Why is the threat or punishment always “taking away electronics?”

[Anonymous]

When I was a teen my parents took away tv privileges and or phone privileges. Same thing. Grounding doesn't work anymore since they can still be constantly in touch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, I’m a parent— kids in elementary.

So what I’m gleaning is:

-The idea is to take away the thing that is most valuable to the kid, and this is effective in stopping undesirable behavior.
-Electronics are the thing that is most valuable to the vast majority of children, or at least children whose parents post here.
-Also possibly electronics are a thing that parents feel ambivalent about (mentions of addiction) and so are easier for parents to feel good about taking away.

Do I get it?

Yes.
You get it. Video games, television, lights (in bedroom for reading at night), are all valuable to my children and don’t cause me a lot of pain to give or take away. So these are pretty common punishments/rewards.

[Anonymous]

There are ways to teach kids and curb undesirable behavior without punishments, but punishments and rewards are most popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I was a teen my parents took away tv privileges and or phone privileges. Same thing. Grounding doesn't work anymore since they can still be constantly in touch.

Oh! Interesting. That makes sense, that grounding is not a thing anymore. Hmmmmm..... —OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What works better for you, OP?

Not OP but taking away certain toys or not getting a treat after dinner (a mini M&M) has worked for my kids. They also don’t have access to “electronics” so there’s that.

Lol.
I am imagining the age where this would be effective. A child young enough to think of an m&m was a treat would be 3 or 4. At that age taking it away hours later would not be an effective punishment.
“Your sister gets her m&m tonight, but you don’t get one because you pushed Larla on the playground this morning. Do you understand?”

Or an older child. “You took the car without permission yesterday and we had no idea where you were. No mini m&m after dinner.”

Or maybe in between. “Your teacher told me that you called another child a name at recess today. No mini m&m for you tonight!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how many people will use the term consequences to avoid the term punishments and then acknowledge that the point of a “consequence” is to purposefully inflict some degree of distress or discomfort.

Not really. For example, you didn't do your homework? Ok, there may be some consequence, likely in the form of your grade, teacher's displeasure, whatever. I'm not going to impose some punishment of taking away your screen time after the fact. Now if it becomes a habit maybe you don't get screen time until you earn it by doing you homework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how many people will use the term consequences to avoid the term punishments and then acknowledge that the point of a “consequence” is to purposefully inflict some degree of distress or discomfort.

Not really. For example, you didn't do your homework? Ok, there may be some consequence, likely in the form of your grade, teacher's displeasure, whatever. I'm not going to impose some punishment of taking away your screen time after the fact. Now if it becomes a habit maybe you don't get screen time until you earn it by doing you homework.

Well, sure, sometimes consequences are natural or at least not imposed by a parent. But there are lots of parents who use the term consequences for punishments they impose, I guess because consequences makes it sound more like the child chose it (see also “you’re not making good choices, so [I’m going to punish you with...]”) or absolves the parent of responsibility, at least semantically. Kind of conflating punishments with natural consequences, as if they were automatic and unavoidable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What works better for you, OP?

Not OP but taking away certain toys or not getting a treat after dinner (a mini M&M) has worked for my kids. They also don’t have access to “electronics” so there’s that.

Lol.
I am imagining the age where this would be effective. A child young enough to think of an m&m was a treat would be 3 or 4. At that age taking it away hours later would not be an effective punishment.
“Your sister gets her m&m tonight, but you don’t get one because you pushed Larla on the playground this morning. Do you understand?”

Or an older child. “You took the car without permission yesterday and we had no idea where you were. No mini m&m after dinner.”

Or maybe in between. “Your teacher told me that you called another child a name at recess today. No mini m&m for you tonight!”

I wonder if pp's child can earn a regular-sized m&m for especially good behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What works better for you, OP?

Not OP but taking away certain toys or not getting a treat after dinner (a mini M&M) has worked for my kids. They also don’t have access to “electronics” so there’s that.

Lol.
I am imagining the age where this would be effective. A child young enough to think of an m&m was a treat would be 3 or 4. At that age taking it away hours later would not be an effective punishment.
“Your sister gets her m&m tonight, but you don’t get one because you pushed Larla on the playground this morning. Do you understand?”

Or an older child. “You took the car without permission yesterday and we had no idea where you were. No mini m&m after dinner.”

Or maybe in between. “Your teacher told me that you called another child a name at recess today. No mini m&m for you tonight!”

I wonder if pp's child can earn a regular-sized m&m for especially good behavior.

Hahaha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, I’m a parent— kids in elementary.

So what I’m gleaning is:

-The idea is to take away the thing that is most valuable to the kid, and this is effective in stopping undesirable behavior.
-Electronics are the thing that is most valuable to the vast majority of children, or at least children whose parents post here.
-Also possibly electronics are a thing that parents feel ambivalent about (mentions of addiction) and so are easier for parents to feel good about taking away.

Do I get it?

Yes, you get it. But, with kids in elementary, did you really need it spelled out for you? Even if your kids aren't into electronics or they don't have much access to them anyway, the rationale seems pretty obvious. Even if you don't agree with the rationale, it's just not that difficult to understand.

[Anonymous]

What is UP with the weird screen/ipad judgers the last week or so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who say your children are addicted, why allow electronics (or the addictive aspects) at all? Or is the addiction benign in your opinion?

I don't understand the need to give electronics to kids. They don't need to watch videos or play games all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What works better for you, OP?

Not OP but taking away certain toys or not getting a treat after dinner (a mini M&M) has worked for my kids. They also don’t have access to “electronics” so there’s that.

How old are your kids?

BTW - electronics are a "certain toy."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what my son wants the most. Threatening to take away his toothbrush yielded no results.

+1 lol It's the only thing they really care about. They already have a time restriction on it, so if I take away more time, that would be hell for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who say your children are addicted, why allow electronics (or the addictive aspects) at all? Or is the addiction benign in your opinion?

I don't understand the need to give electronics to kids. They don't need to watch videos or play games all day.

Did you never watch tv as a kid? That's an electronic. It has a screen. Today, they have other electronics.