enlighten me - what's wrong with time outs? - Page 7

[elizawill]

Originally Posted by offwing

Really? Hard to believe. I'm pretty sure the prevailing opinion here (and yours too if I'm not mistaken) is that there is no way a child who was spanked could really be secure, happy, loving and attached due to the inherent and pervasive physical, emotional and psychological harm of spanking.

I thought it went without saying that most people here are quite sure that a child raised in home where corporeal punishment was practiced would never meet that standard.

i was spanked growing up. but then again, my folks let me taste their alcoholic drinks as a kid too!: i'm not normal by any means....but i am finally very secure and happy! but having said that, i don't practice spanking. my daughter is so much like me as a child (very strong willed) and i make a point to speak to her and treat her with respect and not invalidate her emotions. my parents and i are so close now - they are my best friends, but when i was little, i hated being controlled and told how i was supposed to feel. i don't hold it against them though. they were doing the best they could in their eyes.

[thismama]

I have done time outs. They rarely were any use, so I have stopped doing them. The only thing that did work re: time out was we were having an awful struggle with my daughter putting her clothes and shoes on when it was time to go out.

For clothing, I started dressing her the night before. For shoes, I told her, "You are in time out until you put on your shoes." Worked like a charm, and I felt fine about using it that way. She was never in time out for longer than a minute for that issue, as she figured out quickly the way to have it end.

I hear lots of fear of abandonment issues, and the child feeling unloved. I think that is a risk. It depends how you do it, IMO, and on the larger parent/child relationship.

I prefer to avoid time outs if I can, but I will use them when I can't find another decent option.

[Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by Janelovesmax

Actually that's what I was trying to say earlier. People get worked up about other people's parenting skills, but maybe just maybe they had not been put in certain situations where they would do what they preach they never would never do.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I mean, I've always said I think spanking a child for putting his life in danger (running in the street is a classic example) is illogical and ridiculous. I've actually seen my child run into the street, get snatched out of the path of a bus by a friend, and still feel that hitting him would have been illogical and ridiculous.

I've also been in many situations with ds - on a daily basis, I'll wager - where other parents would have used time-outs and I just don't do it. I'm sure many other parents here have, as well.

It seems to be a favorite assumption of parents who are more prone to use punishments (logical consequences, etc.) that parents who don't use them just have easy, compliant children and, so, have no need for them. The truth is that many of us have intense, challenging children and still don't see any need for punishment. My point, really, was that as I get further along in this parenting journey, I start to view some punishments as not so harmful as I used to. I still believe there are always other, better, ways to go.

[dis]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom

My first child has been a HUGE challenge. HUGE.

Ask anyone in my API group what it was like for a full YEAR (plus) of following him around the room monitoring him so he wouldn't hit the other children, guiding him to share the toys, removing him when he became so overwhelmed he would completely melt down kicking and screaming.

Add years of food allergies with Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde type behavioral reactions with aggression, tantrums, very little sleeping, and an almost autistic-like ability to tune you out, and you've got a kid that most people told me they understood why I wasn't getting pregnant again anytime soon.

High needs and spirited and sensitive to the n-th degree.

And, now, at 5.5 one of the most considerate, gentle, kind kids you ever want to meet. I'm biased, of course. But, I can't tell how often I get postive feedback from other people about how generous he is, how considerate and polite he is, how he helps kids mediate and negotiate. He's still very sensitive to injustices and other things, but he has STOPPED all of those insane toddler behaviors like hitting, tormenting the cat, grabbing toys, being unwilling to share, etc. And without punishment. Without time-outs. Without imposing consequences.

Now, if he knocks a kid down on the playground he doesn't look around to see if he's going to get in trouble or not. He helps the kid back up and hugs them or helps them find their mom and apologizes.

So, believe me, my kid was a huge pita for a long, long time. You could probably find lots of posts on the GD forum about it. But, he's passed through that stuff feeling like I'm his ally not his adversary, and he's got a much bigger tool box of stuff to call on.

I read the posts from people like Dar, UnschoolinMa, wuwei and see how these amazing mamas have raised their kids without punishment and coercion, and they are not having the issues that most of the other parents I know are.

So, I'm convinced: Time-outs are not only NOT necessary, they've got the potential to do a lot of damage to the kid and the parent-child relationship. It's just not worth it in my opinion. It's one of those things I want to shout from the rooftops: "Hey! You don't HAVE to punish your kid! There is another way!!" Obviously, there are tons of people out there and on here who are not going to go this route, but I do feel compelled to put it out there: There is a different way that does not involve your child turning into a monster, and in fact, will probably turn out better than you imagined.

Peace. :

I'm really glad things worked out well for your son, I really am. But how do you know that they wouldn't have worked out just as well - heck, maybe even better or faster - with a different discipline style? I know as a child I was very similar to your son. I would definitely have been considered high needs an spirited if my mom had ever heard of those terms. And my parents used time-outs - I have memories of being in time out as a 4 year old at my own birthday party due to some particularly bad behaviour.

And by the time I was 5, I was the politest, nicest, sweetest kid around. And I loved my parents and had (and still have) a great relationship with them. And they did it WITH time-outs - no damage to the parent child relationship.

It's really hard to use anecdotes to try and prove anything about discipline styles, because someone could easily say that if you'd used time-outs, the results could have been exactly the same, or maybe things would have been better sooner. Maybe if my parents hadn't used time-outs I would have turned out horribly! We can't travel back in time and re-do things to find out.

[swampangel]

Originally Posted by dis

I'm really glad things worked out well for your son, I really am. But how do you know that they wouldn't have worked out just as well - heck, maybe even better or faster - with a different discipline style? I know as a child I was very similar to your son. I would definitely have been considered high needs an spirited if my mom had ever heard of those terms. And my parents used time-outs - I have memories of being in time out as a 4 year old at my own birthday party due to some particularly bad behaviour.

And by the time I was 5, I was the politest, nicest, sweetest kid around. And I loved my parents and had (and still have) a great relationship with them. And they did it WITH time-outs - no damage to the parent child relationship.

It's really hard to use anecdotes to try and prove anything about discipline styles, because someone could easily say that if you'd used time-outs, the results could have been exactly the same, or maybe things would have been better sooner. Maybe if my parents hadn't used time-outs I would have turned out horribly! We can't travel back in time and re-do things to find out.

Very well said. I think this is all very true. That is why parenting is so often referred to as more of an art than a science. We do the best we can in the moment and there's really no way to know for sure that another way would have been better or worse (spanking, shaming and the like aside).

In my experience as a child, I would have greatly benefitted from more structure and limit-setting. For me, I saw the freedom my mother gave me as a lack of concern and caring on her part. I knew she loved me, but I wanted her to discipline me. I was actually jealous of my friends who would get grounded!

So it's a very individual, case-by-case kind of thing. We use time-outs for hurting others. That's the only time. It's one area that we won't budge on now because we've spent over a year doing the talking it out, guiding with different problem-solving skills, etc. Nothing stopped the hitting. So here we are, using time-outs and guess what...the hitting has stopped for the most part. It's given him more of a reason to stop and think about an alternative way of doing things. In his case, hitting was easy and something he had gotten used to doing. I think using time-outs was a way to break a habit in a sense. And all the talking we were doing seemed to only reinforce to him that he could carry on doing it because there were no real adverse consequences to him. We still talk a lot about it and work with him on compassion and empathy for others, but the time-out seems to be the thing that really stopped a behavior that we will not tolerate. (And btw, my son is nearly 4 1/2, so this isn't a toddler kind of thing...I certainly wouldn't have resorted to this when he was younger).

[karre]

I know i posted alot about the risks of time outs being that the child will feel unloved and abandoned... I probably sounded somewhat dogmatic due to the fact that sometimes i feel like people are so stringent in their standards on this forum that i would be flamed if i expressed the fact that i believe any gray areas exist. I also completely disagreed with the arguement presented for why time outs were bad and wanted to make a strong arguement for my version of why time outs are bad. I think it is possible to maintain a healthy relationship while using time outs but I also think that there is a risk of hurting your child. I know parents who use "time outs" not really stringently who i think are wonderful parents and have done a great job.

On the other hand, no matter what you do or how perfect you are, your child will probably feel hurt by you somewhere down the line. Of course you should still do your best...!

[swampangel]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I mean, I've always said I think spanking a child for putting his life in danger (running in the street is a classic example) is illogical and ridiculous. I've actually seen my child run into the street, get snatched out of the path of a bus by a friend, and still feel that hitting him would have been illogical and ridiculous.

I've also been in many situations with ds - on a daily basis, I'll wager - where other parents would have used time-outs and I just don't do it. I'm sure many other parents here have, as well.

It seems to be a favorite assumption of parents who are more prone to use punishments (logical consequences, etc.) that parents who don't use them just have easy, compliant children and, so, have no need for them. The truth is that many of us have intense, challenging children and still don't see any need for punishment. My point, really, was that as I get further along in this parenting journey, I start to view some punishments as not so harmful as I used to. I still believe there are always other, better, ways to go.

I think talking about using time-outs when you never thought you would is different than going back on your decision to not spank a child. I think everyone here is in agreement that spanking isn't ok.

I also don't think that the assumption is that non-punishing parents have compliant children. There is a huge spectrum of behavior and temperment ranging from compliant to defiant (for lack of better words). And I do think this in concert with the parent's temperment makes for why parenting styles work differently from one case to another.

This is so not black and white...

[swampangel]

Originally Posted by karre

On the other hand, no matter what you do or how perfect you are, your child will probably feel hurt by you somewhere down the line. Of course you should still do your best...!

I just have to say that I think we are all going to hurt our children. We're human and we hurt each other even when we love each other more than we can express. This is one of those incredibly difficult things to accept as parents, but it is going to happen. And probably more than once.

I think trying to be perfect really doesn't help our kids. That isn't possible nor is it healthy. We all make mistakes, say things we didn't mean to say and behave in ways that aren't particularly pretty. I want my kids to see me fall and get back up again. I want them to know that they can do that, too. I think building resiliency in our children is one of the most important gifts we can give them.

[thismama]

I think it's important to take responsibility and empathize with our children's feelings when we hurt them. I know sometimes I speak too roughly to my child. It happened the other night, when she would *not* fall asleep and I needed to be up early. I said, "Go to sleep! You need to go to sleep NOW!" in the meanest voice.

She started to cry and said, "Mama! You hurt my feelings! WAH!!"

I think it's good if they can tell us that, yk? I said I was sorry, mama is being too impatient, I love you, etc. and held her til she felt better.

I think that's the best we can do. At least, its' the best I can do.

[glorified_rice]

Originally Posted by swampangel

I just have to say that I think we are all going to hurt our children. We're human and we hurt each other even when we love each other more than we can express. This is one of those incredibly difficult things to accept as parents, but it is going to happen. And probably more than once.

I think trying to be perfect really doesn't help our kids. That isn't possible nor is it healthy. We all make mistakes, say things we didn't mean to say and behave in ways that aren't particularly pretty. I want my kids to see me fall and get back up again. I want them to know that they can do that, too. I think building resiliency in our children is one of the most important gifts we can give them.

Very well put swampangel.

[karre]

Originally Posted by swampangel

I just have to say that I think we are all going to hurt our children. We're human and we hurt each other even when we love each other more than we can express. This is one of those incredibly difficult things to accept as parents, but it is going to happen. And probably more than once.

I think trying to be perfect really doesn't help our kids. That isn't possible nor is it healthy. We all make mistakes, say things we didn't mean to say and behave in ways that aren't particularly pretty. I want my kids to see me fall and get back up again. I want them to know that they can do that, too. I think building resiliency in our children is one of the most important gifts we can give them.

Yes i absolutely agree. I may not have accurately phrased my above post. I am sure i have already hurt my 18 month old. I once really yelled at him while i was absolutely worn out to the bone and their have been short with him many times since. I also agree that trying to be perfect probably isn't helpful (and never meant to suggest it). It is important for our childern to know that we all make mistakes and to learn that we can forgive ourselves for doing so. What i really meant is that the inevitability of hurting our childern shouldn't cause us sacrifice our standards and values yet at the same time we shouldn't carry around tremendous guilt for hurting them (since it is after all inevitable).

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by dis

I'm really glad things worked out well for your son, I really am. But how do you know that they wouldn't have worked out just as well - heck, maybe even better or faster - with a different discipline style? I know as a child I was very similar to your son. I would definitely have been considered high needs an spirited if my mom had ever heard of those terms. And my parents used time-outs - I have memories of being in time out as a 4 year old at my own birthday party due to some particularly bad behaviour.

And by the time I was 5, I was the politest, nicest, sweetest kid around. And I loved my parents and had (and still have) a great relationship with them. And they did it WITH time-outs - no damage to the parent child relationship.

It's really hard to use anecdotes to try and prove anything about discipline styles, because someone could easily say that if you'd used time-outs, the results could have been exactly the same, or maybe things would have been better sooner. Maybe if my parents hadn't used time-outs I would have turned out horribly! We can't travel back in time and re-do things to find out.

For what it's worth, I was responding to a post that said people who haven't used time outs do not have difficult children.

The conventional wisdom is that punishments are a NECESSARY part of child-rearing. That without them a child will NOT likely learn discipline, manners, self-control, etc. And those are the mild predictions! I believe I've seen the word "heathen" a time or two.

I'm saying that in my case and in the cases of many other parents, that has not proven true. In fact, the exact opposite has happened. Our kids aren't perfect by a long shot, but so many of the common issues that people assume is part of "the package" just don't exist (lying, sneakiness, angry/rebellious teens, etc.). It doesn't seem to be coincidence to me. I'm sure others feel differently.

Obviously, I have no way of knowing the outcome had I done things differently, but given what I know about how people *generally* respond to things like control and punishment and respect, it does seem to follow that a child treated with respect would start to manifest that in his character. And a child who was treated in a controlling manner would also manifest that. Given what I've seen and heard, I'd much rather deal with the repurcussions of "respect" vs. "control." And I'd also much rather BE a person who who gives respect instead of punishment or seeks to control. Again, other people feel differently.

Another part of it is the hindsight of how our relationship was, and how my child reacted, when I was "off the beam"--and not treating him the way I would want to be treated (mostly after my 2nd was born). Things were not good. I did not feel good about myself. Seeking obedience vs. seeking consensus did not make seem to make anyone in the family happier or improve our relationships or make behavior go away. It really fostered a negative attitude all the way around. I can't imagine how that would improve over a longer period of time.

I know that there are lots of great kids out there who are left to CIO, who are not bf, who are punished, and probably kids who are being hit....but that doesn't mean that those practices are ideal or something that I would feel good about doing. Millions of other parents feel differently. Millions of parents think we're crazy and are doing our kids a HUGE disservice. But if they tell me that what I'm doing is going to result in a kid who is out of control, who has no manners, who has no respect, who can't follow directions, who won't abide by societal rules, isn't kind/considerate/gentle/compassionate, will never stop bothering the cat, will never learn that hitting is wrong, etc., etc.-- then they're not looking at my real live kid who is a walking testament to how wrong those predictions are.

Again, my message is that there is a choice. Just as we, in this forum, spend a considerable amount of time advocating that hitting children is not necessary to discipline (and we all know that many people still believe that it is--despite the research, despite the warnings), I'm saying that time-outs are also not a necessary part of discipline. And there's research out there that shows some of the dangers of it and I think many people in this thread have spoken about their perceived dangers of it. And my sense is that the research that folks like Kohn have done is going to grow. Time outs are relatively new in the grand scheme. I think we're going to continue to hear that they are NOT having the effect that we thought they would.

[runes]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom

For what it's worth, I was responding to a post that said people who haven't used time outs do not have difficult children.

The conventional wisdom is that punishments are a NECESSARY part of child-rearing. That without them a child will NOT likely learn discipline, manners, self-control, etc. And those are the mild predictions! I believe I've seen the word "heathen" a time or two.

I'm saying that in my case and in the cases of many other parents, that has not proven true. In fact, the exact opposite has happened. Our kids aren't perfect by a long shot, but so many of the common issues that people assume is part of "the package" just don't exist (lying, sneakiness, angry/rebellious teens, etc.). It doesn't seem to be coincidence to me. I'm sure others feel differently.

Obviously, I have no way of knowing the outcome had I done things differently, but given what I know about how people *generally* respond to things like control and punishment and respect, it does seem to follow that a child treated with respect would start to manifest that in his character. And a child who was treated in a controlling manner would also manifest that. Given what I've seen and heard, I'd much rather deal with the repurcussions of "respect" vs. "control." And I'd also much rather BE a person who who gives respect instead of punishment or seeks to control. Again, other people feel differently.

Another part of it is the hindsight of how our relationship was, and how my child reacted, when I was "off the beam"--and not treating him the way I would want to be treated (mostly after my 2nd was born). Things were not good. I did not feel good about myself. Seeking obedience vs. seeking consensus did not make seem to make anyone in the family happier or improve our relationships or make behavior go away. It really fostered a negative attitude all the way around. I can't imagine how that would improve over a longer period of time.

I know that there are lots of great kids out there who are left to CIO, who are not bf, who are punished, and probably kids who are being hit....but that doesn't mean that those practices are ideal or something that I would feel good about doing. Millions of other parents feel differently. Millions of parents think we're crazy and are doing our kids a HUGE disservice. But if they tell me that what I'm doing is going to result in a kid who is out of control, who has no manners, who has no respect, who can't follow directions, who won't abide by societal rules, isn't kind/considerate/gentle/compassionate, will never stop bothering the cat, will never learn that hitting is wrong, etc., etc.-- then they're not looking at my real live kid who is a walking testament to how wrong those predictions are.

Again, my message is that there is a choice. Just as we, in this forum, spend a considerable amount of time advocating that hitting children is not necessary to discipline (and we all know that many people still believe that it is--despite the research, despite the warnings), I'm saying that time-outs are also not a necessary part of discipline. And there's research out there that shows some of the dangers of it and I think many people in this thread have spoken about their perceived dangers of it. And my sense is that the research that folks like Kohn have done is going to grow. Time outs are relatively new in the grand scheme. I think we're going to continue to hear that they are NOT having the effect that we thought they would.

i completely agree with your well written post.

i think the concept of not needing punishment or coersion (which includes time outs on that continuum) is hard idea to wrap your head around. however, it is an idea who's time has come, and it's only a matter of continued research being done and published and accessible to the mainstream that the paradigm will shift.

a lot of parents give themselves a pat on the back for not using overtly violent forms of discipline, ie..."at least we don't SPANK/HIT our child" and rationalize using other forms of discipline that may not hurt, physically, but have lasting long term emotional and relational implications. most parents do not want to think that they are doing something that could possibly hurt their child, and there will be a lot of cognitive dissonance and resistance. it is also incredibly hard to break familial patterns (and oh, boy, do i know about that one firsthand). no one wants to accept that their parents did things in a way that is hurtful, that is quite the cross to bear. but bear it we must, and dig deep into our heart to find how to truly connect with and guide our children.

[mommaof3]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom

For what it's worth, I was responding to a post that said people who haven't used time outs do not have difficult children.

I have VERY spirited children, and my oldest was/is extremely challenging. None of my children have ever been punished in any way. My oldest is a teenager now (15.5 years) and he is a totally cool kid, and we have a great relationship - that's one of the big things that keeps me going, keeps me practicing respectful non-punitive parenting with the three other spirited kids each day. My goal is a great parent-child relationship, a connection throughout our live, not just a "well-behaved", polite child (although it seems I get that in the end too!). I try to keep the long-term relationship goal in mind.

[elizawill]

QUOTE=Perdita_in_Ontario wrote, "I do agree - but for myself, not using time outs doesn't mean no consequences. There's a big difference between gentle discipline and no discipline."

:

[mommaof3]

Originally Posted by elizawill

QUOTE=Perdita_in_Ontario wrote, "I do agree - but for myself, not using time outs doesn't mean no consequences. There's a big difference between gentle discipline and no discipline."

:

Yeah, life has plenty of it's own consequences, we don't need to impose arbitrary ones to "teach a lesson"...

I like this article on consequences:

http://www.continuum-concept.org/rea...sequences.html

[swampangel]

I didn't read that entire article, but it seems to unfairly describe how most of us are talking about consequences. Giving a cookie for not crying sounds insane! And cleaning everyone's shoes because they jumped in a puddle? That isn't a logical consequence.

When arguments against consequences are presented in this way, they lose a bit of credibility in my eyes.

[Perdita_in_Ontario]

I think that was actually the point of the article :-) That the consequences weren't as "logical" as parents seemed to think they were.

But I do take your point - I think most of us on MDC, from what I've seen so far, are a bit more evolved than "clean everybody's shoes"....

Consequences happen - they're inevitable. The question is whether they are contrived or not. Putting my child in a timeout for striking the cat (to go back to the original post) is contrived. Showing her that the cat doesn't want to be around her when she is rough shows her that her specific actions caused something she was enjoying to stop, without causing her undue distress.

Yes, there are times when some action is dangerous and has to be stopped, NOW. But I think that perhaps with some forward planning and perspective, not as many situations are as desperate as we like to think...

midnight ramblings...

[mommaof3]

Originally Posted by Perdita_in_Ontario

I think that was actually the point of the article :-) That the consequences weren't as "logical" as parents seemed to think they were.

yes, that's exactly the point of the article...

Jane Nelson (author of Positive Discipline) said later that she wished she had left out the part about logical/natural consequences because they weren't one of the main parenting tools in her mind, but everyone seemed to latch on to those, maybe because it seems like another way to "punish" or "teach" children.

Personally, I've never "used" any consequences in my home, but my children do experience the natural consequences of their actions all the time (i.e. run outside in the winter without shoes, get cold feet, come back in for shoes).

p.s. (we do set limits, respectfully, but never punish or reward)

[swampangel]

But what point is that making if parents are using consequences that do make sense. I.e., if you hit your brother, you are going to be removed from his presense (with a time-out or simply to another part of the house) until we can be gentle with one another. Or, you hit your friend on our playdate at their house and now we're going home. Now this is with a 4 1/2 year old, not a toddler. He absolutely knows that hitting is not ok.

I would never use a consequence for a child making the decision to not wear a coat. I know it doesn't help to get into these specifics, but it sort of invalidates the use of consequences with examples that many of us would never use anyway.

I use consequences when it wouldn't be safe or helpful to wait to experience the natural consequence. And I use them when talking/guiding/etc. haven't worked.

I dunno...I just have a problem with this kind of argument.