difference between boundaries and punishment...semantics?

[heartnbrainmommy]

Okay, I'm still trying to process and really have a working knowledge of gentle discipline, so pardon the seeming ignorance.
Here's my question (and maybe I'm doing it all wrong - so feel free to point that out as well :)). For example this morning my 4 year old hit me with her doll because she was angry about something. I told her calmly that that was not playing appropriately, nicely and respectfully with the doll or me and that until she was calmer and could handle it the right way I needed to take the doll. How is that different than saying, "You can't hit, so therefore I'm taking your doll away as a consequence." Is it just semantics? Or if I determine that she is too tired, etc...whatever to go on a fun outing so we stay home. How different is that than, "You're throwing too many fits so the consequence is staying home." Just trying to process this in my head. Thanks! :)

[MarynMunchkins]

Punishment is designed to make her feel badly about what she did. Taking the doll so you won't get hurt is a consequence. Taking the doll so she feel badly about hitting you is a punishment.

It's largely a difference of mindset at that age. :) Doing the same thing with a different attitude makes a huge difference.

[Firebird Rising]

subbing and coming back.

I go by the motto, "you hit, you sit" And with three boys, we do a lot of sitting :-/

[NewLeaf]

nak

What Mary said. It's about heart. :heart

There's also more to GBD than reaction. So taking the doll away so she doesn't hurt someone is one part. Then there is figuring out how to help her succeed next time and empathizing with any feelings she has.

[Amber]

Punishment is designed to make her feel badly about what she did. Taking the doll so you won't get hurt is a consequence. Taking the doll so she feel badly about hitting you is a punishment.

It's largely a difference of mindset at that age. :) Doing the same thing with a different attitude makes a huge difference.
:yes What she said. :yes

[arwen_tiw]

With littlies, I don't even say "I'm putting this up because you can't play with it properly" I just remove it quietly.

I take care to say "I will not let you hurt me, I'm just going out here" not "I will not let you hurt me SO I'm going away from you".

If I hadn't told them about an outing and we didn't go because someone was really waay tired, I wouldn't tell them we weren't going because of their behaviour, they would continue to not know that an outing had been planned.

With the doll it might be, "heyyy, let's put this away. Hitting hurts. Look out for where you are swinging things!"

I think of consequences as the things that have to happen in the course of living to keep everyone safe and emotionally sane. Drawing a lot of attention to a consequence often has no other purpose than trying to teach them to behave better because of how they feel about the consequence, which pretty much defines it as a punishment to me.

[WildFlower]

the way I understand it boundaries and punishment are completely different.
Boundaries are "similar' to rules but not the same. Punishment and consequences are what people usually get mixed up. I was asking about the differences in another post to explain to my sister.

After some research and advice from others as well, this is what I figured....
Consequences can be natural, or logical (natural = you stomp in a mud puddle then you get mud all over your clothes, or you chase the cat, the cat is going to be afraid of you...) (logical consequences are substituted when natural are too severe or non-appropriate like you touch the hot stove you get burned, so instead, you insert a logical consequence such as you try to touch the hot stove, I won't let you be near it! )
Punishments are something done TO a person to get them to stop a behavior, but the prime motivator is fear. This is why punishment is bad. Whereas consequences aren't done "to" a person, they follow an action and should always be related somehow to the action.

Boundaries are like, this is my property, that is yours, I am responsible for what goes on in mine,.... Like the boundary might be, if you aren't going to touch gently, I will put you down, won't let you touch me that way (hitting etc) At least that's the way I understand it, which sounds like it would work well with consequences...

I don't have a working knowledge of this yet, just the "word" knowledge. I am just figuring it out myself. HTH

[heartnbrainmommy]

"Drawing a lot of attention to a consequence often has no other purpose than trying to teach them to behave better because of how they feel about the consequence, which pretty much defines it as a punishment to me."

That helps.

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

the way I understand it boundaries and punishment are completely different.
Boundaries are "similar' to rules but not the same. Punishment and consequences are what people usually get mixed up. I was asking about the differences in another post to explain to my sister.

After some research and advice from others as well, this is what I figured....
Consequences can be natural, or logical (natural = you stomp in a mud puddle then you get mud all over your clothes, or you chase the cat, the cat is going to be afraid of you...) (logical consequences are substituted when natural are too severe or non-appropriate like you touch the hot stove you get burned, so instead, you insert a logical consequence such as you try to touch the hot stove, I won't let you be near it! )
Punishments are something done TO a person to get them to stop a behavior, but the prime motivator is fear. This is why punishment is bad. Whereas consequences aren't done "to" a person, they follow an action and should always be related somehow to the action.

Boundaries are like, this is my property, that is yours, I am responsible for what goes on in mine,.... Like the boundary might be, if you aren't going to touch gently, I will put you down, won't let you touch me that way (hitting etc) At least that's the way I understand it, which sounds like it would work well with consequences...

I don't have a working knowledge of this yet, just the "word" knowledge. I am just figuring it out myself. HTH
That is really great! I am going to copy and put it on my desktop so I can refer to it again and show it to DH. Thank you! :)

[Pearl In Oyster]

:popcorn
DH and I were having a very similar discussion about this the other day. I was trying to explain the difference between punishment and natural/logical consequences. He was convinced it was just semantics, but I think what I missed in my explanation are these points:

Drawing a lot of attention to a consequence often has no other purpose than trying to teach them to behave better because of how they feel about the consequence, which pretty much defines it as a punishment to me.

nak

What Mary said. It's about heart. :heart

There's also more to GBD than reaction. So taking the doll away so she doesn't hurt someone is one part. Then there is figuring out how to help her succeed next time and empathizing with any feelings she has.

the way I understand it boundaries and punishment are completely different.

[Cook]

I'm new at this myself but this is my current understanding:
Boundaries are something you set up to protect them from themselves. It's parameters you need to keep them in to keep your children safe from themselves and the world and to keep them from violating others.
Punishments are something that you apply to cause them to change their behavior after they've already broken boundary. Punishments are reactive parenting. They are designed to "train" more so than teach.
Consequences are things that must occur to keep children safely within boundaries. Consequences literally teach children how the world works.
Rules are actions you desire them to keep making.

We work really hard with guiding behavior we want to see. I'm not sure how much of that is specifically gbd because I just got my first book from the list I found at gcm :) (Jesus on Parenting is GREAT already btw and I'm only just starting in) But we all do what works. For us, my 4yo has language and social struggles. If I were concerned that he might hit, I'd probably talk to him about what I wanted him to do instead. "Lets set that house right over here! Oh I like that" so that I was engaging him in appropriate activity and giving him the warm fuzzies over that good follow through. If it were a hitting behavior I wasn't expecting and couldn't divert before hand, it would depend. If he did it out of upset, I'd have him calm down some where safe. If he did flippantly, I'd explain that it hurt and remove the item that he used to hurt. And then I'd follow through with praising good behavior as soon as it happened after.

We use positive opposite rules like instead of "no hitting" which is kinda a boundary imo, we'd say "Use gentle touch" as a rule that would help define that boundary. We pick our wording on that stuff around our children's developmental needs- for us the wording must be understandable, short and specific.

I am very familiar with punishments. They are reactive and they give parents a false sense of security imo. My son is a runner for example. I know he is a runner. A rule of "Stay with mom" only goes so far. I also want him to know that the boundary of being close is important to me. I have to protect him from himself and the world. So if I am afraid he will run some where (and we've spent enough time attaching and connecting to know if each other well enough that I can tell if he might) then I'd hold his hand preemptively. At some point, punishment based parenting allows a parent to "let their guard up" because you must have adequately trained the child. Punishments are on the back end of undesirable behavior. Which means if the undesired behavior is very risky, depending on the punishment to detour the behavior is very dangerous depending on the child. Sure my son knows better than to run off. Most kids do know better. But I know his impulse control will not keep him in that boundary so I prefer not to wait for consequence of him being lost (which likely wouldn't scare him anyway, yikes!) In that instance, I'd maybe have him stay in the stroller and say "I want to help you stay with mommy where you will be safe"

Again, new at this too. We did the punitive approach for so long that it's hard to break away from but thank you for this post because breaking it all down like that really helps me keep my focus on the forefront of my kids needs. :)

[DavidKelleyMay18]

I'm a little confused by consequence and punishment. On the conversation as cook was saying say my daughter or son was to stay by me and the cart at the store. Is it wrong to say if the child didn't stay with me to say now if you don't stay with me you are to go in the shopping cart. Is that a natural consequence for not listening?

Kelley

[Teribear]

the natural consequence of not listening is not hearing what is being said - a NATURAL consequence just happens...cause and effect.

The LOGICAL consequence of not staying with mom in the store is sitting in the shopping cart instead of being allowed to walk. Telling the child that PRIOR to going into the store is stating the expectation for behavior for the trip. Repeating that as you are putting the child into the cart after they haven't met the expectations might or might not be punitive based on attitude.

[DavidKelleyMay18]

the natural consequence of not listening is not hearing what is being said - a NATURAL consequence just happens...cause and effect.

The LOGICAL consequence of not staying with mom in the store is sitting in the shopping cart instead of being allowed to walk. Telling the child that PRIOR to going into the store is stating the expectation for behavior for the trip. Repeating that as you are putting the child into the cart after they haven't met the expectations might or might not be punitive based on attitude.

So another words you don't warn the child or that is punishment but the consequence is what the child knows he/she needs to do.

Kelley

[filmgirl2911]

:cup subbing to read later

great thread :heart

[arwen_tiw]

So another words you don't warn the child or that is punishment but the consequence is what the child knows he/she needs to do.

Kelley

Depends on the age of the child, their character, your tone of voice, and your intent. ;) Sorry to be vague!

[ShiriChayim]

So another words you don't warn the child or that is punishment but the consequence is what the child knows he/she needs to do.

Kelley
I think what she meant was that part of setting your child up for success is making sure they are aware of the expectations before going into the store. So telling your daughter in the parking lot: "If you run away from me in the store you will need to sit in the cart so I can keep you safe" is absolutely appropriate to remind her of the rules before entering the store.

Then later if she runs away you can take her hand and say, "Remember what I said? You need to sit in the cart now in order to stay safe" and put her into the seat. It can be firm and matter of fact without being a punishment.

If you were to take her and say, "I TOLD you not to run away so now you're going to have to sit in the cart and not get to walk on your own because you disobeyed" is punitive.

So in the scenario of running away from the store:

Getting lost or hurt is the NATURAL consequence which your daughter is not yet ready for. Allowing that to happen to teach her not to run away would definitely be punitive.

Having to sit in the cart to remain safe is the LOGICAL consequence. One that can be done punitively or gently depending largely upon your attitude.

Another GBD response could be to find a harness your child can wear which keeps her safe and with you and gives her some freedom to walk on her own (providing she likes it of course).

[Teribear]

Yes. What Heather said. :)

[Cook]

Another GBD response could be to find a harness your child can wear which keeps her safe and with you and gives her some freedom to walk on her own (providing she likes it of course).

Yup. And those provide propreoceptive (sp?) sensory which can help kids naturally regulate and control the urge to run. We used a weighted backpack at times too.

It is largely about where to place responsibility for the outcome imo. Consequences happen naturally as a parent takes responsibility for keeping a child safe in the world. Punishments are reactive after the child has had a bad outcome for which the parent placed expectation on the childs ability to stay safe. Month though. Not sure if that's gbd. When I was a reactive punishment based parent, I would get on to him or punish for something he "knew better than". As an advocate to my child, I make a point to pay attention to who he is and know his developmental ability to know that staying safe will be hard for him. I may or may not let him exercise that ability safely in a way that I can still protect him (maybe hold my hand) but a consequence of not being safe, if I feel I cannot adequately protect him, he will have to stay in the cart- NOT to show him how to be better next time but literally because I am responsible for his safety. And even in that, I don't make him feel bad about the extra measure. It is on me, a consequence of my ob to keep him safe even. In that way, I never realized it! - I'm literally teaching him from the inside. He will desire to be walking. I am making him feel good about that eventuality and building confidence that when he IS ready, he knows I will still be protecting him- only giving him bigger parameters because I KNOW he can handle it. Sorry to ramble my epiphany. Long day but sure is great to end it thinking about it like that!

---------- Post added at 01:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 AM ----------

Lol @ "month though" silly auto correct -should read jMO though.

[GentleMomof4]

subbing

[ArmsOfLove]

So another words you don't warn the child or that is punishment but the consequence is what the child knows he/she needs to do.

Kelley
the difference is more in the parameters that Jane Nelson has set up for Solutions--if the consequence is related, respectful, relevant and helpful for preventing the problem in the future then it is logical and a Solution (and not a punitive consequence)

So with the cart example--if the child is not able, or whatever reason (which would also be considered within a GBD approach) to stay near mom and the cart then would putting them into the cart be:

relevant--it would address the actual problem
related--it is definitely tied together in an obvious way
respectful--especially if it is done without extra rudeness or anger it is respectful to keep a child safe and to keep the store from being destroyed
helpful for preventing the problem--both in the short term and in the long term this will help create good store habits for the child

So it would be a solution.

I would state the expected behavior AND the solution for misbehavior *before* entering the store and I would remind them why I'm putting them in the cart in as few words as possible and without adding frustration or anger (ideally ;)). "Oh, the rule in the store is stay by the cart or ride in it. It's time to ride in the cart. We'll try walking again next time."

[gardentender]

Great discussion...very helpful!

[NewCovenantMama]

the difference is more in the parameters that Jane Nelson has set up for Solutions--if the consequence is related, respectful, relevant and helpful for preventing the problem in the future then it is logical and a Solution (and not a punitive consequence)

So with the cart example--if the child is not able, or whatever reason (which would also be considered within a GBD approach) to stay near mom and the cart then would putting them into the cart be:

relevant--it would address the actual problem
related--it is definitely tied together in an obvious way
respectful--especially if it is done without extra rudeness or anger it is respectful to keep a child safe and to keep the store from being destroyed
helpful for preventing the problem--both in the short term and in the long term this will help create good store habits for the child

So it would be a solution.

I would state the expected behavior AND the solution for misbehavior *before* entering the store and I would remind them why I'm putting them in the cart in as few words as possible and without adding frustration or anger (ideally ;)). "Oh, the rule in the store is stay by the cart or ride in it. It's time to ride in the cart. We'll try walking again next time."
:yes

I try to avoid the term "consequence" and think in terms of Solutions instead, bc "consequence" is so often used as a politically correct euphemism for punishment (I've even come across, "If you don't stop misbehaving I'm going to have to consequence you.":scratch) A punishment is given "so you know not to do it again". A solution is implemented in order to solve a problem.

[Maggirayne]

Okay, I'm still trying to process and really have a working knowledge of gentle discipline, so pardon the seeming ignorance.
Here's my question (and maybe I'm doing it all wrong - so feel free to point that out as well :)). For example this morning my 4 year old hit me with her doll because she was angry about something. I told her calmly that that was not playing appropriately, nicely and respectfully with the doll or me and that until she was calmer and could handle it the right way I needed to take the doll. How is that different than saying, "You can't hit, so therefore I'm taking your doll away as a consequence." Is it just semantics? Or if I determine that she is too tired, etc...whatever to go on a fun outing so we stay home. How different is that than, "You're throwing too many fits so the consequence is staying home." Just trying to process this in my head. Thanks! :)
It sounds like it's semantics because you can use the same words to explain your actions, BUT the difference in
1) your expectations (realistic and age-typical vs. unrealistic and inappropriate)
2) explaining said expectations (simply and in terms child can understand)
3) setting child up to succeed (expecting a baby/toddler to not cry/talk during a church service, so bringing toys/snacks/removing when appropriate)
4) your attitude/tone/expression of your expectations and your response ("You're little, and you will eventually learn. It just takes time, and Mommy showing you how lots of times," instead "You do this now!" (whether child can or not).

[mountainash]

Punishment's purpose is to satisfy the punisher whereas discipline, boundaries, and consequences serve the child. The retribution aspect of punishment is important to note.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment

[ProudHooahWife]

LOVE this discussion! Thank you all!