the baby's finger off.
If you don't want to go with age, then maturity level.

There are safer ways for children to develop their fine motor skills.

[Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by TripMom

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.

I don't think Positive Discipline is at all GD, and this is a perfect example of why I feel that way. This is punishment, plain and simple. And there's really nothing gentle about making a child go hungry until the next meal just because s/he is late. If I were late for a scheduled meal, I wouldn't make myself go hungry. I would fend for myself.

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

I don't think Positive Discipline is at all GD, and this is a perfect example of why I feel that way. This is punishment, plain and simple. And there's really nothing gentle about making a child go hungry until the next meal just because s/he is late. If I were late for a scheduled meal, I wouldn't make myself go hungry. I would fend for myself.

Dragonfly - please read my post - he wasn't "late" for the meal?? That is a complete mischaracterization of the post.

My post was brief - here is some more info: Ds is 3. Its not like he is off on his own and not keeping track of his appointments on his blackberry. He comes to the table when the family eats - at a reasonable time for dinner - and is given a reasonably long time to eat -- and is served foods he likes. DS began "not eating" at meal time - then declaring himself hungry as I am cleaning up. I re-offer the food, he doesn't eat it, then declares he is hungry as I am cleaning up again. This little game was fun for DS - because he got to push bath and bedtime back farther and father. At one point, he even had his dad feeding him dinner after bath at 9:30 at night. This is not because he wasn't or was hungry - this is all in an effort to delay bedtime.

NC was a wonderful solution to this power struggle - which is a common problem with 3 yos. We set a clear time for the meal. We gave him a long time to eat. And gave him warnings that dinner was "almost over", etc. And if he didn't eat - NC was next time to eat was at the next meal - breakfast. No shaming. No I told you so. No "now your gonna be sorry". Just - "DS, I'm so sorry you didn't eat dinner. Should I make your favorites for breakfast?" Broke the power struggle/control cycle pretty quick.

You don't think PD is "at all" GD? That seems like an exaggeration. From what I've read and seen on these boards - I think the 2 are very close, if not identical?

[AccidentalHousewif]

Originally Posted by writermommy

age appropriate is a matter of opinion.

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

I disagree.

And THAT is why I generally remain a lurker in this forum, because all the superfantastic substantive conversation is booby-trapped with all kinds of sophistry...