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.

We don't do naughty step/time out/smacking/shouting.
I think people seem to be getting confused between punishment and discipline, I don't let my child run riot!
I was never punished as a child and I hope to treat my children the same way.

Perly. Is this the biggest stealth boast thread ever?

My DCs were punished and i used a naughty step but I can easily imagine, if I hadn't had them quite so close together or if I had less of them that I would have hardly had to punish them. My kids have always been well behaved, polite and respectful however as there are less than 5 years between the four of them then we have had Our moments.. I'd say 99.9 % of naughtiness was sibling squabbling when they we little

I liked doing time out as it was a quiet easy punishment. I rarely shouted and sending a kid out The room for a time out seemed to work well.
I really can't stand emotional blackmail and I wonder if some of the 'non' punishers on this thread are guilty of it. It can feel far more upsetting to know your parents are, oh so very dissapointed in you than just having a quick 5 mins in timeout. Having someone drone on at you about why something is wrong is as much as a punishment as a timeout.

One of my lads used to time out himself when he was little. He'd give himself a time out when he knew he'd been too rambunctious with his younger brother. It used to make me laugh.

pearlylum if indeed you are interested in having a full and proper discussion about punishing children I suggest you write a better OP, setting out your definitions and contexts. Without that this this reads like a 'look at me, aren't I wonderful' thread.

I find this thread odd, was going to say we punish, but seems lots of people on here do the stuff we consider punishment, but say they don't punish.

We use the naughty step, removal of toys if they can't play nice with it. Treats are given as rewards for good behaviour, not default things that are removed for bad behaviour. (Treats include screen time, they don't have an expected "right" to a certain amount of screen time)

Dc1 is old enough for pocket money, but it has to be earned, in effect financially punishing him poor behaviour.

Flipping the reasons might make it seem less of a punishment - it's not "you didn't do X so I'm taking away y" but "you'll get y if you do X, if you don't do X you won't get y" - not taking away y, more not giving it in the first place, does that make sense?!

(And no, have never and will never hit my dcs)

It's not the first time Word

Punishment involves one person being treated harshly or being made to feel fearful or weaker than another who is bigger or stronger

I don't agree with this at all. My children had clear calm rules - they knew if they did something out of order such as teasing a sibling they would get a timeout. No drama, no shame and no anger just a straightforward -punishment- 'consequence'. It's a few minutes time out then it's dealt with.

I think if it's done well that it's preferable to enduring the 'shame' of disappointing your parents.

I really can't stand emotional blackmail and I wonder if some of the 'non' punishers on this thread are guilty of it.
Fair point. My dcs self regulate because they don't want to upset me as well as because they understand the guidance they receive is for their wellbeing. So long as that doesn't leak into relationships with peers (and I work very hard to point out that they're not responsible for anyone else's happiness) that's not a bad modus operandi for life.

Some of these comments are quite interesting, but reading them I still think it comes down to your definition of punishment. Or rather your belief that consequences of actions are different to punishment for them. It seems the terminology is the key factor as many of the actions in response to bad behaviour are similar.

Thinking step as I believe has been pointed out is akin to the naughty step but perhaps the terminology is what makes the difference. "Naughty" implies bad and something being inflicted whereas "thinking" implies that the child is active and participating in it.

I'm one of those parents who fits into all those hateful labels like hippy parenting, attachment parenting, gentle parenting (none of which I would describe myself as, by the way!)

I am one of those awful ones who tries not to say no! I have never smacked, used time out, etc. I don't like reward charts. I guess I go for "natural consequences" but as many people have pointed out this does blur with punishment.

I have shouted at my kids. I have taken away their PlayStation in a rage. I have shouted "no!" At the top of my voice. And a million other things which are very far from the parent I want to be, or think I should be for my children. But, in general, My parenting is calm and gentle and kinda "go with the flow".

Fwiw, my children are very well behaved. It is always noted on their school reports, people at our local community group always comment on it. I'm always getting compliments about them.

I had an interesting conversation with a colleague once, about discipline. I said I didn't use the naughty step or time out as I didn't agree with it. They said I was lucky to have well behaved children so I didn't have to use these things. Cause or effect? Do I not use time out because my kids are well behaved, or are they well behaved because of my alternative discipline?
Who knows. But my way seems to be working so I think I will carry on. And my kids seem happy :)

Regardless of the good intentions behind parents or parenting experts that do not punish, it does not set your children up properly for life in the real world.

Child hits - no punishment
Adult hits - police involvement, fines to pay, perhaps prison time.

Child steals - no punishment
Adult steals - police involvement, fines to pay, perhaps prison time.

Child is mean, rude, violent etc. at home to parents - no punishment
Child is mean, rude, violent etc. to other children - they are punished through school discipline measures or by other children not associating with them.

With my Dds I try to have a reasoned discussion the first time they exhibit an undesirable behaviour. If that behaviour is repeated, then a consequence is given. Consequences will get more severe if the behaviour is continually repeated, but luckily I never really get to that stage with the kids.

For adults, all behaviour, good or bad, has a real world consequence. Children need to be taught that.

This final point is offered as a kind of devil's advocate question.
If you decide not to punish poor behaviour, would you consider a parenting model where you don't reward good behaviour either?

The worst of all punishments is the 'emotional blackmail' punishment. Lasts a lifetime and produces some very dysfunctional adults.

Op can you define your idea of 'punishment' as i find this thread confusing. I barely discipline my kids at all nowadays but they are teens/near teens. They know how to behave. I dont bother with curfews etc and they are well behaved easy kids. I have no idea if this is luck or not. The eldest i did more 'discipline' eg naughty step with but i never found it effective. I probably shouted a bit. Mostly i tried to avoid problems before they happened, especially as i got better at parenting. Otoh i had a friend who just talked to her kids about consequences and her kids were the worst behaved i've ever seen. We had to stop meeting up.

Flossie- but children can still be taught about those things without full on punishment of being smacked/ sent to room/ naughty step/ etc etc

Ie
Child stealing - I would talk to them about how it isn't acceptable, go with them to get them to return item and apologise. Surely that's just as effective if not more so that screaming and taking PlayStation away?

Child hits - again explain it isn't tolerated, how would they like it if it was done to them, get them to return to child they hit and apologise. Smacking a child for hitting is pointless, shouting and sending to room means they haven't had to actually face up and explain why or give a face to face apology which is often harder

Thinking step as I believe has been pointed out is akin to the naughty step but perhaps the terminology is what makes the difference. "Naughty" implies bad and something being inflicted whereas "thinking" implies that the child is active and participating in it.

Yes, that's it exactly.

Completely agree with Bomb's comment about emotional blackmail. I lived in terror of my 'D'M refusing to speak to me. I still remember the day of terror when (aged 3) my 'D'M told me she didn't love me and wouldn't be collecting me from nursery because I'd said something to upset her. We're NC now after I couldn't take any more.

I can bearly remember the smacks, shouting or toys being taken away. But the withdrawal of love and begging on my knees to be forgiven was torture.

whistle I've seen similar...AWFUL. I had a woman say to her DD in front of me "You're not my best girl anymore. No...I don't like you now...you're mean and I won't be friends."

Kid was 4! What a bitch.

Artandco absolutely, consequences should always be appropriate, relevant and immediate.

My parents didn't punish me and my siblings when we were kids. I think they tried with their eldest and found it didn't work (the one time I remember them sending him to his room he just climbed out the window!). I was never grounded/sent to my room/made to sit on a naughty step. I never had anything confiscated and I never had a curfew. It worked out very well for us.

My own dcs are still tiny but I'm following the same approach and just seeing how it works out.

As a mum of 3, I've learned that some children are naturally compliant and need little punishing. My third is such a child. He's never run into the road, didn't go through Terrible Twos/Threenager... He's 10 and rarely needs punishing and it would be hypocritical to say it's because not punishing works.
I'm baffled at the idea that natural consequences aren't punishments. If I get my children to clear up a mess that they have made (natural consequence), it's a punishment in the sense that they don't enjoy cleaning up.

I don't punish, not in the naughty step/loss of privileges sense (though I do occasionally threaten it). I don't really get on what planet this is the same as not disciplining. I also don't see what's so hard to understand about making a distinction between natural consequences and 'unrelated' punishment in the sense of 'no pudding because you hit your sister'. One is easy to understand for kids (even if they don't like it), the other imo is just bafflingly arbitrary. My kids are youngish (8,6,2) but mostly very well-behaved. They tend to do what I ask because I'm a pretty good disciplinarian, but for whatever reason that never needs to involve punishment. My parents were the same with me, and interestingly I'd still say my mum was very strict. She certainly took no shit. I suspect my kids would say the same about me.

They've certainly never been punished at school - if anything I'd be delighted if they were, DD is very meek and passive and very very shy, she'd rather die than knowingly break a rule. If she ever got punished because she'd been chatting to a friend instead of listening I'd be tempted to break out the champagne:)

The people I know who do serious punishment-based parenting make me very clear it's not a route I want to follow. I have a family member who is hideously strict with his kids and they are quite horrible to be around - mistrustful, devious, nasty. They put on a good face to adults but you have to watch them like a hawk.

i dont think making someone tidy up a mess they made is a natural consequence - how can it be? The consequence of not tidying is that the house is messy/cant find their stuff/things get stood on and broken. Making them tidy it up is a punishment. Them choosing to tidy as they dont like the mess is an example of a natural consequence leading to a subsequent change in behaviour.

Thinking back over it, I have never laid down a punishment, never instigated any system (pasta jar / naughty step) and never bestowed rewards either. In our house no means no, and it also means the end of the conversation ('no, no xyz because abc, and that's the end of it' ). Yes is adopted gleefully 'ooh yes, that would be nice', I let my displeasure be known 'I am cross because you did that and look at the result' but not in any heavy guilt tripping emotional blackmail way, and I am clear with praise.

I have allowed quite a lot of freedom and expected responsibility: yes to going to the park alone, having a penknife, cooking independently etc.

DC doing v well throughout school, good reports for behaviour, have had compliments on behaviour throughout childhood and teen years, so I don't think I am being a deluded slack liberal parent.

Reward and punishment both seem to fulcrum on negotiation and an adverse relationship: will you or won't you do this or that, succeed v fail, bad v good. It all feels so stressful.

I expect I am v lucky though to get DC with a temperament that suits my style of approach. Horses for courses and all that.

Hate to break it to you OP, but you punish the same as pretty much everyone else - removal of toy IS punishment.

Calling it 'natural consequences' instead of punishment doesn't change that, though might make you feel more superior.

You say tomato, i say tomAYto....

I think a huge amount is down to luck, perhaps the Op's children have just been 'naturally' well behaved and never needed 'punishment'. Perhaps they clearly understood immediately what family behaviour is and isn't acceptable in the pearly household & just never tested boundaries or even thought about being disobedient - so in effect never 'needed' to be punished or disciplined IYSWIM.

It's a bit like sleeping habits in children......... my DS never, ever had a problem sleeping, I can honestly say I have never had a broken night's sleep - I put him to bed at 7pm and he woke around 6.30am. I don't think it was anything I did, I think it was sheer luck but I would never assume that my 'method' was so good that everyone else should follow it.

I think it is sheer good luck if your child behaves well, just as it is sheer good luck if your child obeys you when you say 'no means no'.

Just like adults, children have different attitudes and levels of behaviour, it can't always be the way the child is raised as often you see a really well behaved sibling and the opposite behaviour in another sibling.

And of course respect should be mutual - but when you politely ask for the 100th time for your teenager to relinquish his phone at bed time and he refuses .............well then, yes, I do 'punish' by physically having to wrench it off him and remove it for the next day.

ragwort, perhaps, but I decided on no punishment when my kids were babies. So a lucky coincidence that they responded to the no punishment strategy?

OP, I don't punish. I really struggled when DC were small and read every parenting book I could find. the only one that made total sense was Positive Parenting which is a no punishment, no power struggles method of parenting. It transformed our family overnight. No tantrums, no battles of wills. We are very happy and loving and get on incredibly well. And oddly, my DC come across as incredibly obedient. If I ask them to do something, they usually do it immediately. Because there is no power struggle involved. To this day it amazes me. They are mid teens and we don't have fights. When they were toddlers they didn't have tantrums. (They did sometimes - but I can count their meltdowns on one hand) I'm 100% certain it was because we avoided using punishment as a tactic.

I love positive discipline and am always puzzled by parents who resist it, as though it's a soft option and their children need taming in some way. It's win win. No one gets upset, no one feels humiliated or guilty, there's no resentment or bad atmospheres. It's like magic.