Logical Consquences - GD? or NOT GD? - Page 4

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by btlsmum

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

I don't think it means "no consequences". I think those that advocate "no consequences" are really distorting GD. I've seen people post about GD and specifically say - its not the "absence of discipline" but discipline without shaming or hurting the child. I really hope some more senior members or maybe a senior mod can flesh this out a bit.

[sunnysideup]

Originally Posted by btlsmum

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.

I just wanted to say that I agree with Piglet's comments and I have four children (one if which is a teenager).

[WuWei]

FYI, the DSS of Gaston County, NC specifically identifies the withholding of food as an "investigatable issue" of abuse or neglect.

A pattern of withholding water or food (with the exception of desserts, snacks, and candy) requires an investigative assessment. Forcing a child to consume excessive amounts of food or water can be dangerous. Forcing a child to consume an extreme amount of hot sauce, salt, pepper or nonfood item is not an appropriate form of discipline and depending upon the age and size of the child could be life threatening. Reports of this nature could be seen as meeting the criteria for a cruel/grossly inappropriate behavior modification investigative assessment, depending on the circumstances.

Pat

[~member~]

Originally Posted by TripMom

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. 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 farther. 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.

I never re-offered food. If they said they were hungry then I pointed to the cupboard that has the crackers, pb, dried fruit, and other ready-to-eat food.

Originally Posted by TripMom

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.

But you stated earlier that the power struggle was bedtime, so how did it end up with him going hungry?
I see two very different things going on, and each needs it's own solution.

[MsMoMpls]

Ok- lots of good discussion... here is my two cents.

I have a 21 year old son who never learned anything the easy way- who had serious behavior and legal problems as a teen and is turning out to be a pretty amazing adult. I also am a psychologist who works extensively with lots of different kinds of kids.

I don't do punishment. I don't believe in anything that seems to be attempting to "teach them a lesson." Kids learn things when they learn things. They figure out how the world works and how to get things that they want and how to make people happy and how to make people crazy. My 21 year old somehow has figured out how to cross the street safetly, how to stay out of jail and usually how to keep a job. I didn't exactly teach him that... he just lived in a life where lessons were available.

For example, once I was taking his two little brothers out hiking and he was hovering and worried about their safety. I told him that my philosophy was that letting them get into and out of trouble when I was watching was parenting them. I reminded him that people used to think I let him do way too many things that they considered dangerous and I would tell them that I was raising him to be physically confident. He got this amazing look on his face... he got it. My kids are allowed to do much more than most people's kids. They make bigger messes, fall often, break things, and likely are somewhat annoying in public. But I believe that they are making their mistakes where I can see them, that I am keeping them safe and building confidence.

So- having an older child has not changed my philosophy, if anything it has reinforced my beilefs.

I don't let them play in the streets, they wear seatbelts at all times and they climb all over the furniture...I guess I think life is punishing enough without me adding to it.

[sunnysideup]

Originally Posted by TripMom

I don't think it means "no consequences". I think those that advocate "no consequences" are really distorting GD. I've seen people post about GD and specifically say - its not the "absence of discipline" but discipline without shaming or hurting the child. I really hope some more senior members or maybe a senior mod can flesh this out a bit.

But discipline and punishment (or imposed consequences if you prefer) are not the same thing. You can teach discipline without punishment.

[Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by TripMom

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

I apologize. I somehow mixed your post up with someone else's.

Ds started doing the same thing - for him it's every night when he gets in bed. I remind myself of two things: 1) He may actually be hungry at bedtime and not hungry at mealtime. I'm not in his body so I can't be sure. 2) I can't control his actions, I can only control my response. So, I let him know that I wasn't willing to continue making food after mealtime. I also let him know that I was concerned about his teeth if he ate after brushing his teeth and went directly to bed (enter the "sugar bugs" - what we call them). We compromised with a piece or two of fruit. He can get it himself, there's no mess, and I'm not as concerned about his teeth.

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.

I understand. And PLEASE don't take this as criticism. I just have to be honest and say that I think calling this NC is completely inaccurate. These consequences are cultivated and implemented by you.

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?

I may have been a little extreme in saying that. It was a reaction to the notion that telling a child he can't eat is okay. But I do know there's much in Positive Discipline (the book for preschoolers, anyway) that don't seem at all GD to me. And not especially positive either.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by scubamama

FYI, the DSS of Gaston County, NC specifically identifies the withholding of food as an "investigatable issue" of abuse or neglect.
Pat

Thank you, Pat. My children have always had access to food and water.

[WuWei]

Maybe non-physical punishments are *gentle discipline*, or even non-discipline to some segments of the population. Say the Dobson, Tripps, Pearls, Dr. Phil's, etc. But, they are not attachment promoting, relationship nurturing, advisory role enabling. Punishments, under the pseudonym of 'imposed' logical consequences distance, detach and damage the trusted advisor relationship.

I believe our son is much safer without experiencing me as his adversary. When/if I lose the role of trusted advisor, no amount of imposed consequence is going to improve my position, nor facilitate my safety advisement as important. The safest path is to maintain and nurture the relationship of mutual trust. I am most able to advise a listening ear. Punishments don't eliminate the desire to do "unsafe" things. They just promote doing the "unsafe" thing without observation ("supervision"). Thus punishments just further drive a child away from advisement, not closer.

Nurturing connectivity develops from being a supportive advocate to meeting another's underlying needs and wants, not being an obstacle. Advocacy without control is mentoring. Controlling another against their will and desires, even in the name of "safety" doesn't meet their underlying needs. Children do not desire to be 'unsafe'; there are many avenues to meeting needs safely without coercion. Being a partner connects. Defaulting to coercion distances.

Pat

[WuWei]

And for the record, our son willingly chooses to wear his bike helmet, without supervision. Without coercion, without threats, without intimidation, without punishments, without "logical" or imposed consequences.....

And I, personally had a huge bike accident, sans helmet at age 12 and "I turned out just fine". (flipped the bike, using the front brake only while speeding out of control on a West Virginia hill/mountain road, head landed on gravel, yada, yada. Stiches in my head after riding to the ER in the Ambulance, the works.)

And I have a friend whose husband, avid commuting bike rider, with helmet was left severely brain damaged after being hit by a truck.

No guarantees, but IMO an adversarial parental relationship is more damaging and more dangerous than most children's probable head injuries from bike riding. From the looks of the surrounding neighborhoods, bike helmets are more negotiable than tooth brushing appears to be. Pick your battles, if you want to battle. But I trust my role as an advocate, not the role of adversary.

Pat

[writermommy]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

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.

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.

They were actually Crayola washable (yeah right) markers. In my house, the blue and green would not wash off with soap and water, which we tried first. Then we tried the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser, still wouldn't all come off. DH had to use this goo gone junk that smells terrible and took off half the paint with the marker. THe primer was showing when he was finished, so he had to paint the wall. I said permanent because they wouldn't come off and it was easier than going into this longer explanation.

Luckily, mine have only cut off each other's hair with the scissors.

[Dar]

Originally Posted by Piglet68

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

I liked this a lot, so I had to repeat it. And FWIW, I am the mother of a teen...

I try to help my daughter avoid unpleasant natural consequences. I think that's part of my job as a parent.

Not imposing "consequences" (or punishemnts) does not mean doing nothing.

I meant to say more, but I have to go drive Rain's friends home now...

Dar

[allgirls]

Good point Dar. and I am human and sometimes I react...but then I rethink and do differently...thinking back to the day with the helmet...she comes home without it(it wasn't hanging on her bike, too much trouble to look for it), hubby sees her, asks her where her helmet, she says she "lost it" is just as I am walking out and I tell her put her bike in the garage, no bike for a week. No helmet, no bike. I tell her I will get her a new helmet but no bike until I get it. Then she comes back a while later and brings me helmet. It was in the garage, by then I am not as angry. Tell her to hang it on her bike. We talked about it later...then I told her that she could have her bike back. She actually didn't ride it again for a couple days. It rained.

All in all pretty reasonable I think. Not a typical reaction. I don't anger easily but was irritated for whatever reason that day. She's 11, she knows better. She knew better at 8 so I know she knows better at 11. But I am an adult and sometimes I do things and I know better.

Once they are older it's not about what they have learned it's about what they choose to forget.

My older daughter has lots of "consequences" She was doing very dangerous things for a while...she knew better, she was raised pretty gently, but she was making unwise choices. Now she is making better choices. She's not perfect. I don't ask for that. But she's better than she was yesterday and so am I.

I guess that's the thing. I am not perfectly GD, I am no better than anyone here and I don't care to be, I just need to be better than I used to be. And when I mess up I fix it up.

[WuWei]

I just can't get over the withholding food from a THREE year old. This is NOT the cooperative, loving atmosphere that we hope to nurture in our home. Dh came home late. He had run errands, gone to the YMCA for a work out and arrived at 8pm+. Well after "dinner". But I still willingly offered to heat something up, cook something simple, pour a glass of wine, set about fixing him a plate. The whole atmosphere is one of helping each other to meet their needs in a mutually agreeable manner which doesn't include withholding access to desirable and nurturing food. And love.

But, I understand "it works" to change their attitude and "solve the problem". But at what cost to the relationship? To their trust? To their listening to the parent as an advocate and advisor?

Our son has always had access to facilitation for food AT ANY HOUR. Same with dh. Same with me. We help each other, we cooperate. We don't impose consequences. How does this 'teach' cooperation? How does this 'teach' mutual respect? How does this create connectivity?

Pat

[writermommy]

Scubamama,
I couldn't agree with you more. When I heard a very well respected child psychologist advocating withholding food at a parenting seminar, I couldn't believe my ears. I didn't even have the baby yet, but was pregnant with my first and I knew I would never do this to my child. He was telling a mom to let her child go hungry if she forgot her lunchbox. Yeah, she may learn from this, but it's not a lesson I want to teach.

[Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by scubamama

Our son has always had access to facilitation for food AT ANY HOUR. Same with dh. Same with me. We help each other, we cooperate. We don't impose consequences. How does this 'teach' cooperation? How does this 'teach' mutual respect? How does this create connectivity?

Just to address this - in our home, we have a happy medium. I'm exhausted by the end of the day and it's all I can do to prepare meals. It's not okay with me to continue fixing food late at night. It actually bothers me quite a bit. So I'm not going to cook oatmeal at 10:30 pm and I feel as though my son pressing me every night to do so isn't respectful or cooperative. What I will do is make sure there are plenty of things he can access easily himself - fruit, cereal, etc. And if for some reason he needs my help getting to them, I'll certainly do that. That's how we respect and cooperate with each other.

[johub]

Originally Posted by scubamama

FYI, the DSS of Gaston County, NC specifically identifies the withholding of food as an "investigatable issue" of abuse or neglect.




Pat

Your quote referred to a "pattern of withholding food"
And this in no way characterizes what is going on.
This is neither a "pattern" nor "withholding food"
I am quite certain that even in Gaston county NC, a child refusing to eat dinner and then not being offered an additional snack before the next meal would not be "withholding food" OR an "investigatable issue"

[maya44]

Originally Posted by scubamama

FYI, the DSS of Gaston County, NC specifically identifies the withholding of food as an "investigatable issue" of abuse or neglect.




Pat

Yes, but telling a child that dinner will only be available between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m and if he does not eat it then it is not available until morning is not "witholding food" under the law.

I have had this issue actually come up as a child's gaudian ad litem and the judge practically laughed the person who tried to argue that this consitituted "witholding food" out of the courtroom. Extensive research also proved that this position was nonsense from a legal standpoint.

[Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by maya44

Extensive research also proved that this position was nonsense from a legal standpoint.

The law doesn't always make sense, unfortunately. Offering dinner at 6 or 7 pm and then nothing afterward would put the average child without food for over 12 hours. And if you've ever gone to bed with a hungry belly, you know that it's really no picnic.

I just don't get that. Why the need to exercise such control over a child's eating? I can understand not wanting to continue making and dishing out food and doing up clean-up, but to not allow any food when there are other alternatives?

[allgirls]

Well I have been thinking about my philosophy and it's like this. It's all about the connection, the relationship, the attachment. For example when we talk about parenting toddlers we talk about how it's not about stopping the behaviour, it's about figuring out what's happening in your child and keeping them safe until you can. With teens it's exactly the same thing but if you have not built the relationship with the child from the get go...ap,gd, whatever you want to call it, then the chances that you can reason with a rebellious child is much smaller when the time comes. They may rebel regardless of how you parented them, just as as a toddler they may hit although you taught them gentle touch etc. It's about them knowing you come from a gentle loving place because of your actions.

The thing with teens are they are bigger and stronger and look like adults. They also have more rights under the law. For example my dd can move out at 14 in this province and live anywhere she wants. I had to force her back home when she left...she could have chosen the streets. She threatened it and I called her bluff. If this were not a gentle home whose to say that wouldn't have been her choice. But she knew deep down she had a good, gentle home.

All of these things made me second guess the way I had raised her from the start. Had I spoiled her, been too easy on her etc. etc. but since we are coming through the bad times( I am still watching and wary but it's better) I am seeing that it was the opposite...we are coming through it because of the way I parented her. My actions the first 14 years was the right way to go. Even with all my mistakes, my darn humanity, my occasional loss of patience, my yelling occasionally because my actions were gentle and kind for the most part and my parenting well thought out and mindful.

ok..baby is going to cry any minute..must run

Carolyn