How does "Love and Logic"/ logical consequences relate to gentle disciplining?

[twostraightlines]

Would logical consequences be used in gentle discipline? A lot of people in my area believe in the Love and Logic approach, but I don't know if it at odds with GD.

Thanks in advance

[phaeon]

:lurk:

[johub]

You have probably opened a BIG can of worms with this one, I'm kinda glad I get to go first.
I definitely believe that logical consequences are gd in my family.
There are those who do not. I really think it depends on who you read regarding GD and what style you choose is right for you and why.

I have not read "love and logic" but I see logical consequences as being one part of my job regarding discipline. Hopefully not a very big part.
I think there is a big difference between a logical consequence which teaches something about what you want your child to learn and an arbitrary consequence or "punishment" which is the same regardless of the issue.

Joline

[UUMom]

Forgive me. But I have no idea what you are asking.

I would be happy to respond if I had a clue what you meant, as I have many thoughts on GD etc.

[flyingspaghettimama]

I think so, but I also think there is a wide continuum on the GD scale. It's like asking if bottle-feeding can be AP. AP is pretty open and encompassing to me but has the underlying theory that attachment between parent and child is most important to long-term health of a child-parent relationship. I didn't bottle-feed but I have seen mamas who managed to do so and be AP.

GD (to me) is finding ways to help discipline or guide a child using gentle methods and techniques, not spanking, shaming, or as johub said punishment for the sake of punishment (i.e. no TV for a week for hitting your brother!). There are some passages in L&L that I disagree with, don't use, and some people feel are overly harsh. It can come across as a little... Newt Gingrich Contract with America parenting guide, tough love. There are also some passages in The Baby Book that I disagree with and don't use. I like combining L&L with some techniques I find to be on the opposite end of the GD spectrum, like Alfie Kohn, the Teddy Kennedy of parenting. I find logical consequences happening to me on a daily basis...so I guess I see it as a part of life? Yet, it takes a family...oh dear. Kennedy and Gingrich are duking it out.

But if you do a search on love and logic, you will find many, many, many more opinions. So, so, so many opinions. I found both the book and spirited discussions on here useful.

[cmb123]

. I find logical consequences happening to me on a daily basis...so I guess I see it as a part of life?

In my life I see perhaps natural consequences happening- I don't do the laundry, I have no clean underwear, perhaps. My children will experience natural consequences to their actions every day.We all do.
"Logical" consequences are often different. They are thought of and imposed upon children. The idea of what is "logical" is sooo different from one person to another. (i.e. I know many would argue that being hit is a logical consequence for hitting someone).
For me, I use the general rule of thumb that if I am looking to impose some sort of suffering upon my children under the name of 'logical consequences" in order to have them "pay" for some sort of wrong doing, then no, I don't feel it's GD.... Meanwhile, if I see that something they are doing will evoke a "natural consequence" that may be slightly unpleasant, I don't "save" them from it happening (unless it will harm them in some way) as I feel that, that is how we can learn from mistakes sometimes.

[mamaduck]

We found ourselves imposing logical consequences the most as we were making the decision to leave behind arbitrary punishment and we were floundering/searching for something else instead. It was less shaming, less punative, and less enraging to our child to be corrected if he was able to perceive a connection between his behavior and the "consequences." Over the years we've moved mostly away from logical consequences as well, though not with any effort or decisiveness. We've just sort of grown into better methods of relating.

The handful of times in a year that we do find ourselves "imposing" a logical consequence, we generally find that it is something safety related. For instance: "I'm sorry -- you have to play behind the fence today because yesterday you walked into the street and it scared me." Or -- "We're not drinking juice today because yesterday you didn't brush your teeth, and I'm afraid you will not again tonight. So we're taking a break from sweet things to be on the safe side." Or "If you don't get to bed soon, I'm woried that we will have to cancel our plans tomorrow. Very tired children are not fun to take on outings." Or my personal favorite, "Stop kicking the back of my seat while I'm driving. If you do it again, then I will take your shoes away!" :eyeroll (Backseat conflicts are the biggest problem area for us.)

We also impose "time away" or "time out" for hitting/kicking other people or animals. This is a logical consequence IMO, because my reasoning is that it is not safe for me to let them be around others if they are exhibiting "hurting" behaviors. There is no time set, however. They choose when they feel they can handle being with others again. And if they want company while they decompress, if they will not hit me, and I am able to join them -- then I'm happy to sit with them in another room.

But more and more, we find that our family life is more relaxed and more loving when we talk through problems and empower the kids to make choices without proposing "deals" or making ominous threats.

[nonconformnmom]

I agree with Joline and others who say that logical consequences can be effective in certain situations, and not as a first resort but as a later or last resort. Certainly communication with your kids, mutual respect, and nurturing their spirit comes first. I also agree with this statement:

Connie wrote: For me, I use the general rule of thumb that if I am looking to impose some sort of suffering upon my children under the name of 'logical consequences" in order to have them "pay" for some sort of wrong doing, then no, I don't feel it's GD.

Logical consequences can be one of the tools in the overall toolbox of any discipline method, including gentle discipline. It's all in how it is used. Tools in and of themselves are not "good" or "bad"; they are simply vehicles that can be used by parents to accomplish their GD or non-GD objectives.

[UUMom]

"Logical or natural consequences' are different from the consequences parents choose. I think haaving to stay in the yard for safety reasons is an excellent strategy, but it's not a natural or logical consequence. I suppose this is semantics, but the natural consequence of leaving the yard when one lives in a dangerous area is being harmed. Or as someone else said, "If i never do laundry, I won't have clean clothes" is a logical consequence.

A parent imposed consequence might not be a wrong one, but it's not a 'natural' one.

[flyingspaghettimama]

Or as someone else said, "If i never do laundry, I won't have clean clothes" is a logical consequence.

Actually, cmb123 used the laundry example as a natural consequence, not a logical one in response to me saying that logical consequences happening to me on a daily basis.

Ya think semantics figure in here? At all? :p I guess those terms are debatable. I do agree, I find the laundry example to be logical. If I do X, then Y will probably happen (or not happen). Helping children to think through these things before they happen, not after. Or if they do happen (ie. neighbor kid doesn't want to play with me just because I called her a stinkfoot), how did they happen and how else could you find a solution?

I think logical consequences are examples such as saying - when you run through the store with your ice cream cone, you might lose it. How will you feel about that? When it falls out because you chose to run through the store anyhow, we're not buying another one. I think that might be a sad thing. Some parents might think of this as mean, but not as mean as say...me taking her cone and eating it all because she was running. Although that would be yummier for me.

[Ellien C]

Love & Logic is a particular philosophy of discipline. Like Taking Children Seriously or some of the others. (I don't know that it's LIKE TCS, just that they are both philosophies). I'm interested in the answers from someone familiar with that school of thought. A co-worker of mine is following that.

As for natural vs. logical consequences. Someone set me straight once with this analogy.

The natural consequences of my toddler training wetting her pants are ... wet pants.
The logical consequences might be that I help her to change her underwear, which is the same thing I would do in the same situation - lets say I sneezed PP or something.
For me this means no shaming, no punishment etc. Easy to see with potty learning huh? I try to follow the same philosophy toward other things.

[johub]

can [/I]be one of the tools in the overall toolbox of any discipline method, including gentle discipline. It's all in how it is used. Tools in and of themselves are not "good" or "bad"; they are simply vehicles that can be used by parents to accomplish their GD or non-GD objectives.

This is such a beautiful way of phrasing this! THank you for putting this so well.
Joline

[LauraN]

ILogical consequences can be one of the tools in the overall toolbox of any discipline method, including gentle discipline. It's all in how it is used. Tools in and of themselves are not "good" or "bad"; they are simply vehicles that can be used by parents to accomplish their GD or non-GD objectives.

The only issue I have is that when you apply this to spanking, it doesn't hold up. Spanking is bad, period. Even if it is used by loving parents, it is still hurting, shaming and disconnecting from the child. I cannot imagine a single situation in which it would be acceptable for a parent to say, "I love you and want you to grow into a self-confident, responsible adult. So I'm going to hit you so you'll learn not to do what you've just done."

But I really agree with pps who have said that this question of logical consequences is a matter of semantics. I think the only way "logical consequences" can be used within GD is, for example, to say, "If you do this, you will get hurt. I'm going to help you avoid getting hurt."

The "logical consequence" is that you're helping the child not have to face a natural consequence that could be harmful. It's all in the intent.

[jaidymama]

I am familiar with the "Love & Logic" books because I worked at a non profit company who cares for kids in group homes, shelter homes, and foster/adoptive homes. When staff and foster parents are trained, they learn "Love & Logic" style because they are not allowed to physically punish kids, and obviously physical punishment is not acceptable no matter what the requirement.... Anyways, this style sets up expectations and consequences that are clearly defined by parents/staff for the kids. The goal is for kids to develop their own thinking skills that will help them make better choices when they are teens and adults...

On a personal level, I don't always agree with the way they carry out their strategy. But I do think there are some really good things about it, they are able to develop a child's self esteem by giving them lots of little choices. It seems very gentle and loving, but then there's always part of it that seems harsh to me. for instance if one of their examples is if your child won't eat dinner that you emphathise with them and say something like this is what's for dinner. And if they choose not to eat it then that's their choice... the flip side to that is that the parent doesn't allow them to have anything else to eat until breakfast. All the while saying that you know they're hungry but they had the chance to have eaten at dinner.... I think there is more to it, like you can involve them in deciding on what's for dinner and stuff like that.

In general, they state that their idea is to invest in the future by taking the time and effort while your children are younger. They say there are 4 ways to invest in your child's future: 1. Building their self-concept 2. Sharing the control of decision making 3. Offering empathy, then consequences 4. Share the thinking and problem solving.

I can give more examples if anyone is curious. However, I wouldn't recommend this to everyone. My neighbor is a horrible parent (really... she's had her kids taken away several times), and I have thought about lending her this book because maybe if she had some better skills or techniques she would do better... But then I just think what would happen when she chose consequences. Probably like most parenting styles, it takes work on the parents end to be consistant, follow through, and provide good direction.

[jaidymama]

btw... they do diagram a "cycle of trust" which explains about a child's needs and the needs being fulfilled and trust is achieved... so they do advocate for good emotional bonding.

[nonconformnmom]

Laura N wrote: The only issue I have is that when you apply this to spanking, it doesn't hold up.

As soon as I hit "submit reply" after writing that post about tools in the toolkit, I knew someone would bring up spanking. :LOL People always bring up some form of drastic extreme and discredit what was being said. The thread title itself provides the parameters of the tools I am referring to: "How does .... relate to gentle disciplining?" We are posting together here on the Gentle Disciplining forum; therefore, it is assumed we are talking about gentle disciplining philosophy.

We all know that spanking is not part of gentle discipling philosophy.

Spanking is bad, period. Even if it is used by loving parents, it is still hurting, shaming and disconnecting from the child. I cannot imagine a single situation in which it would be acceptable for a parent to say, "I love you and want you to grow into a self-confident, responsible adult. So I'm going to hit you so you'll learn not to do what you've just done."

... goes without saying.

[CaraboosMama]

As for natural vs. logical consequences. Someone set me straight once with this analogy.

The natural consequences of my toddler training wetting her pants are ... wet pants.
The logical consequences might be that I help her to change her underwear, which is the same thing I would do in the same situation - lets say I sneezed PP or something.
For me this means no shaming, no punishment etc. Easy to see with potty learning huh? I try to follow the same philosophy toward other things.

That is an excellent analogy :thumb

I have not read "love & logic" but our GD does include logical consequences
i.e. if dd makes a mess, beofre moving on to a new activity, she & I clean it up together
if she is using a toy to hit the cats or one of her friends, she can't play with that toy anymore (not FOREVER, just at that moment :) )

Our DD is only 16 mths old - so we don't have too many issues yet - she's still figuring out how everything works...but I do think that it is important to teach children that actions have consequences - and to do it in a loving way.

[UnschoolnMa]

If we have to make it happen, if it has to be imposed, it's not natural it's logical. Natural consequences just happen without any help from us. Don't take out the garbage=smelly house. Forget to feed fish often enough=dead fish.


When my kids were younger I suppose logical consequences were used in reference to safety. It's not logical to let a 3 yr old remain in a situation where she clearly doesn't understand that her actions are unsafe, so I intervene and remove said unsafe thingy, but that's more developmental to me than punishing or consequence. :shrug

With older, more developmentally mature kids I haven't really seen logical (imposed) consequences to be necessary. At least not with mine. I have prevented a natural consequence from happening to them too.

[Leilalu]

I think children left to themselves all of the time(Always using natural consequences and self guidance) will not always come to a point of learnign what is reasonable and good on their own. Children need guidance. Children flourish when there are boundaries. Especially little children. As far as safety is concerned.Not familiar with all the philosophies or booksa descussed ehre, but wanted to add my two cents. I think the toolbox idea is a bit flawed though. I think you need the right tools. Spanking is out, yelling is out, abuse of all kinds is out, etc etc etc. Each situation needs a different response. There are also things that come "naturally" nto me as a wise mama, but not to a child, that need to be taken into account.Children learn, and are taught wisdom and the correct way of doing things. But we had better raise them with love and respect while doing so or we have failed. I think we need all of it-love,logic, gentle discipline,whatever else I am forgetting-:D

[UnschoolnMa]

I think children left to themselves all of the time(Always using natural consequences and self guidance) will not always come to a point of learnign what is reasonable and good on their own.

I don't think it's accurate to say that always using natural consequences and self guidance means that children are "left to themselves all of the time". Parents who don't get into imposed consequences can still be very involved with their children and can still give plenty of guidance. Discussion is a pretty wonderful thing, even with little kids. :)

[cmb123]

Discussion is a pretty wonderful thing, even with little kids. :)

Absolutely!!!!

[johub]

The only issue I have is that when you apply this to spanking, it doesn't hold up. Spanking is bad, period. Even if it is used by loving parents, it is still hurting, shaming and disconnecting from the child.

I would say the argument still stands because the "tool" in this case is the hand of the parent. A hand is neither good or bad. It is just a hand.
It can be used in gd and non GD ways.
The GD way would be to use the hand for a hug or a pat on the back or a stroke of the hair or holding hands.
The non GD way to use that tool would be the spanking. (which is bad)
So it depends on how you look at it.

Joline

[Leilalu]

I don't think it's accurate to say that always using natural consequences and self guidance means that children are "left to themselves all of the time". Parents who don't get into imposed consequences can still be very involved with their children and can still give plenty of guidance. Discussion is a pretty wonderful thing, even with little kids. :)


I didn't mean them one in the same. i meant if they are left to themselves. I wasn't making a blanket statement.

[UnschoolnMa]

I didn't mean them one in the same. i meant if they are left to themselves. I wasn't making a blanket statement.

Cool... good to know :thumb Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[UUMom]

Joline, are you saying spanking is GD sometimes? Am I misunderstanding?

[canadiyank]

A hand is neither good or bad. It is just a hand.
It can be used in gd and non GD ways.
The GD way would be to use the hand for a hug or a pat on the back or a stroke of the hair or holding hands.
The non GD way to use that tool would be the spanking. (which is bad)


UUMom - did you mean this? I think she was pretty clear...my reading of it showed that she was saying a hand *itself* was neither good/bad but the purpose for which it was used was either GD/non-GD...

[UUMom]

UUMom - did you mean this? I think she was pretty clear...my reading of it showed that she was saying a hand *itself* was neither good/bad but the purpose for which it was used was either GD/non-GD...
\
Whew! yes, I must have misread, obviously. Thank you .

[Raynbow]

I personally like the Love and Logic ideas - BUT, I will say that you need to use your own judgement. There are some things I think are just too severe, and others that are perfect "teaching tools". If your 6 yr old wants to go out to play in the snow, but refuses to put a coat on - I agree with letting him go out and get cold - betcha he wears his coat next time he goes out. However, if your 6 yr old goes to school and forgets his lunch... making him go hungry all day is just a bit too severe to me. If it is your 13 yr old who has "forgotten" his lunch for the 4th time this week (but remembered his gameboy) ... well, then I'm not feeling it's too severe. It depends on the child, the parent, the age of the child, the personality, the "misbehavior" - it depends on a LOT of things.

[intentfulady]

3 raised.
I used L&L as a GUIDELINE the last 10-12 years

Went and bought a new set when new dd was 15 months old.

He says your kid is as smart as any german shepard, and can learn the same LOL !!!!!

It reminded me how intelligent I was as a child, and to assume my children are at least that smart.

L&L or "The Real World" as we call it, has been a fantastic help. It takes me the controller out of the enforcer position, thus NOT making ME the bad guy, preserving our relationship, I am able to support and love my child while they navigate the "real world" I do not have to spend my time making up "consequences'

It is most challenging through the teen years. No rescuing. I cried many nights watching my teen suffer as he endured the natural consequences of his actions.

The times I jumped in prevented them from VALUABLE lessons.

As we allow our children to experiences natural consequences, they develop mastery in thier world. It is ultimately empowering.

As a pagan and someone who lives in magic, this approach is in step with our beliefs and our reality.