powder Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 I heard Stef mention that he and his wife had decided that they would not punish their daughter - no negative consequences. I would like to learn more about this. I agree that hitting children with negative consequences like time outs and withholding attention etc is abusive. Moreover, I understand that all this carries over into our adult lives. When he mentioned the no punishment thing it struck me that we do that in our adult relationships instead of communicating, negotiating, etc... we withhold love and affection, use avoidance and other passive aggressive behavior to 'punish' those close to us for transgressions. I think this is so important. We are so programmed to think that children need to be controlled and then somehow reprimanded for 'wrong' behavior. What can you folks tell me about your understanding and experiences around this.
Culain Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 I heard Stef mention that he and his wife had decided that they would not punish their daughter - no negative consequences. I would like to learn more about this. Paraphrasing from memory but I believe Stefan said this about his daughter, "I would never want my daughter to live in a world where she is shielded from the consequences of her actions." The point is learning to take responsibility for ones actions. However taking responsibility is different from punishment, through negotiation one can avoid that form of discipline. Negotiate the rules together, and the consequences of violating those rules. The relationship must be treated as voluntary and equal so the same rules apply universally.
dsayers Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 Is your question, "Why is it wrong to punish children but not adults?" When he mentioned the no punishment thing it struck me that we do that in our adult relationships instead of communicating, negotiating, etc... we withhold love and affection, use avoidance and other passive aggressive behavior to 'punish' those close to us for transgressions. I own myself, therefore my time and the effects of my actions, therefore my car, etc. There is no positive obligation for me to give of these things to anybody else. I don't agree that the withholding of these things could be classified as passive aggressive. If I avoid a statist for example, I'm not trying to punish them, but rather just trying to protect myself. It would be different if I created a positive obligation to somebody, say by consenting to them borrowing my car. Likewise, parents create an enormous positive obligation to the child when they have the child. This includes modeling the capacity for reason and negotiation. It's important that the parent understands that anything they view as punishable is in fact a failure on the part of the parents. One they should confess to their child and have a dialogue about it. This addresses the actual issue as well as models things like it's okay to fail, how to make amends, etc. I hope this is helpful. I sort of went on the presumption that you were asking how I interpreted your question (before getting confirmation).
powder Posted May 23, 2014 Author Posted May 23, 2014 Paraphrasing from memory but I believe Stefan said this about his daughter, "I would never want my daughter to live in a world where she is shielded from the consequences of her actions." The point is learning to take responsibility for ones actions. However taking responsibility is different from punishment, through negotiation one can avoid that form of discipline. Negotiate the rules together, and the consequences of violating those rules. The relationship must be treated as voluntary and equal so the same rules apply universally. thanks Culain, that is a good perspective. Yes the difference between taking responsibility for ones actions and punishment is key Is your question, "Why is it wrong to punish children but not adults?" My question was simply the last sentence of my post, forgot to put a '?' at the end of it. I own myself, therefore my time and the effects of my actions, therefore my car, etc. There is no positive obligation for me to give of these things to anybody else. I don't agree that the withholding of these things could be classified as passive aggressive. If I avoid a statist for example, I'm not trying to punish them, but rather just trying to protect myself. It would be different if I created a positive obligation to somebody, say by consenting to them borrowing my car. I was thinking more of intimate relationships, like a couple for example, where one might withhold attention, avoid, etc when they feel offended for some reason. That is a form of 'punishment' not unlike what happens to children with their parents with 'time outs', 'got to your room', 'no play time', and the like. this is different from avoiding someone to protect your well-being. Does that fit? Likewise, parents create an enormous positive obligation to the child when they have the child. This includes modeling the capacity for reason and negotiation. It's important that the parent understands that anything they view as punishable is in fact a failure on the part of the parents. One they should confess to their child and have a dialogue about it. This addresses the actual issue as well as models things like it's okay to fail, how to make amends, etc. I hope this is helpful. excellent, this is helpful as well. thanks dsayers.
Mike Larson Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 The use of punishment is a way of avoiding the more rational approach of actually dealing with underlying issues. It is much easier (at least in the heat of the moment) to say that a child is being "rebellious" and that he/she must be punished than it is to make an attempt to understand the underlying feelings and needs of the child that are obviously not being met.
dsayers Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 I was thinking more of intimate relationships, like a couple for example, where one might withhold attention, avoid, etc when they feel offended for some reason. That is a form of 'punishment' not unlike what happens to children with their parents with 'time outs', 'got to your room', 'no play time', and the like. Ah, I was wondering if that's what you meant. There's a fine line. If you are normally affectionate with somebody who has since wronged you and you withhold that affection, I think this still comes down to not giving of yourself that which you are not required to. However, I do understand that there are some people out there that intentionally do that sort of thing in an attempt to manipulate another person. As this isn't an actual behavior, but rather a form of inaction, it's not immoral. The suffering the person being manipulated experiences is proximal. By this I mean that this is suffering that they're actually allowing for by allowing somebody capable of that not only in their life, but so close to them that such inaction could be used as a weapon. This is something I've been thinking about lately. So I'd be interested in hearing what people have to say to support or challenge this stance.
Recommended Posts