Can anyone tell me about discipline methods which don't involve punishment?

[CherryChoc]

What the thread title says, basically!

DS is only 6 months old so any discipline dilemmas are a while off yet, but I'm really interested and intrigued by the idea that there can be discipline methods which don't use punishment, as I always thought it was necessary. However I only seem to encounter vague mentions of it on threads so can anybody tell me more?

Poshsinglemum - you seem to have a very balanced attitude towards discipline. Follow your instincts, and I'm sure you will do fine.

my point is not that it is ok if a child isn't bothered if they hit another child. my point is that some parents seem to lose sight of what an actual consequence is. so if you want them to be bothered about the hit child then that's what you tackle. what you get with tackling it with a naughty step is a child who is bothered about the naughty step, not the actual natural consequence of causing distress to another child. similarly with the mess thing. you want them to be bothered about the mess. i don't want dd to see clearing up as a punishment.

i dunno, it works on dd

Depending on the age of the child, I think it is a very good idea to actually let the child suffer/feel the consequences of their actions.

So, a child who refuses to go to bed, let them feel tired the next day let them be late.
Refusing to eat, let them feel hungry.
Sounds cruel written down but is a vital life skill learning to accept consequences for actions.
Also try and let the child "choose" to behave/misbehave ie X you are spoiling your brothers game, if you continue you will choose not to do x (have a bar of chocolate/watch that Dvd/ play out later with friends etc.) or if you continue you are choosing to (insert consequence eg go to bed early etc).
Put like this it it allows the child to control their behaviour and not the adult iyswim
x

But what is that teaching them?

That the real reason you should choose not to spoil someone else's game is because you might get a treat.

I like the name natural consequences as I have always hated star charts and naughty steps, now I've realised why - because they do not logically follow the crime.

well here'e my philosophy, and I can hand on heart say it works...

If your child hits another, the natural consequence is that they get removed from the play area because 'no-one wants to play with you'

similarly if my ds annoys my dd 'they are not allowed to play together or with each others toys' for the same reason.

Any squabbles mean the 'intruder' has to leave the other ones room.

also if the 'intruder' is asked to go he must always leave the other persons room because it is their space'

If they won't eat their dinner, then no pudding.

etc etc hey this is good, trying to think of others....

My post wasn't very claer.
What I mean is say if you have bought your child a bar of chocolate and they know that they will get it after they have been playing, then they misbehave(or behave in a way you don't want them to, you then give them the choice of correcting their behaviour, you might also have to tell them exactly how you want them to behave, if they then continue to misbehave you tell them what the consequence will be eg you are choosing not to have the chocolate bar.
It does sound odd written down but young children quite often respond to this more than the "oh X you are hurting your brother's feelings" -So what? iyswim.
Most importantly carry out the threat! Easier said than done sometimes, which is why the reward/carrot often works.
For older kids, let them suffer the consequences. If they hit another child then be prepared for the wronged child to smack them back!

It is important for children to know and feel in control of their own actions. That is why I would always try and avoid saying things like "I will make you sit on the naughty step" or "I won't let you have the chocolate" instaed "You are choosing......." at the end of the day a lot of bad behaviour from older kids is because they feel they don't have a choice/can't see a good way to resolve conflict, it is better to make them realise that only they can control their actions.
If they do misbehave show that you are disappointed but next time hope that they will choose to do the right thing.

It all depends what you mean by punishment. If it's unreasonable or unconnected it's pointless. Treat children as you'd like to be treated and credit them with some intelligence. I HATE hearing parents say "they won't understand being told off" - true to a point, but if you never explain things how will they EVER understand anything??
If you have boundaries from an early age and are clear and fair you shouldn't need to worry too much. My Dad told me that it's from about 12 months to 3 years that you teach your children how to behave well and I trust what he says as I am evidence.
Assume your child understands and explain why whatever they're doing isn't acceptable e.g. "stop pulling my hair it hurts me". Figure out why they're doing it e.g. they want to explore the texture, and give them something they CAN do e.g. have you felt the fringe of this blanket/this teddy's ears. (Assuming they're a baby)
When it comes to hitting, that is totally not on and I remove my child from the playing until the hit child is OK, I am calm and they say sorry. I could not and would not watch my 2 year old hit another child and not intervene.

I agree with Luna about giving choices, I always make both choices perfectly acceptable to me so we're alright. e.g. taking shoes off - if you take them off we have to go in, or you can leave them on and we can play out? It's up to you, but I can't have you cutting your feet.

Agree with Mrs Freud.
Much more connected to what is happening than the Luna's 'no chocolate' scenario.

However, I let my children have pudding before main meal

But can you tell me exactly what punishment fits the crime of trying to prevent your child from hitting another one?
Other than removal of reward or offering the choice of how to behave?
By reward that will depend on the circumstances, so I was using a bar of chocolate as an example. It could be removal from the play area ie remove the reward of playing. However this may often punish your other children who then also have to go home.
At the end of the day I personally want to show my children the acceptable way to behave, and that actions do carry consequences, good behave makes everyone happy.

Eh? You've lost me Luna. Haven't you said it yourself? Hitting/scratching/biting etc requires immediate removal, but only needs to be as long as it takes to calm the hit child, calm yourself and for your child to stop crying - if removal caused crying. You play with the other child til you ask your child to say sorry and be forgiven. Or you use the rule of a minute per year of age - it's about the same time anyway.

The naughty step would fit the crime of hitting another child - because as a direct consequence of hitting, the child would be removed from the fun of play and instead find themselves with the boredom of the naughty step.

It also gives time for reflection - you tell them why they are on the naughty step, and at the end of the time you ask them why they were there, and you make sure that you get an apology for the hurt child.

A buggy is a great place to sit out. Otherwise anywhere away from the playing where they can't do any harm. Using naughty step for everything is silly, but sitting out after violence is only option as far as I'm concerned. My sister does naughty step for all sorts and it seems a bit daft and unrelated, I only put my DD on the mat after she's hit/bitten/scratched/pushed etc as she needs to be removed from the playing.

not giving pudding if they don't eat their meal is not a natural consequence at all. that's a punishment an adult imposes. it does not teach a child anything at all about what actually happens if they don't eat their main meal..ie not a lot other than possibly feeling hungry later.

there are of course far more consequences for the adult..perhaps feeling resentment that food has been wasted, anger at the time spent making the food, frustration as they worry over the child's health and nutrition etc. and it's up to that adult if they choose to make their own natural consequences an issue to the child.

then you have the consequences of witholding pudding as a punishment...but i won't go on

Naughty step and time out don't really work for us, as I have never fely comfortable with these imposed punishments really.
I am not sure how I muddle through- lots of explaining, I suggest they go their room if something really bad happens or they are overtired.
I insist on an apology after explaining what happened was wrong and asking why they feel angry and wanted to hit, suggest different ways to cope with anger

I do shout as a last resort, but not too often

I don't know what my method is, not unconditional parenting,just muddling along like everyone else I guess!

I totally agree with logical consequences and the general positive parenting message here. So this isn't to take anything from that. With reagrd to the argument about children eventually learning to dislike their own mess - totally true from my own experience. I am now 35 and in the last year I have become tidy as I finally pinned down what tippedme over the edge! Slow learner? The queation is, would I have learnt it any quicker if my mother had enforced a bit more tidiness? Possibly!

Have been reading "How to talk so kids will listen..." which is mentioned a lot here and find it really helpful, not least because the authors start from a position of we were doing this and it wasn't working so I felt it was worth changing my ways.

Mrs. Ruffalo, going to room is time out isn't it? So you do agree with it, just not the name.

A question for the UPers on here. Say you were out shopping and your DC hit you and then 5 minutes later asked for some sweets or a toy or a book or something would you still buy them something or say no they couldn't have it?

I don't usually get them anything when we are out shopping.

But to my mind the hitting is a separate issue. I'm assuming that if your child hits you, (s)he is pretty young and very much living in the present. So if we had been intending to go shopping to get them something, I would still go.

I would abort a shopping trip if my child was behaving dangerously (ie running off in crowded places/nr busy roads).

Oh please its not hard!! Why bother reading a book on the subject. Its seems that you lot have no common sense whatsoever. I had a friend that had a baby/child book on everything. To me those parents are not 'natural mothers'. It should come naturally not out of some do-gooders manual.

What is wrong with someone who is not a natural parent reading a few books on the subject?

I can't remember being under 5 and had almost no experience of children under 5 before I had my own children. I find it extremely useful to read about how other people parent younger children.

I found 'Adventures in Gentle Discipline' by Hilary flower very useful.