Anonymous wrote:If you want kids to learn self control and self motivation, the consequence needs to be natural or at least logical. Ie: related to the behavior. Taking away iPad for hitting brother is neither.

Has no one here read a parenting book?

I posted earlier that my kids aren’t allowed electronics (tv/computer/reading lights in their rooms) until they have completed their chores and homework. That is how I live my life as an adult as well. It seems logical to me.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I...I need more information about this.

Me too. As I sit here eating a bowl of ice cream.

A. Mini. M&M.

We do a whole Hershey’s Kiss for an after dinner treat/bribe. Am I dooming my child to sugar addiction and diabetes?

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.

I...I need more information about this.

Me too. As I sit here eating a bowl of ice cream.

A. Mini. M&M.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't know how old your child is, but at least that's how boys of my son's age socialize. If you don't let them play games or watch videos, you are cutting them off from their friends. Just like we might have discussed an episode of a TV show, they share and talk about memes and YouTubers.

I can understand and see your point, but I think kids are consumed by electronics. Go to a restaurant and it's like instead of having children who can behave in public, we just give them a ipad or whatever to distract them and not be bored. What was wrong with being bored as a kid? Sometimes life is boring. I think there is an excessive level of use when it comes to children/tweens/teens with electronics and technology.

DP... I absolutely do mind if they are bored at home, but I would rather eat in peace at a restaurant. And if that means letting the kids watch 10min of something or play an educational or not so educational game while I (and the rest of the patrons) get to eat in peace at a restaurant, then I have no issues with it.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't know how old your child is, but at least that's how boys of my son's age socialize. If you don't let them play games or watch videos, you are cutting them off from their friends. Just like we might have discussed an episode of a TV show, they share and talk about memes and YouTubers.

I can understand and see your point, but I think kids are consumed by electronics. Go to a restaurant and it's like instead of having children who can behave in public, we just give them a ipad or whatever to distract them and not be bored. What was wrong with being bored as a kid? Sometimes life is boring. I think there is an excessive level of use when it comes to children/tweens/teens with electronics and technology.

If you want kids to learn self control and self motivation, the consequence needs to be natural or at least logical. Ie: related to the behavior. Taking away iPad for hitting brother is neither.

Has no one here read a parenting book?

Because screens are addictive. And kids want to use them, that's why they are such good candidates to be taken away as punishment.

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.

Neither do you and yet you are on here.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't know how old your child is, but at least that's how boys of my son's age socialize. If you don't let them play games or watch videos, you are cutting them off from their friends. Just like we might have discussed an episode of a TV show, they share and talk about memes and YouTubers.

Yep. Also as kids get older, it's essential for communication. When I was a tween or young teen in the 80s and had to stay after school for sports practice or go to a movie with my friends, there were payphones so I could call my mom to pick me up. Try finding a payphone at a school or movie theater now.

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.

I don't know how old your child is, but at least that's how boys of my son's age socialize. If you don't let them play games or watch videos, you are cutting them off from their friends. Just like we might have discussed an episode of a TV show, they share and talk about memes and YouTubers.

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.

I...I need more information about this.

Me too. As I sit here eating a bowl of ice cream.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When my son was three, I cold take away his beloved John Deere tractor and that did the trick. Not so much anymore now that he is 14. Come back when you have teenagers and then you can answer your own question.

Is everyone who takes away electronics the parent of teenagers? No one does it before that age?

I wrote about the John Deere tractor. My son just got a phone last summer when he was 13. Before that, he didn't have any electronics except the little Nintendo DS which I limited to the weekends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because screens are addictive. And kids are addicted.

And most parents are too lazy/tired to parent.

Prescribing and administering punishment is parenting. Surprised you didn't know that.

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.

I...I need more information about this.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think some of it is how punishments have changed dramatically over the past generation.

When I grew up, we were spanked. For anything and everything. There was no need to tie the punishment to the crime. It was simply meant to be a deterrent.

Now parents have to get more creative about how to motivate behavior, which is where I think consequences come in. We can't just scare or hurt our kids into behaving. We have to motivate them into behaving. While we may have some blanket penalties, like time out for a 5 year old, many of us have worked out consequences for various infractions. Sending my 16 year old to her room for a bad grade isn't going to do anything to get her grade up; she's perfectly happy to spend time in her room. Telling her she has to study that subject for an hour every day before she can have her phone is a reasonable "consequence" for a poor grade, and may help provide her with the understanding of how to improve her grades, and that if she keeps her grades up, she won't have a parent making these decisions for her. And I'll consider this a "consequence" rather than a "punishment" because it's specifically addressing the issue that is the problem, rather than a blanket penalty trying to scare/hurt/shame her into compliance.