Advent calendar punishment

[LittleMissRayofHope]

Dd is 2.5 and going through a tough stage with defiance and tantrums etc. She's quite advanced (confirmed by nursery and development specialist not just me being pushy partner!) anyway, I have a great big santa decoration with numbered pockets as an advent calendar. Each night I fill tomorrow's pocket with a treat and something small.
This evening she was being quite naughty and I asked her twice to stop what she was doing. I told her I would tell santa and he wouldn't have a present for her tomorrow. She looked at me and purposefully did it again. This happened 3 times and then I walked to santa and told him what she had done. At first she laughed but by bedtime she was genuinely worried she won't get a present and she apologised to me and to santa.

DH thinks I should relent and fill the pocket. I'm not sure.
Is she too young? She will be heart broken tomorrow if there's nothing there.
Stick to my guns or accept the apology and hope she has learnt?

The most amusing things about these threads is the parents who don't punish but pursue 'natural consequences' such as confiscating an iPad (example used above). There is nothing natural about taking a toy away, it is a punishment, plain and simple, merely rebranded for our touchy feely times.

Totally agree with this.
If I tell my child that he won't get a story if he continues to mess about instead of putting his pyjamas on then I have provided a warning / threat in order for him to rectify the situation if he wants his story. If he doesn't need the warning and misses out on his story then some people would see that as a consequence and others will see it as me delivering on the punishment that I had warned about.
Similarly: my child knows that he can use the ipad for a limited amount of time each day. If he goes over that time then he will have his ipad time the following day reduced, if he goes massively over the time then he will lose use of the ipad for the whole of the next day. Some people will call that a natural consequence but I would call it a punishment.
The reason I would call them punishments rather than natural consequences is because I believe a natural consequence to be something that naturally happens, however, in both of the above scenarios I am the instigator of the consequences. I could still allow a story or continued ipad use but I have deliberately chosen not to allow those things based on my child's behaviour / rule breaking.

As my children get older it will become - you stayed out over curfew so tomorrow you are not allowed out.
You purchased alcohol with your pocket money and drank it in the park so next week you will have no pocket money.
I'm sure my children will see those as punishments rather than natural consequences even though both actions that I take will be directly related to their actions.

larry- that is not the natural consequence.
If a child behaved like that ( and mine were never snatchers) then they make others around them upset. They will alienate themselves.

I probably used a poor example with the iPad because that was something that does involve something that looks more like punishment (i.e a withdrawal of privilege). Punishment is retributive and frequently unrelated to what was done. It's not merely rebranding of punishment, even it appears subtle.

So what would you do in such circumstances bigblue? Nothing?

I agree with ShowMeTheWonder -

it does get ridiculous with the "you MUST follow through" business... what if you snap and say "if you do x I'll call a policeman" (my mum's favourite!) or "throw that out the window and I'll throw you out the window"

Kids should know it is ok to change your mind when you have over-reacted. It leads to them being able to back down graciously when THEY have said something stupid.

I agree that natural or logical consequences are a type of punishment, but I like the fact that they are teaching something with a real life lesson. The thing I am really trying to get away from is power struggles, that's why I try to cut out the warnings and threats. I try to cut out the multiple reminders to do things too, I try to just say things once. Kids find all these things controlling, even though we do them to be nice and avoid punishing them. But kids aren't stupid, even from a young age they don't really need to be reminded of the rules, they don't play up because they forgot they aren't supposed to scream and shout and so on.

If a child behaved like that ( and mine were never snatchers) then they make others around them upset. They will alienate themselves.

NOt necessarily, some children end up popular because others are too scared to not be their friend.

I am sure we did all the reward and punishment, ie you stay in your bed and not get up in the middle of the night and you will get the buzz lightyear you wanted, reward exam results etc. Never really had to punish them too much because they dont do much wrong. In fact dd said the other day "you never ground us" and I said thats because you dont really do anything that needs grounding.

They are 17 and 19 and could do a little more round the house to help and maybe work harder at their homework but nobodies perfect. However they dont go out and get drunk or high etc, they are just really nice people, who get on well with most people they meet.

I've been thinking a lot about this overnight. I don't get the impression that there is a consensus about what constitutes a natural consequence. Some commentators include things like being removed from a social setting (eg for snatching, biting), others seem to maintain that anything that is parent instigated (eg being strapped into buggy) is not a natural consequence and is a punishment. I don't think the latter is a practical position to hold in all cases some of our playgroups are already a bit like Lord of The Flies

I liked the acknowledgement in this post:
blog.positivediscipline.com/2012/04/natural-consequences.html?m=1
that 'natural consequences' are not always feasible or desirable. I also think a lot of the effectiveness of discussion etc depends on the age of the child and how articulate he or she is. One of the posts bigblue linked to earlier used the example of choices not commands, and the question "would you like to brush your teeth before or after your pyjamas?". While I have no problem with this strategy and use similar, when some toddlers get this question the answer will not be 'before' or 'after' but 'no'. I'm sure my toddler isn't the only one not advanced enough to understand that not brushing teeth often leads naturally to cavities, pain, extractions etc.

NoLonger
Exactly! One of the best lessons is allowing your kids to see that even Mummy isn't infallible, she makes mistakes and she apologises if she got it wrong. "I was angry and overreacted to your behaviour", much better than "I shouldn't have threatened that, but I'm not going to back down".

I hadn't heard of this 'gentle parenting' thing, but when I read that link, it pretty much describes what I do. It's not being a total pushover and letting your DC rule the roost. I treat my kids with respect, and expect the same back.

For anyone wondering about how it works - mine are 12 and 10 year old and very respectful and generally well behaved.

Ugh,

These threads repeat and repeat. The concept of 'natural' consequences is ridiculous. Most of those spoken about are not natural and only consequent due to the fact that they are a consequence of a parent's decision. And genuinely natural consequences include being run over and hit back hard if you hit or bite someone, neither of which I suspect are included in the top five consequences of the proponents of this style of parenting.

Parenting is about modelling behaviour and also preparing a human being for the society into which they are going to have to live. That will normally include being accountable to a boss, including his or her whims, and having to constrain one's behaviour to fit social circumstances, or face rather more substantial 'consequences', including unemployment and jail.

Most parents get it right some of the time and wrong some of the time but, with good will, as most here have, their children generally grow up civilised law abiding members of society. However, there is (IMO) a link between the self-entitlement of many young people and the 'no discipline' style of parenting.

Parrallax
re the brushing teeth example. My way of doing that would be natural consequence of brushing teeth with be something good.

Often its just a case of turning the statement around.

"If you don't brush your teeth, you won't get a story" sounds much harsher than, "Right, let's get your teeth brushed and then we can jump into bed and read your story!".

You are saying the same thing, but its a positive outcome, rather than a threat of punishment.

Larry
You are (perhaps deliberately?) misunderstanding what people are saying to you. My kids are not brought up without discipline, and they are not self-entitled brats. They are respectful and caring kids.

I just try not to use a threat of withdrawal of a favoured item or activity in order to get my kids to do what I want them to do.

Mme,

I am not commenting on the children of any individual parent. I don't know you or your children. Some children are genetically born people pleasers, others are born quite rebellious. Unless you know a parent and their children really well, it is very hard to see why they are how they are. Even then, school will also have a big influence, as will sibling relationships etc. I am talking about a very broad correlation which appears to me to be both observed and logical (so correlation with a highly plausible mechanism for causation).

Italiangreyhound - I didn't know there was a difference between the two methods. I mentioned the 1-2-3 as it's the cloest method (not sure if my method has a name!) We give them 2 chances one more firm than the other and "3" we either remove them or the offending object for X amount of time.

So this natural consequence technique; if DS doddles about a bath time and I say "Okay but if you don't get out now there will be now time for a story" and say he doesn't get the story would that be a natural consequence because story is part of the routine and not something they get as a reward?

re the brushing teeth example. My way of doing that would be natural consequence of brushing teeth with be something good.

A story isn't a natural consequence of brushing teeth though, it's a consequence that has been arbitrarily decided by a parent. It's also not logical or directly related to the task in question.

Also, what do you do when the child is completely disinterested in the story and shouts "nooooooo". Do you leave the teeth unbrushed, or move to a good thing with higher currency value dinosaur stickers? And how is the latter not bribery or rewarding, albeit low level?

Multiple I use this (if you mess around there won't be time for X) but it presumably wouldn't work if the messing around or whatever other behaviour goes on often enough that it becomes the routine and that the stories become exceptional!

Larry
Many people on this thread have said that they parent in a certain way. You stated 'However, there is (IMO) a link between the self-entitlement of many young people and the 'no discipline' style of parenting'.

My opinion is that you are wrong, and there are many families who practice this style of parenting, which I would not describe as 'no discipline'.

Talk of correlation and causation is ridiculous when we are giving our personal opinions.

MmeLindor - I like the idea of positivity. So it would be saying something like "Right, lets get out of the bath so we can read your story" instead of "but if you don't get out now they'll be no time for story"? Something along those lines?

Have you any links with more info on this positive method. My DC are still young 6 and under so I think this may work more in my favour than the others.

Parralax
As I said, I wouldn't have said that I do this certain type of parenting, but I do recognise some of these methods.

I am giving examples of what has worked for me. I think there is a tendency on threads like this to get bogged down in terminology and labels, instead of just accepting that some things work for some kids better than threats.

Mme,

There is nothing wrong with saying that, in my opinion, I have observed X is correlated to Y and I feel that I can explain this using a plausible mechanism. It is an explanation of my thought process when formulating my opinion.

You are equally entitled to say that you feel that I am wrong. Nothing wrong with that. Although, it might also be helpful to explain the mechanism whereby a 'no discipline' child comes to understand why they should act in a certain way.

Multiple
I don't have links, this is just stuff I've picked up, and things that I've learned worked with my kids. You might like How to Talk so Kids Will Listen - it is a really good book and they talk a lot about how to frame your statements positively.

I think I get it now between yours (parallax80) and others posts.

I still like the idea of positivity though so I could try and relate it to bathtime (or whatever I'm doing)... hmm this thread has given me a lot of thought to look in to. Very interesting points and debates.

I think there is an overemphasis here on the idea that we guide and modify a child's behaviour only by punishment and rewards.

In the case of toothbrushing- everyone is what is a punishment, consequece , bribe or threat.

THose of us who don't punish often don't have to allow the "natural consequences" to happen either.

Parenting is far more than carrots or sticks, if we have a toothbrush refusenik ( and I have had two) then we have other tools at out fingertips rather than going back to the same punishment/reward idea.

Humour, creativity, imagination and love are far more useful tooles than any system of punishment or rewards.

I have had a toothbrushing refuser too (fortunately now past that stage). When he refused to brush his teeth he was given two options: you can brush them as asked or I will brush them. He saw me brushing them as a punishment because I was very thorough and having mummy brush them made him feel like a baby. He usually took the option of brushing them himself to about the 'punishment option'.
The natural consequence word have been to leave him be if he didn't want to brush them and then have a visit to the dentist for unpleasant treatment after the teeth had started to decay. I didn't want to go down that natural consequence route.