Another question about a consequence - Page 2

[pookel]

Originally Posted by Danaoc

Yup, we've all been there! LOL. This is the exact crux where it is easy to take a consequential or GD route. I think our emotions start riding an upward escalator when they repeat the behaviors - it's so easy to turn to punishments, consequences, or whatever that will stop the behavior immediately. But in the long run, I don't think those benefit our children OR get our message across of the appropriate behaviors we'd rather have happen.

I don't think natural consequences are non-GD - nor are they "whatever that will stop the behavior immediately." When my kid hits me, I tell him, "I don't want to play with you if you're going to hit me," and then I go do something else. I'm not going to sit there and let him keep hitting me; that just teaches him that it's OK to hit mommy.

[Danaoc]

Originally Posted by pookel

I don't think natural consequences are non-GD - nor are they "whatever that will stop the behavior immediately." When my kid hits me, I tell him, "I don't want to play with you if you're going to hit me," and then I go do something else. I'm not going to sit there and let him keep hitting me; that just teaches him that it's OK to hit mommy.

I absolutely agree with you that a child needs to be taught that it is not okay to hit Mommy. And in our minds it may look like a natural consequence that when you hit then people don't want to be near you.

There are 2 definitions of the word "consequence":
1: logical conclusion of cause and effect
2: negative results of a previous action

If "consequences" are done in a way that is taught by definition #1 then yes, it would seem to result in a child deducting the appropriate lesson. If they are done in the manner of #2, we would see more negative affects of using consequences. I think of what Alfie Kohn says in Unconditional Parenting, that what is more important is how it is perceived TO THE CHILD. Are they logically thinking "oh, this is a consequence of my behavior and I have now learned what to do" or are they thinking "I did something. And now she's moving away because she doesn't like me right now."

So I don't use consequences because I think in every moment that a consequence can be enforced is also a moment when something appropriate can be taught. I also don't condemn people for using consequences if a child is 1. actually learning the implied lesson and 2. getting adequate messages of unconditional love all the while. It's how an individual child perceives it, and only their own parent would be able to guess that.

[rachelalle]

I didnt mean to offend.

[SneakyPie]

Originally Posted by ann_of_loxley

I would also NEVER 'punish' a child for their tantrum, even if in mid tantrum it invovled things unacceptable (such as hitting/biting/etc)...
My son is only 2, so I dont know what I would expect from a 4 or 6 year old (let alone my one day to be 4 or 6 year old) - but I would hope that by those ages, I have done something right enough that such situations would not happen. We have tantrums now and we work on them! Already my two year knows feelings are alright - If he knows this now, I wouldnt expect something so out of control from him at an older age imo...

Ah, the things we don't know when our kids are only 2 . . . Hope none of the things you don't expect, don't come to visit when a few years have passed!

[warriorprincess]

I don't think this poster or the PP is being unreasonable.

[heartmama]

Just a reminder--if you see a questionable post please pm the forum moderator with a link. I have removed the objectionable post from this thread, along with responses which quoted content.

Peace, Heartmama