Does Anyone Else Not Punish?

[pearlylum]

Seems an alien concept some but seems to work for us. I am interested in others who have taken the same approach.

I think people often confuse not punishing with no discipline and no boundaries. We have firm boundaries for our dd, and she is often told no. But I don't see saying no with a reason for the no as a punishment.

Generally we use talking and problem solving with our dd to establish good behaviour so in the example of snatching another child's toy, I would talk to her about it not being her's, and that we shouldn't snatch things, that's she's made the other child sad and then ask her how she could make it better. She generally works out that she needs to say sorry and give the item back. For me this is discipline but not a punishment. I haven't removed the toy, she has chosen to give it back.

Not punishing doesn't mean not teaching kids to do the right thing.

My kids have also never been punished at home or in school, but if they were punished in school, I would just remind them that that's how school functions. Actually, they would already know that, because they are observant people and have been in lots of different situations and met lots of different kinds of people.

I remember someone telling me once that I was very lucky that my children were so well behaved. It's not luck. It's hard work on both sides!

I can relate to that.

DD misses her break time if she hasn't completed her work. She'll stay in to complete it. IMO that's more consequence than punishment. I don't agree with golden time (not that DD knows that) but I think many schools do a similar scheme.

I had never thought about this! But it appears I don't punish.
ledkr
•What will you do when they are teenagers and they come home hours after curfew- none of mine ever have. And I don't think it's because I'm lucky but because they're very considerate and know I would literally be beside myself. So there are often changing plans, calls for lifts etc. They've often come to me after a particularly torrid night of panicky phone calls and rescuing them others and said, I'm staying in next weekend, so sort of punishing themselves but more recognising that their behaviour had consequences.
•get pissed- they feel ill and know what their tolerances are later. Obviously they have to make good any mess/ make apologies etc.
•mess up at school, not happened, the odd lower than expected grade, but that's they're problem. Not in a meh education, but if they fail they'll have to retake to fulfil their potential not mine.
•bully someone, not happened and wouldn't. Punishment would have been the last resort after exploring why, inc masking other issues etc. •run up a big phone bill, yes! Same child several times and she paid it back.
•sit on the internet all night? my responsibility to enforce time on line until they can self regulate.
The list is endless!

Hatches game of saying education is they're problem. Autocorrect obvs.

I've honestly never punished because I've never needed to. Not once. I've got a 20, 18 and 11 year old and I can't honestly think of a time when I've had to even tell them off. I'm very lucky I guess.

Hatches game= ah the shame
Must put glasses on or go back to sleep.

I'm interested in this, but can't understand what it is the OP does.

purple it is exactly like a naughty step!

But it wasn't called that, which was the important bit for her. It was for her to have an opportunity to calm down (because it was causing lots of problems and something had to be done to break the cycle of behaviour). It was only necessary for a few weeks. She was given her options/choices/instruction to stop or whatever and following a warning had the 1, 2, 3 countdown (slowly) and if she was still doing it at 3, she went on the Thinking Chair for 5 minutes. Sometimes she went and sat on it on her own because it was established as somewhere she could go to calm down and whilst she was on there she was ok because I knew why she was on there. So she wasn't humiliated by it.

But it did mean that after the few weeks, just holding up 1 finger as a count marker was enough for her to stop whatever undesirable behaviour she was doing and she has never been on it since. I do still occasionally use the 1 finger marker, really just to let her know when she's pushing it, and she is now 10.

I much prefer to reason and it was never necessary with my son, but you can't reason with a child who is angry and screaming and thrashing around and throwing things. You have to do something!

Aha since I started blearily typing it appears us non punishers are the norm.

Good!

*ApocalypseSlough" I could have written your post.

Sounds like our home. My teenagers have never stayed out late. My lovely 19 year old met his friends yesterday afternoon and we expected him back at 6pm for a takeaway. He phoned at 4pm to let us know that he was eating with his friends and would be back at 9pm instead. He wanted to let us know before we went to the expense of getting him some food.
This is typical of my teenagers' behaviour. I have never set curfews. They know what is reasonable behaviour and the reasons for it.

I think there is a difference between discipline and punishment. If you use effective discipline, you shouldn't need to punish.

I also think that people are confusing not punishing with not disciplining. My children (19 and 16) would be the first to tell you that I am the furthest thing from a liberal parent. From a very early age I employed copious use of the word "no". I don't think that is punishment, that is discipline. I told them in an age appropriate way the standards of behaviour I expected. They were not allowed to run around, shriek, and generally annoy other people in public. If they did, they were removed from the situation. Again, I don't see that as punishment, it is discipline.

If, as toddlers, they wanted to do something that I didn't want them to (pulling books off the bookshelf, drawing on the walls, running away, poking the dog) they were told off there and then. I can count on two fingers the times either of them were smacked.

As they got older, the behaviour expectations were in place. Again, I had no need to punish because I expected, and mostly got, good behaviour. They are not angels, but I have only ever had to remove things from the older one twice and that was for lying.

One thing I have never done is delayed consequences. I have never said "wait till your father gets home" or "if you do x, y will happen at some point in the future". Discipline needs to be immediate, accepted and moved on from.

I'm far from a perfect parent, but looking at the pleasant young adults I have managed to produce, I'm inclined to think I got something right with regards to discipline.

Apocolypse yes, that's generally how things run here too.

And in the time it took me to write that, I've basically said what 10 other people said

I do think luck (or a child's nature) has its part to play in their behaviour though. I never punish my eldest. I've never had to. If I had stopped at one I would be the smuggest person in the world. She is naturally happy and chilled and just never misbehaves. On the rare occasions she does a quiet word is all it takes.

When small neither of my children would have consistently given the toy back regardless of how persuasive I was. Sometimes they would have been appropriately remorseful but if they really wanted the toy ds would probably have run off and dd would have cried until she got into a bit of a state.

My dc are now teenagers and generally very well behaved, it's been a long time since they had needed to be disciplined for something. A few years ago dd was caught talking on her phone late at night and so we told her she wasn't allowed to have it in her room at night anymore. A couple of years before that she didn't get home at the agreed time and so she wasn't allowed out with friends for a while. Consequence or punishment?

When I was growing up my mother didn't really punish me, but she did give frosty lectures about how disappointing my behaviour was, all about how I should be a better person and think about others. I think that was actually far more damaging than a straightforward removal of privileged type punishment.

We've never punished. Our DDs are 19 and 21. Knowing they'd upset us by doing wrong was enough for them to be sorry.
They've turned out pretty decent human beings, though I day so myself.

I do think there is an element of every child being different and that some children will respond better to discussion and others will need a more firm punishment type of approach. We find a more peaceful approach works better with our dd. But if we had been able to have had another child, maybe it wouldn't have worked second time around

TheMorningAfterTheNightBefore how did you get your 'angry and screaming and thrashing around and throwing things' child onto the not naughty chair? My ds as a little boy often got himself into a similar state. I remember once trying to get him to go to his room to calm down and ending up holding his bedroom room .shut while he threw himself at it. No way would I have got him to sit on a chair! Oh and counting made him more and more upset. We ended up just ignoring him until he calmed down.

It something I've always wondered about naughty steps, and I've always thought that they must only really work for quite compliant children.

pearly

They were never punished at school? Not one single detention, loss of break time, lines, loss of any privilege....ever?

I'm impressed! I thought I was good at school after only ever having received a whole class detention after about 10 people were disrupting the lesson!

I got punished for something I didn't even do!

Yep. Wellerrr and downright I see it now.

And in general this is definitely turning into a bunfight.
One last thing though - parents who do time out/ naughty step/ loss of privileges aren't domineering over their kids they are teaching them valuable lessons about behaviour and consequences. Adult life will not be as soft on them as mummy and daddy are.

Also natural consequences are just another way of saying punishment.

She is very small so I just bundled her onto it, she got off, I put her back on. repeat. There were times she was late for school because of it because she thought I wouldn't let her be late and so she would refuse to get dressed and just kept getting off it and being really defiant. Then she would stay on there and just shout and scream and me and then she finally would take herself off to it if she felt herself getting angry.

It wasn't calm or pretty. But was also short lived. She still gets angry now, but it's confined to muttering under her breath as she stomps upstairs to her room to calm down!

It was like a miracle cure to be honest. She has a far more fiery temperament than my son!

I think the term punish is unhelpful in the OP.
Punishment and discipline are not interchangeable. Punishment involves one person being treated harshly or being made to feel fearful or weaker than another who is bigger or stronger. The use of punishment within a parenting context is counterproductive and, in my view, cruel & abusive.

Discipline, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter and is an essential part of parenting a child. This is best implemented in a proactive rather than reactive way, i.e modelling our expectations for our child's behaviour in the way we relate to others, the child included, in how we speak to one another, express disapproval or anger.

I don't think "consequences" are liberal and PC. They are logical responses to a child's unacceptable behaviour, of which there are many examples in this thread. Just this morning my eldest took a piece of chocolate from the cupboard thinking no one was around. I heard him say to youngest, "wait until dad comes out of the kitchen" he hadn't noticed me at the kitchen door. When I asked what the discussion was about, smallest DC piped up, " he stole some chocolate from the kitchen"
I pointed out to youngest that he shouldn't be trying to avoid any consequences by putting his brother in the firing line when he in fact was asking him to get him some chocolate too! I also said the stuff in the house belongs to all of us, he wasn't stealing but was taking stuff without asking. Consequence for both, no sweets for a week. (Won't matter much as they don't eat that many anyway)
Result, both have lost something for a brief time, neither is left carrying the shame of being a thief.
I think children's rights have also become quite parodied as PC in this country. I believe passionately in the rights of children. In my view, one of the most important rights a child has is to be told "no" frequently by a trusted adult who has their welfare at heart.
(Goes off to hide chocolate in a higher cupboard)

Toofond I see no bun fight.
I think it starts very young.
If a toddler snatches or bites and it is explained that that hurts, or the other child won't want to play that sets up a lifetime of understanding that their actions have consequences and they can control those consequences by behaving in a certain way.
If a child loses the toy or is whacked back for biting it's showing that the adult is in control and the consequences aren't obvious, they're harder to manage and understand.