logical consequences for young children are punitive

[ReadingMommy]

About driving lessons home...I've seen many 7-10 years olds who are able to comprehend that a boundary exists and learn to not cross it. I would like my 7yo to accept certain boundaries. Even if his acceptance is "This is the way things are in our house. I don't get why. But I'll cooperate." Are you saying that's not a possible outcome if punitive methods are not being used?

[ArmsOfLove]

Originally Posted by ReadingMommy

About driving lessons home...I've seen many 7-10 years olds who are able to comprehend that a boundary exists and learn to not cross it. I would like my 7yo to accept certain boundaries. Even if his acceptance is "This is the way things are in our house. I don't get why. But I'll cooperate." Are you saying that's not a possible outcome if punitive methods are not being used?

I'm not sure why you think I would ever say that I've always maintained that I believe punitive parenting to be far too permissive. The idea that children are given the choice to misbehave is at odds with trying to teach them to behave.

I'm saying it's a goal that is likely to end up frustrating you and can easily cause people to be stuck in a punitive mode at the sake of relationship.

Everything I'm talking about is what I did to help my children learn the rules and be successful at them without punishment. Until they are ready to be responsible for something they aren't entrusted with free reign over it or expected to do it without my help. I certainly don't wait for my children to want and accept certain boundaries before they are in play.

Because the issue isn't what to do when they are fully complying and cooperating - it's how you handle the times when they aren't.

[ReadingMommy]

Well, I'm just trying to understand exactly what you're trying to say, but I think my framework for understanding (including the language I use) must not be jiving. Or it could be Baby brain impairing my logic. I think I will just sit here and let you all hash this out, and then maybe things will become clearer.

[Chaos Coordinator]

I like the word solution. Like. When 3yo wont leave 2yo alone, separating them until his brain is un-stuck is a solution. It's not something I'm trying to do TO him, so much as something I'm trying to do to diffuse the situation.


One thing ive been working on when I have to take away video games or cut back on (fill in the blank) is telling them "you can try again when you're a little older". Instead of a punitive approach which would be "you're grounded for a month" or whatever, it's simply "you're not ready and we will try again later"

[bananacake]

So a more accurate title for this thread might be a variation on what CC said:

Seeking out a logical consequence for a pre logic child can be punitive.


Because it seems most would agree that logical consequences for young children are not inherently punitive.

[rjy9343]

I think the reason saying if you do not do/stop doing x, then y is going to happen seems punitive is because so often it is being used in a punitive way. Some of the punitive experts say warn your child once and then follow through with whatever consequence you have promised. But there is a world of difference between defusing a situation and punishing a three year old. Or between saying if you will not get into the van on your own, I will pick you up and put you in the van and get in the van before you get a spanking.
Logical consequences never seemed punitive to me until I started reading parenting with love and logic. (My husband has it and I thought maybe I better see what is in it now before he implements it and then it becomes a power struggle). Logical consequences are just code for punishment or even revenge in that book. So I can see how logical consequences can be nothing more than a way to feel good about punishing. But a logical consequence is supposed to be a solution to a problem, not pay back. Using the mall example earlier, my niece was nearly six when I did that. She is used to being told no automatically, so her way of getting what she wanted was to run before you could stop her. What she learned that day was two fold, she saw just how large the mall is and how easily she could be lost. The second thing she learned is that if she saw something and wanted to look a little longer, then all she had to do was ask and she could do it. There was also the side benefit of getting a lot big muscle movement in that day.
ETA: I had my timetables confused. My niece was nearly seven, not six like I said earlier. Sorry about that.

[CelticJourney]

Originally Posted by ReadingMommy

...OTOH...whether he fully "gets" it or not, would the "consequence" change? If the answer is no, then I think this becomes a discussion of semantics. .....

In some ways I agree with you. I do think there is a delicate line of relationship in the semantics though. If the consequence is the same - remove the toy used as a weapon - there can still be a relationship dynamic involved. Do I blame the child and label them 'disobedient' or do I learn something new about what they can and can not handle regarding impulse control, etc to use to make decisions in the future (ie, set them up for success). Imo, it's about who takes the burden of the learning and boundaries moving forward.

---------- Post added at 09:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 AM ----------

Originally Posted by bananacake

So a more accurate title for this thread might be a variation on what CC said:

Seeking out a logical consequence for a pre logic child can be punitive.


Because it seems most would agree that logical consequences for young children are not inherently punitive.

Nope....I disagree....removing a toy used as a weapon is not a logical consequence I impose ON a toddler. It is the logical consequence I impose on the boundary I have established. If I am seeking out 'they did this so something MUST happen to them as a consequence', then it's punitive. Again, for me, it's about who is doing the learning.

[Aerynne]

When I read Parenting with Love and Logic, I thought "I see the logic, but where is the love?" The sad thing is that my state uses those classes as training for foster parents.

[bananacake]

Originally Posted by CelticJourney

Nope....I disagree....removing a toy used as a weapon is not a logical consequence I impose ON a toddler. It is the logical consequence I impose on the boundary I have established. If I am seeking out 'they did this so something MUST happen to them as a consequence', then it's punitive. Again, for me, it's about who is doing the learning.

What do you disagree with? I feel as if you just restated what I said.

[twoplustwo]

This is such a good thread. One of those were I often "thank" opposing views.

Anyway, so just thinking out loud.

Natural consequences can hurt or terrify a child more than logical consequences.

For instance, my dd (toddler at the time) HATE being in the stroller, in the grocery cart. One time after we talked about not running away, I let her out of the cart at the store. She ran away.

Logical consequence - I pick her up & put in back in the stroller.
She kicks and screams but I need to keep her safe & also, we need groceries.

Natural consequence, gentleman steps out from behind a fruit stand & says kindly Hello little girl! Dd, who is TERRIFIED of all strangers, run screaming & crying back to me. She is more upset at the natural than the logical, which is pretty standard in some cases.

She is still pre-logic. So in this case, the natural consequence is not punitive because its natural, even if the consequence is worse than the logical one? But is the logical consequence punitive?

The only way to set her up for success is to never take her anywhere that she can't run free.

To take it one step further. I do not spank. I was not spanked as a discipline method (but they were punitive) so even if I didn't gd I wouldn't spank.

But obviously spanking is a better and a more gentle method for a toddler running the street with a car coming than the natural consequence? And setting my toddler up for success would involve never letting her play in the front yard which would be upsetting and unlogical to her (I mean its right there, she can see it!)

So isnt the logical consequence of you go in the street we go inside for the day, the most gentle and easiest to comprehend response? Even more so than not giving her the chance to her play in the front yard (setting her up for success)?

Not even sure if any that makes any sense or not. Just trying to figure it out.

Regardless, it is still ME who needs to do the learning. I do tend to blur the punitive & consequence line but I get a little better every day. But thinking it through helps me keep that line more clear!

[CelticJourney]

Originally Posted by bananacake

What do you disagree with? I feel as if you just restated what I said.

Again, it's a delicate line. You said "most would agree that logical consequences for young children are not inherently punitive". I am saying that logical consequences applied to young children are punitive because directing the application TO the child places the burden of learning on the child. Logical consequences (which, yes, might be the same action) where the parent learns of a problem and makes changes to set their child up for success places the burden on the parent and not the child who is pre-logic. Make any sense or am I mudding the waters?

[twoplustwo]

Originally Posted by Aerynne

When I read Parenting with Love and Logic, I thought "I see the logic, but where is the love?"

I had the same reaction when I read that book.

You are 10 minutes late to pick up time, I leave you out all night? Not leaving my kid out all night for being a little late to pick up time.

Plus, what if this ONE TIME they actually had a really great reason for being late?

[bananacake]

Originally Posted by CelticJourney

Again, it's a delicate line. You said "most would agree that logical consequences for young children are not inherently punitive". I am saying that logical consequences applied to young children are punitive because directing the application TO the child places the burden of learning on the child. Logical consequences (which, yes, might be the same action) where the parent learns of a problem and makes changes to set their child up for success places the burden on the parent and not the child who is pre-logic. Make any sense or am I mudding the waters?

So you're saying I should have chosen a different preposition?

[CelticJourney]

Originally Posted by twoplustwo

This is such a good thread. One of those were I often "thank" opposing views.

....So isnt the logical consequence of you go in the street we go inside for the day, the most gentle and easiest to comprehend response? Even more so than not giving her the chance to her play in the front yard (setting her up for success)?

Regardless, it is still ME who needs to do the learning. I do tend to blur the punitive & consequence line but I get a little better every day. But thinking it through helps me keep that line more clear!

I think the second paragraph is the key. If you brought a toddler in expecting them to learn 'I lost my outside time because I ran to the road. I shouldn't do that next time' and then expect her to have 'learned her lesson' the next day or week, then it's out of perspective to me. If you brought in her in with the understanding that the issue with the road was more significant than the benefit of playing out side, then it is the adult learning and making changes that benefit the child the most.

---------- Post added at 09:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------

Originally Posted by bananacake

So you're saying I should have chosen a different preposition?

It's all about the 'who' to me, so maybe it's a pronoun thing somewhere

[twoplustwo]

Originally Posted by CelticJourney

I think the second paragraph is the key. If you brought a toddler in expecting them to learn 'I lost my outside time because I ran to the road. I shouldn't do that next time' and then expect her to have 'learned her lesson' the next day or week, then it's out of perspective to me. If you brought in her in with the understanding that the issue with the road was more significant than the benefit of playing out side, then it is the adult learning and making changes that benefit the child the most.

Ok, well maybe that's why I am confused.

I am not (unintentionally) punitive because I ever want my kids to "learn their lesson".

I don't think my parents ever wanted me to "learn a lesson" - they were just parenting the best way they knew how.

It's just hard in the heat of the moment to not do what you were raised to do.

When you know better, you do better. That type of thing.