Most annoying modern parenting lingo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still trying to figure out the natural consequences of taking my daughter to school in her princess dress (she doesn't want to change into school - I mean, daycare - clothes.) She would be delighted to wear her dress all day. What would positive discipline - I mean, parenting - tell me to do?

Who cares if she wants to wear her princess dress to daycare? Let her wear it!

I agree. The natural consequence would be if the other kids teased her, or her teachers asked her to change. (I might throw another outfit in a bag.) A princess dress doesn't seem like a fight worth having, on top of everything else you have to do to get out the door in the morning.

The teachers won't allow her to wear it. But then if the teacher makes her change, isn't that putting the effort of discipline onto the teacher? Is the teacher exempt from following "natural consequences"? If "natural consequences" is the way to go, what does the teacher do if child still wants to wear the princess dress? My point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with natural consequences, but in some cases, there is no natural consequence, however there are rules to follow. I've had teachers send notes home saying, "Please don't let X wear her princess shoes to school." Okay. I agree. However now X wants to wear her princess shoes to school. What is the natural consequence? If I send her to school, what natural consequence will follow, that doesn't involve disciplining the child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Positive discipline. IMO discipline isn't supposed to be a positive experience.

Positive discipline is teaching children to do the right thing. Negative discipline is punishment.

Right! Children who are misbehaving sometimes need to be punished. The result of misbehavior should not be something positive.

Is there a phrase for this new approach to parenting -- the one that has to put a positive spin on most everything? Whatever that term is would be on my list of most annoying.

Positive discipline doesn't mean the child thrown a tantrum and you hand him a lollipop. Natural consequences are often considered "positive discipline." The term may be new (and not one I'd choose to use), but the approach isn't.

"Natural consequences" sounds like we are willing to let circumstances handle the situation but we are unwilling to establish those consequences ourselves. If my child is bad to other kids, the natural consequence is that he ends up friendless. I think it's better that he face my consequences before that happens. Of course I am going to teach him the right thing, but I am going to punish him if he hurts other children.

This is a strawman. No one advocates for allowing a child to hurt other children. But if my child wants to run around at supper time, I won't ignore it but neither will I turn it into a battle of wills. I could punish him, try to force him to eat, or let him suffer the "natural consequence" of skipping supper - he's hungry at bedtime.

It's not a strawman. You assume that the situation will provide the discipline, but that doesn't always happen. That's like saying that cheaters never prosper. Yes they do.

Your example is flawed. The discipline only works because your child gets hungry enough to care. Otherwise, he's running around the table, distracting the other kids, driving your spouse crazy, maybe distracting other patrons at a restaurant, and what are you doing about it other than waiting for circumstances to fail him? Should the consequence be the manager of a restaurant kicking you out? Or maybe that the two youngest children start following him around?

This is the problem I have with positive discipline. You default to letting the situation do the tough part of parenting. You aren't the bad guy, but then you have to wait around while life teaches your kids lessons. I think it's a justification for conflict avoidance.

[Anonymous]

My SIL not only says "calm your body" but also instructs her spirited son to "stop your feet" if he's running, or "stop your hands" if he's hitting someone. For me, I find a shrieked "STOP" works just as well, but then, my kid is easy, very verbal, thriving (I don't think anyone's mentioned that one here yet) etc.

[Anonymous]

Positive discipline is simply coined from psychologists for positive and negative reinforcement. So sorry to tell you folks, but there is actually a science behind it and recommended uses for behavioral psychology. Think animal trainers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Positive discipline. IMO discipline isn't supposed to be a positive experience.

Positive discipline is teaching children to do the right thing. Negative discipline is punishment.

Right! Children who are misbehaving sometimes need to be punished. The result of misbehavior should not be something positive.

Is there a phrase for this new approach to parenting -- the one that has to put a positive spin on most everything? Whatever that term is would be on my list of most annoying.

Positive discipline doesn't mean the child thrown a tantrum and you hand him a lollipop. Natural consequences are often considered "positive discipline." The term may be new (and not one I'd choose to use), but the approach isn't.

"Natural consequences" sounds like we are willing to let circumstances handle the situation but we are unwilling to establish those consequences ourselves. If my child is bad to other kids, the natural consequence is that he ends up friendless. I think it's better that he face my consequences before that happens. Of course I am going to teach him the right thing, but I am going to punish him if he hurts other children.

This is a strawman. No one advocates for allowing a child to hurt other children. But if my child wants to run around at supper time, I won't ignore it but neither will I turn it into a battle of wills. I could punish him, try to force him to eat, or let him suffer the "natural consequence" of skipping supper - he's hungry at bedtime.

It's not a strawman. You assume that the situation will provide the discipline, but that doesn't always happen. That's like saying that cheaters never prosper. Yes they do.

Your example is flawed. The discipline only works because your child gets hungry enough to care. Otherwise, he's running around the table, distracting the other kids, driving your spouse crazy, maybe distracting other patrons at a restaurant, and what are you doing about it other than waiting for circumstances to fail him? Should the consequence be the manager of a restaurant kicking you out? Or maybe that the two youngest children start following him around?

This is the problem I have with positive discipline. You default to letting the situation do the tough part of parenting. You aren't the bad guy, but then you have to wait around while life teaches your kids lessons. I think it's a justification for conflict avoidance.

Again, you're responding to things you've either assumed or made up. (Strawman: An informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. See above.) Nowhere do I say I would allow my child to run around a restaurant and disrupt other patrons, nor do I say I would ignore his behavior. Quite the opposite. If we are at home and he chooses not to eat, I do not force him to eat because I don't think that teaches him to eat his supper. He may not disrupt me or anyone else at the table. He may leave the table and play in the other room. If we are out, he will not leave the table unless accompanied by an adult. I will not prepare him another meal later because he chose not to eat. Then if he is hungry later, that's too bad - that is the consequence of skipping supper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still trying to figure out the natural consequences of taking my daughter to school in her princess dress (she doesn't want to change into school - I mean, daycare - clothes.) She would be delighted to wear her dress all day. What would positive discipline - I mean, parenting - tell me to do?

Who cares if she wants to wear her princess dress to daycare? Let her wear it!

I agree. The natural consequence would be if the other kids teased her, or her teachers asked her to change. (I might throw another outfit in a bag.) A princess dress doesn't seem like a fight worth having, on top of everything else you have to do to get out the door in the morning.

The teachers won't allow her to wear it. But then if the teacher makes her change, isn't that putting the effort of discipline onto the teacher? Is the teacher exempt from following "natural consequences"? If "natural consequences" is the way to go, what does the teacher do if child still wants to wear the princess dress? My point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with natural consequences, but in some cases, there is no natural consequence, however there are rules to follow. I've had teachers send notes home saying, "Please don't let X wear her princess shoes to school." Okay. I agree. However now X wants to wear her princess shoes to school. What is the natural consequence? If I send her to school, what natural consequence will follow, that doesn't involve disciplining the child?

As I said earlier, no discipline technique works in 100% of situations. Don't we all adapt based on what's needed? Sometimes it's a timeout, sometimes it's a scolding, sometimes natural consequences would work best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
DCUM. Am I the only person who thinks that this word is slightly pornographic?

LOL! I had never thought of that before. Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Why don't people write "ha ha" instead of LOL? And isn't a parenting term, but it's the 11th page.

[Anonymous]

And spin-off. Stop it with the spin off threads. Annoying.

[Anonymous]

People calling their kids "work". Although I admit I've done this. I posted the last two posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Positive discipline. IMO discipline isn't supposed to be a positive experience.

Positive discipline is teaching children to do the right thing. Negative discipline is punishment.

Right! Children who are misbehaving sometimes need to be punished. The result of misbehavior should not be something positive.

Is there a phrase for this new approach to parenting -- the one that has to put a positive spin on most everything? Whatever that term is would be on my list of most annoying.

Positive discipline doesn't mean the child thrown a tantrum and you hand him a lollipop. Natural consequences are often considered "positive discipline." The term may be new (and not one I'd choose to use), but the approach isn't.

"Natural consequences" sounds like we are willing to let circumstances handle the situation but we are unwilling to establish those consequences ourselves. If my child is bad to other kids, the natural consequence is that he ends up friendless. I think it's better that he face my consequences before that happens. Of course I am going to teach him the right thing, but I am going to punish him if he hurts other children.

This is a strawman. No one advocates for allowing a child to hurt other children. But if my child wants to run around at supper time, I won't ignore it but neither will I turn it into a battle of wills. I could punish him, try to force him to eat, or let him suffer the "natural consequence" of skipping supper - he's hungry at bedtime.

It's not a strawman. You assume that the situation will provide the discipline, but that doesn't always happen. That's like saying that cheaters never prosper. Yes they do.

Your example is flawed. The discipline only works because your child gets hungry enough to care. Otherwise, he's running around the table, distracting the other kids, driving your spouse crazy, maybe distracting other patrons at a restaurant, and what are you doing about it other than waiting for circumstances to fail him? Should the consequence be the manager of a restaurant kicking you out? Or maybe that the two youngest children start following him around?

This is the problem I have with positive discipline. You default to letting the situation do the tough part of parenting. You aren't the bad guy, but then you have to wait around while life teaches your kids lessons. I think it's a justification for conflict avoidance.

Again, you're responding to things you've either assumed or made up. (Strawman: An informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. See above.) Nowhere do I say I would allow my child to run around a restaurant and disrupt other patrons, nor do I say I would ignore his behavior. Quite the opposite. If we are at home and he chooses not to eat, I do not force him to eat because I don't think that teaches him to eat his supper. He may not disrupt me or anyone else at the table. He may leave the table and play in the other room. If we are out, he will not leave the table unless accompanied by an adult. I will not prepare him another meal later because he chose not to eat. Then if he is hungry later, that's too bad - that is the consequence of skipping supper.

Great, so what do you do when he won't do all those things you said he "may not do"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still trying to figure out the natural consequences of taking my daughter to school in her princess dress (she doesn't want to change into school - I mean, daycare - clothes.) She would be delighted to wear her dress all day. What would positive discipline - I mean, parenting - tell me to do?

Who cares if she wants to wear her princess dress to daycare? Let her wear it!

I agree. The natural consequence would be if the other kids teased her, or her teachers asked her to change. (I might throw another outfit in a bag.) A princess dress doesn't seem like a fight worth having, on top of everything else you have to do to get out the door in the morning.

The teachers won't allow her to wear it. But then if the teacher makes her change, isn't that putting the effort of discipline onto the teacher? Is the teacher exempt from following "natural consequences"? If "natural consequences" is the way to go, what does the teacher do if child still wants to wear the princess dress? My point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with natural consequences, but in some cases, there is no natural consequence, however there are rules to follow. I've had teachers send notes home saying, "Please don't let X wear her princess shoes to school." Okay. I agree. However now X wants to wear her princess shoes to school. What is the natural consequence? If I send her to school, what natural consequence will follow, that doesn't involve disciplining the child?

OK, I've been reading way too many books in this subject.

Postitive Discipline does allow rules. If the rule at school is no princess dress, then that is the power behind you saying "no, you can't choose the princess dress, because it is a rule." What you you trying to punish? The want? Or is it the bothering? The books I have read (oh too many) say the trick is controlling your behavior. If you lose it when you child bugs you, that is your behavior problem, not theirs. So you just ignore the "I want to wear the princess dress" protests. You give her the options she can choose from, and if she doesn't choose one, you drag her to school in her pjs.

[Anonymous]

...That is, when he does all those things you said he "may not do"?

[Anonymous]

i think this thread should be retitled "Thread Drift 101".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still trying to figure out the natural consequences of taking my daughter to school in her princess dress (she doesn't want to change into school - I mean, daycare - clothes.) She would be delighted to wear her dress all day. What would positive discipline - I mean, parenting - tell me to do?

Who cares if she wants to wear her princess dress to daycare? Let her wear it!

I agree. The natural consequence would be if the other kids teased her, or her teachers asked her to change. (I might throw another outfit in a bag.) A princess dress doesn't seem like a fight worth having, on top of everything else you have to do to get out the door in the morning.

The teachers won't allow her to wear it. But then if the teacher makes her change, isn't that putting the effort of discipline onto the teacher? Is the teacher exempt from following "natural consequences"? If "natural consequences" is the way to go, what does the teacher do if child still wants to wear the princess dress? My point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with natural consequences, but in some cases, there is no natural consequence, however there are rules to follow. I've had teachers send notes home saying, "Please don't let X wear her princess shoes to school." Okay. I agree. However now X wants to wear her princess shoes to school. What is the natural consequence? If I send her to school, what natural consequence will follow, that doesn't involve disciplining the child?

OK, I've been reading way too many books in this subject.

Postitive Discipline does allow rules. If the rule at school is no princess dress, then that is the power behind you saying "no, you can't choose the princess dress, because it is a rule." What you you trying to punish? The want? Or is it the bothering? The books I have read (oh too many) say the trick is controlling your behavior. If you lose it when you child bugs you, that is your behavior problem, not theirs. So you just ignore the "I want to wear the princess dress" protests. You give her the options she can choose from, and if she doesn't choose one, you drag her to school in her pjs.

My initial response was to the person who said, "Positive discipline is teaching children to do the right thing. Negative discipline is punishment" by way of "natural consequences." My point was that natural consequences don't always work, that sometimes a better solution is something that results in what some may think is "punishment," i.e. taking away a privilege, etc. In the dress scenario, my daughter already had the dress on when we were getting ready to leave (she had run to put it on right before we walked out the door), so to answer your question, I was not interested in punishing her for WANTING to wear her dress or BOTHERING me. I needed to get her to take her dress off and put something else on. School does not allow princess dresses. I was interested to know what the natural consequences were for this scenario, given PPs comments that positive discipline equaled "parenting" and all other forms equaled "punishment." LOL