Logical Consquences - GD? or NOT GD? - Page 5

[johub]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

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?

Every family has different temperaments and different issues.
If the issue is truly not the child's hunger, having other food availible wouldnt be any type of solution.
Also I dont know about anybody else, but the types of food that my kids can get on their own are usually far less nutritious than what I made for dinner. I seriously WANT to encourage my child to eat dinner rather than snack on some dry cereal, crackers or a piece of cheese an hour later. And I see no problem in taking steps to encourage it.
WE all have different priorities. As such it can sometimes be difficult to understand somebody elses choices.

[johub]

Originally Posted by allgirls

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

Thank you for posting this. I had been thinking of asking you the same thing.
I am sometimes beating myself up wondering if I was too gentle. Too lenient. Did always explaining everything create a daughter who challenges everything? Did setting limits only when absolutely necessary create a child who pushes truly dangerous limits rather than artificially low ones which are safer to push? I am relieved to hear you are coming out on the other side still confident that this is the way to go.
With three toddlers still growing I sometimes wonder if I ought to change because of the problems i have had with my oldest.
Joline

[WuWei]

Joline,

You seem to be blaming yourself and GD for the difficulties that your daughter and your relationship have undergone. From the outside, we can see that your daughter had three new siblings after being an only child for 10 years. With a new parent?, new community, a move, a new school and having to make new friends. Any one of these major life changes can cause a lot of challenges and stress. Perhaps, looking at these choices that have impacted her life, may need to be examined in hopes of working together to address her underlying needs related to experiencing these dramatic changes.

It is so clear how much you love and care about her, focusing on connecting will get you through this time.

It's not the GD.



Pat

[TripMom]

OK . . . I'm trying NOT to be offended that people are accusing me of basically starving my three year old? . . . . I am trying really really hard not to be offended that people are suggesting I am committing a criminal offense . .. . . and I am trying extra hard not to be offended that my post is so liberally taken out of context and mischaracterized and misquoted?? Thanks to Johub for pointing some of this out.

For those of you that are offended by the natural consequences scenario I described in PP . . . . it is straight out of the book "Positie Discipline" . . . as an example of Natural Consequences. If you do not believe in Natural or Logical Consequences . . . in other words, if you believe in "no consequences" . . . I do not believe you are practicing GD . . . your approach is to the left of that philosophy.

Finally . . . MDC is a forum for support. GD is a forum to discuss GD. You posts are not only mischaracterizations -- they are mean-spirited.

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

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

Now I'm denying water???

[johub]

Originally Posted by scubamama

Joline,

You seem to be blaming yourself and GD for the difficulties that your daughter and your relationship have undergone. From the outside, we can see that your daughter had three new siblings after being an only child for 10 years. With a new parent?, new community, a move, a new school and having to make new friends. Any one of these major life changes can cause a lot of challenges and stress. Perhaps, looking at these choices that have impacted her life, may need to be examined in hopes of working together to address her underlying needs related to experiencing these dramatic changes.

It is so clear how much you love and care about her, focusing on connecting will get you through this time.

It's not the GD.


Pat

It's not that I "blame GD" but when things go wrong you cant help but look around at everything.
Including new siblings and all of the things you mention. Those certainly have endured the closest scrutiny.
I would be lying if I said I didnt sometimes wonder if she wouldn't be more resilient to change (like having siblings). WOuld she be less argumentative if I didnt spend so much time listening to her POV? Would she be pushing boundaries that arent as dangerous if I had set more arbitrary boundaries like everybody else, and held them firm rather than renegotiated them as need presented itself?
I am not saying that I believe any of these things is "at fault"
But certainly when things go wrong. and you have always parented conscientiously, you didn't make a single decision without first weighing it and determining it was the "right thing to do" Anybody would wonder if they had gotten it all wrong. If their goals were wrong in the first place.
I think it is natural.
AFter reading "Hold on to your Kids" I have really come to believe that at least with some things, I was off base completely.

And of course there is experience. My parents were much more controlling than I am. Although they were kind and gentle in ways and werent spankers, they had higher expectations for behavior etc. . . Sometimes I thought I would get talked to death. . .
And yet I was much happier, successful and well adjusted than my dd.
How much is parenting style? How much is lifes other influences? How much is genetics and temperament? We know they are all involved but I doubt we will ever know how much.

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

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.

OK - but did you read (or skip over) the part where that actually DOESN'T HAPPEN -- you know, the part of the post where while I start to clean up dinner, DS says he's hungry, he is re-offered the food, doesn't eat, I start cleaning up dinner again - and DS says he's hungry -- repeat this scenario 10x.

Or is it more difficult to be inflammatory toward another mother on these boards if we have to address the actual facts of what was posted?

Perhaps a more grandiose apology and editing of previous posts in order for this one?

[MamaE]

TripMom, I was feeling your pain and was about to step in and and defend you. Some of the comments directed towards you were disrespectful and downright ludicrous, not to mention totally mistaken!

I can't believe that any mom here who claims to GD her children (as perfectly as some claim to) would speak to you that way or make such allegations. It's one reason why I don't often post in this forum. All too often, I've encountered a tone that is self-righteous, pretentious, even smug (not from everyone, but from a vocal minority).

I get *so* sad when I see (in the *GD*forum, no less) such blatant disrespect towards other mothers. It's completely uncalled for, and, as I've said, I just can't imagine how people who treat others that way can possibly raise their children in a perfectly GD manner.

GD (to me) is about giving mutual respect and support, assuming positive intent, and guiding gently. Why can't we do unto one other as we wish to do unto our children? It seems like this forum would be a great place to practice the way we want to relate to our children.

Another reason I often shy away from this forum is that, too often, people are left scrambling to prove whether or not they are GD and/or just how GD they or their methods are. Who cares???? I mean, really! I think it's a sad commentary on the direction this forum has taken that the OP even had to ask whether logical consequences were GD or not. (FWIW, I'd been wanting to ask the same question, though!)

So we don't agree on the definition of GD - OK. Can't we just agree to disagree instead of bashing each other for not fitting one another's definition of it? I used to come to this forum for advice and to learn. Lately, it seems I only come here to watch the drama! And, I'm too afraid to even post replies to some of the new threads for fear my gentle suggestions will be deemed "not GD".

And TripMom, FWIW, I never thought twice about your situation. I trust that YOU did what YOU knew was best for YOUR situation and YOUR child. I wouldn't presume to know any better than you in that regard.

[johub]

Originally Posted by MamaE

And TripMom, FWIW, I never thought twice about your situation. I trust that YOU did what YOU knew was best for YOUR situation and YOUR child. I wouldn't presume to know any better than you in that regard.

Ditto!!!
Same goes for me!
And you know what else, you deserve so many KUDOS for being as gentle and positive and AP and all of that with TRIPLETS! For crying out loud! Few on this board could possibly have any idea on just the logistics of feeding everybody in your house at mealtime.

[Lucky Charm]

Originally Posted by TripMom

Now I'm denying water???

Trip, please consider who said this.

Trust me.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by johub

I seriously WANT to encourage my child to eat dinner rather than snack on some dry cereal, crackers or a piece of cheese an hour later. And I see no problem in taking steps to encourage it.

ITA, but witholding food or letting a child go hungry is not going to create a loving, fun dinner time.

I would ask, "Why doesn't s/he want to eat dinner with us?" Is it the food? The company? The atmosphere? The time?

As a family, we have all sat down and agreed that we need to eat at least one meal together as a family. We work together as a family, there is no one boss or one rulemaker, we all decide.

[johub]

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies

ITA, but witholding food or letting a child go hungry is not going to create a loving, fun dinner time.

I would ask, "Why doesn't s/he want to eat dinner with us?" Is it the food? The company? The atmosphere? The time?

As a family, we have all sat down and agreed that we need to eat at least one meal together as a family. We work together as a family, there is no one boss or one rulemaker, we all decide.

Allowing my children to snack all day and avoid meals isnt going to create a loving fun dinner time either.
As for the rest

To each their own

[Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by TripMom

OK - but did you read (or skip over) the part where that actually DOESN'T HAPPEN -- you know, the part of the post where while I start to clean up dinner, DS says he's hungry, he is re-offered the food, doesn't eat, I start cleaning up dinner again - and DS says he's hungry -- repeat this scenario 10x.

Or is it more difficult to be inflammatory toward another mother on these boards if we have to address the actual facts of what was posted?

Perhaps a more grandiose apology and editing of previous posts in order for this one?

TripMom, I do think that the posts acusing you of abuse are inflammatory. I cringed when I read that. I'm not trying to call you out as a bad mother. My points are these: That your solution to the above scenario - i.e., telling your child that he has to wait until the next meal (breakfast) to eat - is not at all what I would consider gentle and it's hard to imagine any child perceiving it as gentle. It's also not natural consequences in that it's not something that's happening without intervention on the part of the parents. If Positive Discipline is giving that as an example of a natural consequence, then it's misusing the term.

[writermommy]

I'm sure no mommy that posts on this forum would actually starve a child. It sounds like the food is offered several times and is either a game or an attempt to put off bed time. By 10:30 pm, I'd be done with it too. Mine usually do eat dinner. If they don't for some reason, they are allowed a snack from the refrigerator before bed. Like yogurt, fruit or vegetables, rather than a less nutritious alternative. Otherwise, they'd probably eat crackers and cookies every night for dinner. There's a big difference between what TripMom described and offering dinner one time and then that's it until breakfast. I don't recall the age of the child, but that's a factor too. An older child can go longer without food than a 2 year old.

to you TripMom, we know you aren't starving your ds.

[Lucky Charm]

Originally Posted by writermommy

to you TripMom, we know you aren't starving your ds.

ITA.

[btlsmum]

Originally Posted by MamaE

GD (to me) is about giving mutual respect and support, assuming positive intent, and guiding gently.

Now this I understand. I even went so far as to look up the dictionary definitions of punishment and discipline after reading this thread as I believe that discipline and punishment are often used synonymously (I know I'm guilty of it).

I do respect and support my children but the fact of the matter is they can't always have what they want and they are not always happy with what I have to offer, be that a physcial object, and activity, etc. I cannot make everyone happy all the time. And when I read this forum that is what I'm seeing. Children who happily comply with alternatives, parents who are happy to let their children have whatever they want whenever they want it, people with infinite reserves of patience and time. It just doesn't ring true to my life experience. I honestly have an insane amount of patience, but obviously not enough.

Perhaps I am just not a person who should have had 4 kids in 5 years because frankly I'm pulled in a million directions 50% of the time. As much as I try to be calm and patient, to work with my children to help our lives run smoothly and with as little conflict as possible, it just doesn't happen. On a daily basis there are so many little fires to put out. I can't help but wonder if I have unrealistic expectations (In part fueled by message boards where it seems everyone is a perfect parent in their own mind. And I'm not speaking of this board, but most internet parenting boards.) or if I'm just an total screw up.

[Lucky Charm]

Valerie, having 4 kids in 5 years *is* alot.

Like you, i do have patience, just not an infinite amount. And my kids cant always have what they want, I do set limits and boundaries. I am not overly permissive.

And as much as I want my kids days to be totally happy, reality sometimes dictates that its not. Thats life.

I would not say you are a screw up. At all.

And as far as perfect parenting in all areas, perception is not reality. Some people are legends in their own mind.

[WuWei]

A THREE year old child who probably last ate at noon, or perhaps a snack around 3pm, who isn't "hungry" by 8pm, is purposefully not provided food (apparently no access, either) until the next meal, at approximately 6am?, 8am? That is somewhere in the range of 15-20 hours without food access. Inflamatory, mean-spirited?

Shocked and sad.

Pat

[DevaMajka]

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".

I do see how it seems that what I said is a matter of semantics. And I'm sure it is to some. And I'm sure some people would use it just as that.
But, I do know this- When I say "lets put this up to take away the temptation" there is a good chance my ds will agree, and be quite happy to help me put it up. It's also giving him a way to help himself reduce temptation.
Ex- He was throwing fruit snacks. I said "If you're done eating these, let's put them up and save them for later." *HE* picked them up and wanted me to take him into the kitchen to put them up. That was done after explaining, redirecting, etc. Then we moved on to something else, neither of us having been unhappy. In that case, "taking it away" was not punishment. I think we can safely agree with that.
If I had said "If you throw that again, I'm taking them away." I sincerely doubt that would have created any feelings of cooperation or working together. And I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't have been happy with them being put up.

The semantics lie, I think, where ds doesn't *want* to cooperate. He doesn't want something to be put up. And to each his own there. But I know that how I do it (my words, tone of voice, posture, changing how/what I say based on ds's reaction, etc) FEELS different than "If you do that one more time, I'm taking it." It doesn't feel like a punishment at all. It may not be mutually agreeable, its not non-coercive. But it doesn't feel like punishment.
I know that most disagree with me there, and I'm ok with that.

[WuWei]

Deva33,

How is your son's willing participation without threat of enforcement not a mutually agreeable alternative, or coercive? Is enforcement going to occur, whether he agrees or not? If you would continue to work to find an alternative which is mutually agreeable, without dictating the outcome, I would consider that 'finding a mutually agreeable solution'. However, the interaction which defaults to 'non-negotiable' (when not complied with) is coercive, because physical dominance would occur to get your way. But, to state a request which is complied with isn't coercive, unless there is an atmosphere of ultimate 'enforcement' of your will.

Pat