S/O AP-Style Discipline

Marsee

I saw in the post below that AP-style discipline discourages the use of punishment. What is the reasoning behind this? In my mind, (we're not to the discipline stage yet) it makes sense that LO understands that there are consequences for every decision and if chasing the doggie is wrong, maybe a favorite toy should be taken away. What is the other side of this that I don't see yet? Just curious.

rosiemomma

I separate it into 'biggies' and 'smallies' .... 'biggies' are harm herself or others and property, 'smallies' are just about everything else. I choose to dicipline for the 'biggies' and laugh or ignore the smallies.

I am a big believer in natural consequences. They have taught my daughter many, many things!

When it comes to the dog she isn't allowed to play with him if she can't be nice, taking a toy away would have no affect on my daughter.... she could care less about toys. Timeouts work great but only if I use them sparingly! (Like no more than 1 a day or it looses its luster)

I really agree with setting kids up for success, that mean making there life easier so you don't have to tell them 'no' all  the time. This is the biggest helper for us.

As for having a dog around she learned quickly that she must treat him well or he leaves the area. I always model it showing her how to pet the dog nice.... I say  things like "Pet his back, he likes that" when she does something I like I make it a big deal (before she turned 2, after 2 you don't need to have overzealous praise) I always said "Yes, Yes, Yes, I loooove it!!!" I would clap my hands and just act giddy.

I suppose this explains it somewhat, discipline is so individual, my dd responds well to what I said so I continue to use it. If she didn't I would find other ways to help her learn.

tokenhoser

But what does a toy have to do with the dog? Nothing. If a child can't play nicely with the dog, they get separated. That's the natural consequence. I'm a big fan of things making sense to my kid - the consequence needs to be linked to the "crime", unless it is a BIG deal (actual physical danger or permanently damaging something).

Fortunately, we have a cat, and I've been fine with DS getting a few scratches. He has learned quickly how to be nice to the kitty.

We have also set up about half the house as a baby-friendly zone. There are very few things he can get to that he's not allowed, which means I don't spend all day following him around and saying no.

WildcatPrincess

tokenhoser:

But what does a toy have to do with the dog? Nothing. If a child can't play nicely with the dog, they get separated. That's the natural consequence. I'm a big fan of things making sense to my kid - the consequence needs to be linked to the "crime", unless it is a BIG deal (actual physical danger or permanently damaging something).

Fortunately, we have a cat, and I've been fine with DS getting a few scratches. He has learned quickly how to be nice to the kitty.

We have also set up about half the house as a baby-friendly zone. There are very few things he can get to that he's not allowed, which means I don't spend all day following him around and saying no.

All of this exactly, except replace cat with rabbit

Marsee

tokenhoser:

But what does a toy have to do with the dog? Nothing. If a child can't play nicely with the dog, they get separated. That's the natural consequence. I'm a big fan of things making sense to my kid - the consequence needs to be linked to the "crime", unless it is a BIG deal (actual physical danger or permanently damaging something).

Fortunately, we have a cat, and I've been fine with DS getting a few scratches. He has learned quickly how to be nice to the kitty.

We have also set up about half the house as a baby-friendly zone. There are very few things he can get to that he's not allowed, which means I don't spend all day following him around and saying no.

See, you can tell I'm not to the discipline stage yet . I was just trying to give an example and apparently my example didn't even make sense!

I guess I interpreted the below post wrong. I understood it meant that AP discourages natural consequences. I think kids should understand that actions (good or bad) lead to consequences (good or bad). 

tokenhoser

Marsee:

tokenhoser:

But what does a toy have to do with the dog? Nothing. If a child can't play nicely with the dog, they get separated. That's the natural consequence. I'm a big fan of things making sense to my kid - the consequence needs to be linked to the "crime", unless it is a BIG deal (actual physical danger or permanently damaging something).

Fortunately, we have a cat, and I've been fine with DS getting a few scratches. He has learned quickly how to be nice to the kitty.

We have also set up about half the house as a baby-friendly zone. There are very few things he can get to that he's not allowed, which means I don't spend all day following him around and saying no.

See, you can tell I'm not to the discipline stage yet . I was just trying to give an example and apparently my example didn't even make sense!

I guess I interpreted the below post wrong. I understood it meant that AP discourages natural consequences. I think kids should understand that actions (good or bad) lead to consequences (good or bad). 

Like pp said though - natural and/or logical consequences are good. Punishment doesn't really work. It doesn't work on adults. Have you ever got a speeding ticket? Did you quit speeding for life? Punishment tends to lead to trying not to get caught (more deviousness, lying), not good behavior. 

danienross

tokenhoser:

Like pp said though - natural and/or logical consequences are good. Punishment doesn't really work. It doesn't work on adults. Have you ever got a speeding ticket? Did you quit speeding for life? Punishment tends to lead to trying not to get caught (more deviousness, lying), not good behavior. 

This is such a great way to look at it.

pixieprincss

Marsee:

tokenhoser:

But what does a toy have to do with the dog? Nothing. If a child can't play nicely with the dog, they get separated. That's the natural consequence. I'm a big fan of things making sense to my kid - the consequence needs to be linked to the "crime", unless it is a BIG deal (actual physical danger or permanently damaging something).

Fortunately, we have a cat, and I've been fine with DS getting a few scratches. He has learned quickly how to be nice to the kitty.

We have also set up about half the house as a baby-friendly zone. There are very few things he can get to that he's not allowed, which means I don't spend all day following him around and saying no.

See, you can tell I'm not to the discipline stage yet . I was just trying to give an example and apparently my example didn't even make sense!

I guess I interpreted the below post wrong. I understood it meant that AP discourages natural consequences. I think kids should understand that actions (good or bad) lead to consequences (good or bad). 

AP is very big on natural consequences. But, parents creating an enviornment where age-appropriate, socially acceptable freedom can happen is a preventative measure to even needing to allow the natural consquence.

For example, my son touches the hot stove, his fingers get singed=natural consquence. But, it would be better to create the "yes enviornment" and put him in, say, the Learning Tower before I open the stove so he can see what I am doing but is not able to touch. If I let him stay on the floor and then just say, "No, hot, No, don't touch," I am not really helping either one of us. With time, optimally he will learn that stoves are hot and he should stay away through safe, positive experienced rather than injury or scolding/negative talk. That said, if he comes barreling in from another room unexpectedly right when I open the stove, I very well may yell, "Stop! Danger. No" so forcefully that he cries rather than let him touch and get hurt. But, that is the exception not the rule, for us at least. We are in no way permissive parents. We actually have very high standards even though he is just a little guy, but we guide him through those standards creatively and with positive words and a gentle spirit and minimizing the things we need to say, "no" to by prevention. thinking ahead, etc.

Marsee

pixieprincss:

Marsee:

tokenhoser:

But what does a toy have to do with the dog? Nothing. If a child can't play nicely with the dog, they get separated. That's the natural consequence. I'm a big fan of things making sense to my kid - the consequence needs to be linked to the "crime", unless it is a BIG deal (actual physical danger or permanently damaging something).

Fortunately, we have a cat, and I've been fine with DS getting a few scratches. He has learned quickly how to be nice to the kitty.

We have also set up about half the house as a baby-friendly zone. There are very few things he can get to that he's not allowed, which means I don't spend all day following him around and saying no.

See, you can tell I'm not to the discipline stage yet . I was just trying to give an example and apparently my example didn't even make sense!

I guess I interpreted the below post wrong. I understood it meant that AP discourages natural consequences. I think kids should understand that actions (good or bad) lead to consequences (good or bad). 

AP is very big on natural consequences. But, parents creating an enviornment where age-appropriate, socially acceptable freedom can happen is a preventative measure to even needing to allow the natural consquence.

For example, my son touches the hot stove, his fingers get singed=natural consquence. But, it would be better to create the "yes enviornment" and put him in, say, the Learning Tower before I open the stove so he can see what I am doing but is not able to touch. If I let him stay on the floor and then just say, "No, hot, No, don't touch," I am not really helping either one of us. With time, optimally he will learn that stoves are hot and he should stay away through safe, positive experienced rather than injury or scolding/negative talk. That said, if he comes barreling in from another room unexpectedly right when I open the stove, I very well may yell, "Stop! Danger. No" so forcefully that he cries rather than let him touch and get hurt. But, that is the exception not the rule, for us at least. We are in no way permissive parents. We actually have very high standards even though he is just a little guy, but we guide him through those standards creatively and with positive words and a gentle spirit and minimizing the things we need to say, "no" to by prevention. thinking ahead, etc.

Thanks, everybody. This stuff really makes sense now. I need to start reading some positive discipline books sooner rather than later.