Grounded!

[Doran]

Please explain this particular disciplinary action to me. If I was ever grounded as a child, I don't remember it. Yet, I regularly run across young people who've been grounded. I understand it in theory. But, is it a popular, or in your opinion, common form of discipline? What about an effective one? Did it work for YOU? Do you or would you ground your children?

 

I suppose it's a bit like tomato staking. Um..without the stakes. :D

[Just Me]

I don't ground mine, because to me this means that they stay home, which they do too much of already. I do restrict privledges for mine. No electronics is common.

[Sue G in PA]

I think the word means different things to different families. For us, grounding means loss of priveleges for a certain period of time or loss of one particular privelege for a certain period of time. I'll ground my ds10, for instance, from seeing his neighborhood friend for a few days if he consistently slacks on his chores or if he consistently comes home late from said friends house. I'll ground dd11 from phone usage or email usage if she is behaving rebellious or disrespectfully toward us or treating her siblings unkindly, etc. I catch myself using the phrase, "your grounded" with my younger kids, but realize it isn't effective b/c what do I ground them from? It's better for the little ones to be more direct and specific at the get go. "Because you did xyz, you can't watch tv today or because you left your bike out in the rain when we told you to put it away, you lose the bike tomorrow", etc.

[PariSarah]

I guess the logic is the same as any privilege-removal system. Boredom is the punishment.

 

I have no idea how common or popular it is. Isaac occasionally comes back inside immediately after going out because "M and L are grounded because of their grades" or "because they haven't been doing their chores." It doesn't seem to happen very often, but it has happened, from time to time.

 

Isaac was grounded himself at one point when he and his friends had a burning (ahem) desire to play with matches. He lost the privilege of unchaperoned outside play time for about a month, and we had almost no time to chaperone him. So he didn't get much outside play time for that month.

 

I think "grounding" is too unspecified for us to use very much. It did fit that one incident, since unchaperoned playing with his friends was the problem. But we didn't "ground" him from sports or other structured activities during that time. He wasn't inside for a month. It was just unstructured outside time that he lost.

 

The difference between grounding and tomato staking is that grounding doesn't necessarily include the idea of keeping the kid with you, interacting with you. It's just a removal of out-of-the-home privileges.

[Kay in Cal]

I remember being grounded as a teen... when I had lots of outside activities and friends I wanted to "hang out" with. I guess it was effective--it usually kept me from doing whatever had caused me to be grounded in the first place (as I remember, being home after my curfew was the main cause). I would ground my child if they were a teen and I thought that going out was part of the problem.

 

For younger children, I think I'd just restrict privileges. No TV or video games or whatever is what we have done thus far. My kids are too young to be going out by themselves anyhow!

[Robin in Tx]

In our house it means you can't do anything or go anywhere. Or receive phone calls. It's kind of like lock down. Solitary confinement :).

 

Rarely happens here... only for the most severe offenses.

[Starr]

Long before I had children good friends of mine said they didn't ground their children because it grounded everyone in the family. This stuck with me. We take away computer time or a particular something that doesn't effect the whole family. It seems that mostly a good threat will do. :)

[Rosie_0801]

Grounding means you have to stay home, and your mother will do her best to deprive you of anything you will find interesting. I suspect it is more of a punishment to the mother, as she will have to deal with a sullen teenager. Of course, being constantly told off for sulking (impossible not to really, and will be accused of it anyway) will make life unpleasant for said child. I don't find it a particularly useful thing to do, but I guess it must work for some.

Rosie

[Pamela H in Texas]

Well, it seems to be a popular form of punishment but....

 

well....

 

1) we don't use punishment to control our children (now teens)

2) generally discipline in the teen years shouldn't punish mom/dad like I believe grounding would

3) most people don't seem to stick to it and most kids seem to bypass it somehow

 

Now, one of my kids MIGHT feel "grounded" if part of the consequence that was logical was for them to be temporarily restricted from something. We've not had it come up but things like:

 

1) you're caught speeding, you don't drive until I'm sure you'll be safe (any number of discipline tools may be used including temporarily not driving).

 

2) after your chores and schooling are finished, you can have screen time (so if you refused to do your work for the week, you'd technically be grounded for the weekend til it was done?).

 

It's just not my thing and my kids really do well with real life consequences and getting it over with and not feeling particularly punished. They "get" it.

[Sue G in PA]

Well, it seems to be a popular form of punishment but....

 

well....

 

1) we don't use punishment to control our children (now teens)

2) generally discipline in the teen years shouldn't punish mom/dad like I believe grounding would

3) most people don't seem to stick to it and most kids seem to bypass it somehow

 

Now, one of my kids MIGHT feel "grounded" if part of the consequence that was logical was for them to be temporarily restricted from something. We've not had it come up but things like:

 

1) you're caught speeding, you don't drive until I'm sure you'll be safe (any number of discipline tools may be used including temporarily not driving).

 

2) after your chores and schooling are finished, you can have screen time (so if you refused to do your work for the week, you'd technically be grounded for the weekend til it was done?).

 

It's just not my thing and my kids really do well with real life consequences and getting it over with and not feeling particularly punished. They "get" it.

 

 

Pam, I'm curious as to how discipline would work in your family w/out punishment. I think we need a disciplinary overhaul in our house and this intrigues me. What do you do? How does this work? Thanks.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Sue,

 

I'd be glad to help if I can....how old are your kids? It is a LOT easier to overhaul when they are 3 or 8 than teenagers (though it can be done :) ).

 

If I can give you just a few basic rules to remember, they would be:

 

1) consistency is key (for some kids it must be 99.9999%; most kids will let you off easier though).

2) stay calm

3) say things ONE time only

4) natural, logical or built in logical consequences

 

And THINK LONG TERM. Though almost always I've had situations clear up faster than punitive measures work for most people, I try to remember that that isn't really the goal. I've done my best work when I've remembered. I've done the worst when I've forgotten.

 

Most of the time, it's just a matter of planning. Do you have some specific situations? Also, I sent some other people a few posts from the past if you're interested. It does help to have an idea what age range you're dealing with though.

 

My main goal in parenting was to give my kids the skills and tools they need in this life (and ideally, in our eyes, to serve God). I gave them those things early on, established our authority though gently, and let them practice with us serving as training wheels, a safety net, a balancing bar, or whatever else was needed. But sometimes they got skinned knees, hurt feelings, or had to learn the hard way. So far though, it's worked out VERY well.

 

I'll also tell you that I have one of the easiest children on the face of the earth. I was also blessed with one that has been more challenging than any foster child or daycare child or family member child I've cared for. The latter was the one that needed the better discipline the most. I'm so thankful he gave me the opportunity to learn.

 

There isn't a cure-all answer. But if you can look at things differently, you'll find it's not too tough either. Share some scenarios and maybe we can look at them a little differently :)

[Doran]

Yesterday, I interacted with a young teenage friend who had been grounded for getting bad grades (though I'm not sure what that meant....?) in an AP History class. She described to me that the work load was so heavy she was just having a hard time keeping up. But, I imagine the parents' POV was that she'd been out having too much fun and neglecting her studies.

 

Another boy we know seems to be grounded all the time. I know his parents pretty well and imagine, though I don't know for sure, that he might be grounded for being disrespectful.

 

What situations would you feel were worthy of grounding (or priviledge remmoval)?

 

I have to admit, our girls are good. Far from perfect, but good. Still, I recognize in myself a dislike of harsh discipline, and in my book, grounding is harsh. So, I'm mulling all this over...

 

:bigear:

[Slartibartfast]

We remove privileges for somethings. Generally it is goofing off and not doing what she needs to be doing (not listening while being told she needs to do her work)

 

Generally we just tell her she cannot use electronics, which dd HATES, she loves her ds.

 

Dd is generally good and we are not huge on *PUNISHMENT* but we do want her to learn to be responsible and to help around the house. We aren't super strict on chores but we do want her to help.

 

My mom often tried to ground us, but the problem is we *preferred* being in our room and reading books. Grounding NEVER worked with us, she usually ended up making us go outside or something. :lol:

 

IMO, it really depends on the kid what will work and what won't.

[Jenny in Atl]

I was never grounded (was a good kid) and I have not yet reached that stage with my dds. So I won't say never. :lol: But most likely not.

[Kay in Cal]

Well... I was grounded as a teen for staying out past my curfew once or twice. Truth was, both times I was out with friends going to parties that were far beyond our years. It was a rare occurance for me, but still not appropriate behavior for a 16 or 17 year old. I really was a "good girl", got good grades, was respectful... and in retrospect when I got grounded it was deserved.

 

I know my dh got grounded his senior year when his parents discovered he wasn't sleeping over at his best friend's house after all, but was staying in his college girlfriend's dorm room on a semi-regular basis. I would have grounded him too.

 

I think "grounding" only works as a consequence when the infraction has to do with inappropriate behavior when unsupervised out of the home. It follows... if you can't behave yourself, then you have to stay home. So I'd ground for anything that is seems appropriate for. Of course, my boys will never be that old, right? Right?

[E_Edgerton]

It wasn't so long ago that my parents were grounding me! I have to admit I learned nothing, got more angry, and to be really honest...my Dad and stepmother worked an hour away....so I didn't stay "grounded" for long, because no one was around to enforce it.:001_huh: I personally feel that a serious conversation and a consequence for the child is much more effective.

[Robin in Tx]

Sometimes others ground for lighter reasons, and it's really not as harsh as you might think. For bad grades, perhaps a parent would tell a child no social activities during the week... they have to come home every day and get their homework done and not watch tv or talk on the phone. Often this applies to weekdays only, and lasts until the child has brought their grades back up, etc. I don't see this sort of "grounding" as harsh... people on these boards do this sort of thing all the time and they call it tomato staking (as you noted). It's a form of disciplining in terms of working with them to develop good habits and get rid of the old bad ones.

 

ETA: I deleted this out of respect for my dd's privacy.

 

But you're right... people call different things grounding... and having a child that is easily distracted and will do ANYTHING to get out of her work (she is the QUEEN of procrastination and deflection), I can see how some parents might have to use mild grounding to keep their kids indoors and focused on their work when their kid has been slacking too much.

[OnTheBrink]

My parents grounded me for entire quarters, based on my school performance. However, it really didn't work. My whole social life was band and I had it for 3 classes a day, had to be at football games, had to be at competitions, so their "grounding" didn't really amount to much.

[fivetails]

When I was a child, being "grounded" in our family meant spending the day (or days, whatever the time frame was) in your room, laying on your bed, staring at the ceiling. That was it. We were allowed to get up to use the washroom and for mealtimes, but other than that the time was spent face up on the bed. B.O.R.I.N.G. :tongue_smilie:

 

I don't do this with my kids - not like that anyway. I've "grounded" occasionally, but it means "not allowed to go out to play"....it's pretty common here for that - if kids come to the door looking for dd11 and she tells them she's "grounded", they know immediately that it means she's not allowed out to play because it's the same for them.

[Rosie_0801]

Pam, I'm curious as to how discipline would work in your family w/out punishment. I think we need a disciplinary overhaul in our house and this intrigues me. What do you do? How does this work? Thanks.

 

"Children are from Heaven" by John Gray is a good explanation of discipline without punishment. He repeats himself a great deal which is really annoying, but the gist of what he is saying is worthwhile. Another thing I have found helpful is two often used phrases at playgroup: "It's ok, they're just learning" and "accidents happen sometimes, don't they?" We're applying this to toddlers, but there are a lot of similarities between toddlerhood and the teenage years.

Instead of "don't you dare speak to me like that" you can calmly say "I'm sorry, but my ears can't listen to you properly when you speak like that" or "come back in five minutes when you've thought of a more polite way to say that." (Repeat like a broken record if necessary.) Of course, you have to make sure you are open and willing for negotiations when they do calm down. It's not going to work if you are still fuming and are just waiting to say NO to whatever they ask.

Instead of shouting at someone for breaking something, you expect them to clean it up, and if necessary, replace it. After all "accidents happen sometimes, don't they?"

"Would you please put the washing on the line, so I can make dinner. That way you can eat before you go out. You can save your pocket money for something else." Or "I would like the the washing to be put away, and the dishes washed before we watch the video. Which one will you do?"

It's definately best to prepare in advance. Instead of telling someone they can't go out because they didn't do their schoolwork, you tell them at the start of the day or week that X must be done by Y if they want to go out. Providing them enough information to make an educated decision means the outcome is a consequence not a punishment. They've chosen to do it to themselves, you didn't do anything at all. When they get ratty about the consequences, you commiserate "It's disappointing that you are going to be late, but you know, it was your decision. I guess next time you'll make sure you get your work done."

The language used may vary with age, but the principles remain the same.

:)

Rosie

[8filltheheart]

Please explain this particular disciplinary action to me. If I was ever grounded as a child, I don't remember it. Yet, I regularly run across young people who've been grounded. I understand it in theory. But, is it a popular, or in your opinion, common form of discipline? What about an effective one? Did it work for YOU? Do you or would you ground your children?

 

I suppose it's a bit like tomato staking. Um..without the stakes. :D

 

Well, I guess my philosophy is this.......I take all parenting advice, etc with a grain of salt. Every child is different and has to be dealt with as an individual, not as a lump (this approach works with all children.)

 

I have 4 children that are usually immediately compliant. They are willing to have a discussion and will work hard at trying to alter negative behavior. If they were the only children I had, I would pat myself on the back and think, wow, I'm an awesome parent. (I think those are the parents taht write most parenting books!!)

 

I have 2 very strong-willed children. They are/were harder to deal with and taking away abused priviledges is one form of discipline that works. I call that grounding. I don't know what you call it. For example, if ds stayed out late and didn't call and let us know why he was running late, he lost his car privledges b/c he abused his right to have the car. (which essentially meant he couldn't leave the house b/c he was the only one he knew that had a car)

 

Then I have one that doesn't even fit the definition of strong-willed b/c the only thing that matters to him is immediate self-gratification. He is in his mind living the life of perpetually grounded b/c for him priviledges have to be earned that the other children have automatically. I would like to see anyone sit and try to calmly rationalize with him when he wants something that you have simply told him no about. Unless you have parented a child like him........you don't have a clue!

 

I don't think anyone anywhere has a "magic" parenting formula that is applicable to all children.

[Angel]

I was grounded as a child/teen. Only once did I believe that it was too long of a grounding, and even that time it was definitely deserved. I had things like phone privileges taken away, tv privileges, not being able to go out with friends/boyfriends. My senior year my parents informed me that if my grades dropped even a little, dating would be cut-off (I was dating future dh at time).

 

Did I grumble and complain? Of course. Did I deserve what I got? Almost always.

 

I am glad my parents disciplined me as they did.

[Pamela H in Texas]

"It's disappointing that you are going to be late, but you know, it was your decision. I guess next time you'll make sure you get your work done."

 

EEEK....

 

One other thing we don't do is state the obvious or what we would like the kid to deduce from the situation. We trust that they are smart enough to figure that part out (at least eventually) and so to say the second 2/3 of that is much like rubbing it in their faces.

[abbeyej]

When I was a kid, it was never called being "grounded" it was called "losing privileges", but I think in practice it was pretty much the same. The closest I can think of really, was losing my car for a week when I was 16 (and I still think that particular incident was a matter of miscommunication rather than disobedience on my part).

 

With my own kids, certainly they can lose various privileges for certain behaviors. I guess the idea is the same. I just don't like the word "grounded", lol.

[Tap]

They can´t go outside unless they are alone. Phone, video games, most TV, and anything that requires either a battery or electricity are off limits (excep appliances). Any fun activity that was planned are canceled.... period. Birthday parties and sleepovers are canceled, the only thing we wouldn´t cancel are our family events or sports team events.

 

DD9 gets grounded for 24 hours if I have to tell her 3 times to do anything. It is automatic on the 3rd time I have to repeat myself. She has been grounded about 5 times in 2 years. 3 of the groundings were in the first month, the other two were in the next 9 months. It is very hard on her as her best friend lives across the street and is also homeschooled. They are together almost every day.

 

Ds13 was grounded for going out of bounds in the neighborhood when he was little. He was grounded again when he got behind in a PS class, but told me his home work was caught up, when it wasn´t.

 

 

It worked well in all circumstances that we have used it. We don´t use it for a surprise punishment, they know that it is the ultimate result of their actions.

[8filltheheart]

EEEK....

 

One other thing we don't do is state the obvious or what we would like the kid to deduce from the situation. We trust that they are smart enough to figure that part out (at least eventually) and so to say the second 2/3 of that is much like rubbing it in their faces.

 

When you do something wrong, there is no reason to not state that consequence is in direct relation to the behavior. That is real life in all scenerios. If I make a C on a paper b/c of poor grammar, the poor grammar was the source of the C. If I fail to get a promotion b/c I am not taking independent initiative, than during a DOC (discussion of contributions) my employer will tell me that I was not chosen b/c others are doing x,y, and z and I am seeking permission or need to be requested to do it before I do it......If I want to be promoted, I need to start taking independent initiative.

 

If a child makes the decision to not doing something and they are disappointed b/c the consequence is that they lose the priviledge to doing what they wanted, there is absolutely no reason to not point out the relationship.

[Marie in Oh]

I think "grounding" only works as a consequence when the infraction has to do with inappropriate behavior when unsupervised out of the home. It follows... if you can't behave yourself, then you have to stay home. So I'd ground for anything that is seems appropriate for. Of course, my boys will never be that old, right? Right?

 

This is what I think too. If child does not prove to be responsible away from home, he/she will loose the privilidge to be away from home unsupervised. It is a trust issue in my mind.

[Pamela H in Texas]

If I make a C on a paper b/c of poor grammar, the poor grammar was the source of the C.

 

Of course I would tell a kid THAT.

 

Scenario: Kid must have chores done to go to movies with friends. Kid doesn't get chores done. He doesn't need mommy to point it out. There is no point in that.

 

Now if you are punishing him from going to the movies because you just didn't like his attitude all week and have decided to punish him for it, then yeah, you need to tell him. But IMO, he should have known all along it was heading that way in which case we're back to not needing to tell him.

 

Of course, we can just disagree. I'm just pointing out my opinion and reasoning.

[ticklbee]

I believe it's really important for me as a parent to make sure my kids understand my expectations and what the consequences will be for not meeting them.

 

So, if I told them to finish math by noon, I've given them my expectation. But what happens if they don't finish? I've never given them the consequence and imo I don't think it fair at this point to take away a privelege. I need to communicate ahead of time that X privilege will be taken away if math is not completed by noon. I think it's really important for the child to know *what* will happen if they don't finish it. This way they can be held responsible for the consequence.

 

An example of this happened just this morning. My ds was throwing a fit because he had to do his chore of vaccuuming. Rather than fight with him, I set the timer, told him he had 15 min to do his chore and if he didn't finish by time the timer went off I would add a second chore for him to do. He got it done!

 

ETA: Consistency is SO important. If you SAY it then you must follow through and DO it. Don't ever give a consequence that you are not prepared to follow through on.

[8filltheheart]

so to say the second 2/3 of that is much like rubbing it in their faces.

 

**************************************************

Scenario: Kid must have chores done to go to movies with friends. Kid doesn't get chores done. He doesn't need mommy to point it out. There is no point in that.

 

Now if you are punishing him from going to the movies because you just didn't like his attitude all week and have decided to punish him for it, then yeah, you need to tell him. But IMO, he should have known all along it was heading that way in which case we're back to not needing to tell him.

 

Of course, we can just disagree. I'm just pointing out my opinion and reasoning.

 

I don't think "rubbing their faces in it" is in the tone of dialogue and discussing view points, nor is EEK in front of that a simple expansion of your explanation of your parenting approach. A simple statement saying that you don't remind them of the direct association would shift the POV to your perspective vs. a condemnation of another posters POV.

 

I do disagree with you, however. And we can agree on that. I believe good parenting includes pointing out failings and reinforcing those failings have direct consequences. There is nothing wrong in reminding them that similar behavior will have similar consequences and reformed behavior will produce different results.

[Kay in Cal]

We use lots of direct consequences... but my ds's are 4 and 6. They DO need to be reminded of why that consequence came to be, particularly the 4 year old.

[Joanne]

I

think "grounding" only works as a consequence when the infraction has to do with inappropriate behavior when unsupervised out of the home.

 

I feel this way about nearly all imposed consequences.

 

For example, I have noticed that too much screen time for the kids in my family (and those I am paid to care for) often leads to certain language, behavior, and "attitude". If too much time in front of screens creates that, removing screen or severely limiting screen time is related.

 

In most cases, traditional "grounding" punishes ME! Since I'm not the one who did anything wrong (in this circumstance), I do not wish to be confined in my home with a sullen child who is not able to play, be social.

 

That said, if being social with certain people or in certain settings has been determined to cause "X" behavior, I will restrict those situations specifically. I won't, however, restrict social activity totally.

 

I almost NEVER "ground" kids from playing outside. Other parents in the neighborhood have. That's fine for them, clearly, but it would be counter productive here to both child's and mother's mood.

 

I was never grounded as a teen. Care, engagement, boundaries would have been welcomed and needed, but "grounding" would have fueled rebellion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pamela H in Texas

so to say the second 2/3 of that is much like rubbing it in their faces.

**************************************************

Scenario: Kid must have chores done to go to movies with friends. Kid doesn't get chores done. He doesn't need mommy to point it out. There is no point in that.

 

Now if you are punishing him from going to the movies because you just didn't like his attitude all week and have decided to punish him for it, then yeah, you need to tell him. But IMO, he should have known all along it was heading that way in which case we're back to not needing to tell him.

 

Of course, we can just disagree. I'm just pointing out my opinion and reasoning.

 

I don't think "rubbing their faces in it" is in the tone of dialogue and discussing view points, nor is EEK in front of that a simple expansion of your explanation of your parenting approach. A simple statement saying that you don't remind them of the direct association would shift the POV to your perspective vs. a condemnation of another posters POV.

 

I do disagree with you, however. And we can agree on that. I believe good parenting includes pointing out failings and reinforcing those failings have direct consequences. There is nothing wrong in reminding them that similar behavior will have similar consequences and reformed behavior will produce different results.

 

Coming in late on this. I do not presume to speak for Pamela (and she does fine on her own) but I think the heart of what she's saying is that when a child has been given choices:

 

Chores first, period, and then play.....

If they choose to not do the chores, and play is restricted, lectures become unnecessary. A child old enough for this agreement/understanding KNOWS they chose not to play. Adding to it is called "piggybacking" in discipline talk and often creates a reason for the child to think about the lecture but not about their choices that lead to the restriction.

 

In a simplier scenario, you remind a child to take a sweater. They don't. They get cold. Getting cold is the consequence. No additional comment is necessary.

 

I do agree there are discipline, guiding and teaching moments where discussion is needed.

[iquilt]

We've only used it once (so far) in our house and it was for my oldest when she told us she was going across the street to a certain house to play but went somewhere else - she was grounded from leaving our yard for 2 weeks, no matter how many of her friends were out to play. It took me 20 minutes to find her and I was very upset. My parents used grounding instead of spanking and frequently more chores while we were grounded.

[Joanne]

My parents used grounding instead of spanking and frequently more chores while we were grounded.

 

Hm. I'm trying to work this out, age wise.

 

I don't spank, but I think of spanking as a tool for younger kids.

 

And I think of grounding as a tool for older kids (too old for spanking even if you do).

 

I can't imagine "grounding" as I understand it working for younger kids. Or spanking being appropriate for kids old enough to "ground".

[Doran]

Hm. I'm trying to work this out, age wise.

 

I don't spank, but I think of spanking as a tool for younger kids.

 

And I think of grounding as a tool for older kids (too old for spanking even if you do).

 

I can't imagine "grounding" as I understand it working for younger kids. Or spanking being appropriate for kids old enough to "ground".

 

 

 

I agree w/ you Joanne. Yet, it's become apparent to me, through this thread, that "grounding" simply means a removal of privileges to many, rather than an enforced confinement to home or bedroom, which is what it meant when I was a kid.

 

Maybe that's it?

[Pamela H in Texas]

Yet, it's become apparent to me, through this thread, that "grounding" simply means a removal of priviledges to many, rather than an enforced confinement to home or bedroom, which is what it meant when I was a kid.

 

I consider "grounding" without anything attached to it to be FULL restriction: no going outside, no phone, no screens, no anything.

 

But I have heard plenty of people "grounding from XYZ" which is just a removal of certain opportunities or privileges.

 

I've also heard of people "grounding" little kids while I generally think of it as a "teen thing."

[Pamela H in Texas]

I also want to add...

 

I apologize for offending. "eek" was my natural reaction and I tend to write what I'm thinking. However, I also thought the post I was referring to was giving examples from a book. I TRY to be a little gentler with PEOPLE rather than BOOKS so probably would have refrained.

 

Regardless, I do apologize for offending as that is NEVER my intent.

[6packofun]

I don't think that general grounding, as extended time at home or even in their room, is all that effective for most kids. So we "ground" from mp3 players, special events sometimes, and other privileges.

[Robin in Tx]

Pamela, I wasn't offended by the eek comment. Honest!! But if you go back and read thewhole post again, you will see that the particular quote you were responding to was in the context of when the child gets "ratty about the consequences"... the way I read the post, most of the suggested lines were very gentle, but this one was a little harsher and offered only in response to a child who was complaining about their consequences. I can see going at it the way you suggest, but when the kid starts smart mouthing, I can also see telling her that if she wants to get mad about her situation, she needs to get mad at herself, not at you for enforcing the conseuqnces. If a child is compliant and remorseful, I agree that sort of talk would be like rubbing their face in it, but if the child takes an attitude about the rules and conseuqnces... well, I thought that line was actually quite mild! LOL

[8filltheheart]

I wasn't offended either. I was more amused that in the middle of a discourse on positive parenting techniques that a comment like that was made.

 

It's ok......don't take it personally, Pamela. I always laugh at these sort of threads anyway b/c I am continually humbled by how many parenting mistakes I make. I know from my family that only certain of my children make me feel like I know how to be a great parent. When my kids are all grown and I have survived them all.......then and only then will I be able to really feel qualified in knowing how to survive the parenthood of my own children (and no one else's)

 

I think it is absolutely inappropriate to believe that parenting techniques that work with your own children will automatically be effective with others. Maybe for the "average child." But since I live in a world of being humbled by a child with zero self-control and violent rages, I know that parenting techniques don't fit in a neat little forum typing box. :)

[Pamela H in Texas]

in the context

 

Obviously I was skimming WAY too quickly...and again, I apologize :) I also don't have any problem with telling a kid "ya lie in the bed you made" and "get glad in the same pants you got mad in."

 

Momof7, well, I do know that all kids are different. I know well because I do have experience not only with my own more challenging children, but with foster kids, daycare kids and families that I worked with that needed additional help. But of course, most of those scenarios don't fit neatly into "a little forum typing box" either.

 

But my hope is that I CAN help a family (and in this case, one where two parents directly asked for it) even if it is online. I have found success in that in the past. Hopefully something that was said will help them or they can post something more (either here or privately).

 

BTW, *I* learn a lot from these things also. In fact, it was a message board that changed our lives around just over 11 years ago. I'm SO thankful for the opportunity to parent this child and SO thankful that message boards really CAN touch a person's life.

[Rosie_0801]

EEEK....

 

One other thing we don't do is state the obvious or what we would like the kid to deduce from the situation. We trust that they are smart enough to figure that part out (at least eventually) and so to say the second 2/3 of that is much like rubbing it in their faces.

 

I'm not saying you speak to them as though they are stupid! It's just that pointing out the obvious is necessary for kids who aren't used to making the connection between action and consequences. As you said, they will work it out "eventually" but that can be a heck of a long time! The reason I word things that way is that I am genuinely sorry things didn't work out the way they wanted it to, but it also makes it clear that it was their decision, not my fault; and gently reminds them what needs to be done next time around. I'd be saying it with sympathy, not smugness! I have had kids crack it at me, then when I've reminded them it was their choice, they've stopped in their tracks (you can just see their minds saying "****, she's right!") and walked off without another comment. I can see what you are saying and good luck to you if it works! I think you are over-estimating the reasonableness (if that's a word) of a stroppy kid. But maybe yours are more reasonable than a lot I've come across!

I'm not going to go out of the way to make unpleasant consequences.

I'm not going to point out consequences that don't involve me. If a child breaks their own toy, that's their business not mine. Their toy, they can break it if they want to. And save up for another one if they want to.

I'm certainly not saying there is a "one size fits all" approach to parenting, but if they can be trained to respond to something like this, all the better. It saves groundings, shouting and having to be a "big, fat meany" who does nasty stuff to them.

BTW, I wasn't offended and I wouldn't hold it against you even if I was. We all live and learn, don't we?

:)

Rosie