What is natural consequence and what is not?
denise perri
It's confusing sometimes for me to figure out what is
natural and what is not in regards to consequences.
I know that many of you have this down and I've read
about it on here and some other places but it's still
not clicking all the way.
Can anyone give me examples of situations and things
that would be considered natural consequences and
things that would be considered not natural
consequences and why?
Thank you Thank you Thank you
-Denise
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
natural and what is not in regards to consequences.
I know that many of you have this down and I've read
about it on here and some other places but it's still
not clicking all the way.
Can anyone give me examples of situations and things
that would be considered natural consequences and
things that would be considered not natural
consequences and why?
Thank you Thank you Thank you
-Denise
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/29/2005 10:13:53 AM Central Standard Time,
de_perri@... writes:
It's confusing sometimes for me to figure out what is
natural and what is not in regards to consequences.
~~~
A natural consequence is something that would happen if you, the mother,
didn't exist.
Lay your hand on a hot stove, your skin gets burned, whether mom is there or
not.
Lay your hand on a hot stove, your skin gets burned and mom scoops you up
and takes you to the sink and runs cold water on it....everything after the word
"burned" is not a natural consequence. It's a reaction mom had to seeing
her child get burned.
Mom slapping the hand away or saying spitefully, "SEE! That's what happens
when you touch a hot stove!" is NOT a natural consequence. It's spitefulness
and meanness and stating the obvious and treating the child like they don't
have a brain.
Natural consequences can be way more complicated than my simplified example.
The idea is to go for the principles behind cause and effect. The
principle is about being empowered to make choices that will lead to the desirable
consequences. You don't have to let your child suffer consequences of their
mistakes. It's better to help them recognize and think ahead what the
consequences might be, to interact with them to help them make their choices, while
optimizing good consequences and minimizign the negative ones.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
de_perri@... writes:
It's confusing sometimes for me to figure out what is
natural and what is not in regards to consequences.
~~~
A natural consequence is something that would happen if you, the mother,
didn't exist.
Lay your hand on a hot stove, your skin gets burned, whether mom is there or
not.
Lay your hand on a hot stove, your skin gets burned and mom scoops you up
and takes you to the sink and runs cold water on it....everything after the word
"burned" is not a natural consequence. It's a reaction mom had to seeing
her child get burned.
Mom slapping the hand away or saying spitefully, "SEE! That's what happens
when you touch a hot stove!" is NOT a natural consequence. It's spitefulness
and meanness and stating the obvious and treating the child like they don't
have a brain.
Natural consequences can be way more complicated than my simplified example.
The idea is to go for the principles behind cause and effect. The
principle is about being empowered to make choices that will lead to the desirable
consequences. You don't have to let your child suffer consequences of their
mistakes. It's better to help them recognize and think ahead what the
consequences might be, to interact with them to help them make their choices, while
optimizing good consequences and minimizign the negative ones.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
nellebelle
If you have to look for a consequence, than it is not a natural one.
Example: children playing roughly break something. The broken thing IS the consequence.
Mary Ellen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Example: children playing roughly break something. The broken thing IS the consequence.
Mary Ellen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Betsy Hill
** The idea is to go for the principles behind cause and effect. **
Right. A real effect, not a fake parent-generated effect.
Betsy
Right. A real effect, not a fake parent-generated effect.
Betsy
Deb
--- In [email protected], "nellebelle"
<nellebelle@c...> wrote:
piece breaks off, there's no need for me to add a 'punishment' or
something in the "I told you so" line - the toy is broken, that is
the consequence of throwing it against the wall. But, as part of
being mindfully present with him, I would try to notice when he is
starting to get frustrated and help him with that before it got to
the throwing stage. I might even remind him (especially important
for youngish children) that he can just put it down or I can help or
whatever because it seems to me (from my perspective) that it might
get broken at the rate things are going. If he chooses to continue,
throws it and breaks it, I'll commisserate over the feelings that
brings (sadness etc) and see what we can come up with to repair the
toy (if it is reparable). The discussion of feelings and working to
repair what can be repaired also carries over into discussing
feelings and repairing relationships as well.
--Deb
<nellebelle@c...> wrote:
>one.
> If you have to look for a consequence, than it is not a natural
>thing >IS the consequence.
> Example: children playing roughly break something. The broken
>Exactly. If DS gets frustrated and throws a toy at the wall and a
> Mary Ellen
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
piece breaks off, there's no need for me to add a 'punishment' or
something in the "I told you so" line - the toy is broken, that is
the consequence of throwing it against the wall. But, as part of
being mindfully present with him, I would try to notice when he is
starting to get frustrated and help him with that before it got to
the throwing stage. I might even remind him (especially important
for youngish children) that he can just put it down or I can help or
whatever because it seems to me (from my perspective) that it might
get broken at the rate things are going. If he chooses to continue,
throws it and breaks it, I'll commisserate over the feelings that
brings (sadness etc) and see what we can come up with to repair the
toy (if it is reparable). The discussion of feelings and working to
repair what can be repaired also carries over into discussing
feelings and repairing relationships as well.
--Deb
Liz in AZ
You've gotten great answers already, but no one has addressed my pet
peeve: if you, as the mom, foresee an unpleasant consequence and do
nothing to avert it so that your child can "learn from the
experience", whether that is a natural consequence or not it's mean
and lame.
For example: you are going out on a cold day; your child swears s/he
won't be cold without a coat. If you leave the coat behind, despite
your greater knowledge, so that the child can experience
the "natural consequence" of being cold... that's just mean. Help
the kid. Take the coat.
Liz in AZ
--- In [email protected], denise perri
<de_perri@y...> wrote:
peeve: if you, as the mom, foresee an unpleasant consequence and do
nothing to avert it so that your child can "learn from the
experience", whether that is a natural consequence or not it's mean
and lame.
For example: you are going out on a cold day; your child swears s/he
won't be cold without a coat. If you leave the coat behind, despite
your greater knowledge, so that the child can experience
the "natural consequence" of being cold... that's just mean. Help
the kid. Take the coat.
Liz in AZ
--- In [email protected], denise perri
<de_perri@y...> wrote:
>
>
> It's confusing sometimes for me to figure out what is
> natural and what is not in regards to consequences.
> I know that many of you have this down and I've read
> about it on here and some other places but it's still
> not clicking all the way.
> Can anyone give me examples of situations and things
> that would be considered natural consequences and
> things that would be considered not natural
> consequences and why?
>
> Thank you Thank you Thank you
> -Denise
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited
> Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
> http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/29/05 12:55:27 PM, eerrhhaz@... writes:
should do.
If she could, she helped the "natural consequences" along herself. If she
said "you'll lose it" sometimes she helped it get lost. If her dire warning
didn't come true, she was visibly miffed.
Because of that, because she created such an antagonism , and was so clearly
NOT "on our team," we were happy for her to be wrong. She was happy when we
were wrong.
That's not such a great use of happiness.
It's way better to be partners. I love Liz's point. If the point of a
coat is to keep a person from being cold, then the prevention of cold is the
goal. A coat isn't the only way, and it might not be as cold as the adult thinks
it will be, or the child who's running and jumping might not feel as cold as
an old-lady mom standing around would.
If the mom cares about the child being warm, the mom should take a coat and a
blanket and a hat, and not make a big deal about it. If they're needed,
they're there. If they're not needed, the mom can learn to judge a little
better, or just not mind always being over-prepared. I like to be over-prepared
myself. <g> That way the children are never under-warm, nor under-loved, nor
over-guilted.
Much better than when I was little and felt a little like if I had died of
pneumonia my mom would've leapt with joy at the big "I told you so" to be carved
on my tombstone. (A natural consequence of ignoring a mean mother,
perhaps.)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> -=-if you, as the mom, foresee an unpleasant consequence and doMy mom often gleefully hoped we would suffer from not doing what she said we
> nothing to avert it so that your child can "learn from the
> experience", whether that is a natural consequence or not it's mean
> and lame. -=-
>
should do.
If she could, she helped the "natural consequences" along herself. If she
said "you'll lose it" sometimes she helped it get lost. If her dire warning
didn't come true, she was visibly miffed.
Because of that, because she created such an antagonism , and was so clearly
NOT "on our team," we were happy for her to be wrong. She was happy when we
were wrong.
That's not such a great use of happiness.
It's way better to be partners. I love Liz's point. If the point of a
coat is to keep a person from being cold, then the prevention of cold is the
goal. A coat isn't the only way, and it might not be as cold as the adult thinks
it will be, or the child who's running and jumping might not feel as cold as
an old-lady mom standing around would.
If the mom cares about the child being warm, the mom should take a coat and a
blanket and a hat, and not make a big deal about it. If they're needed,
they're there. If they're not needed, the mom can learn to judge a little
better, or just not mind always being over-prepared. I like to be over-prepared
myself. <g> That way the children are never under-warm, nor under-loved, nor
over-guilted.
Much better than when I was little and felt a little like if I had died of
pneumonia my mom would've leapt with joy at the big "I told you so" to be carved
on my tombstone. (A natural consequence of ignoring a mean mother,
perhaps.)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
>I agree. However, we're having a similar situation that I'd like to hear others input on.
> From: "Liz in AZ" <eerrhhaz@...>
> Date: 2005/11/29 Tue PM 02:24:09 EST
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Re: What is natural consequence and what is not?
>
> You've gotten great answers already, but no one has addressed my pet
> peeve: if you, as the mom, foresee an unpleasant consequence and do
> nothing to avert it so that your child can "learn from the
> experience", whether that is a natural consequence or not it's mean
> and lame.
>
> For example: you are going out on a cold day; your child swears s/he
> won't be cold without a coat. If you leave the coat behind, despite
> your greater knowledge, so that the child can experience
> the "natural consequence" of being cold... that's just mean. Help
> the kid. Take the coat.
>
> Liz in AZ
We've recently moved to a new area, and we don't really know anyone well. However, our daughter has made friends with several of the local girls, which is good. However, she tends to go into their houses, garages, porches, etc., which we don't feel is very safe. To her, it seems like a natural thing to do, but I'm worried about potential abuse situations, etc. The "natural consequence" would be irreversible, and so, we've been implementing unnatural consequences (grounding), which feels wrong to me, but I can't think of anything better. We've been discussing the dangers of going into houses, etc. but she doesn't want to believe it. Does anyone have any ideas on alternative methods of addressing this situation?
Thanks!
Kevin
>
> --- In [email protected], denise perri
> <de_perri@y...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's confusing sometimes for me to figure out what is
> > natural and what is not in regards to consequences.
> > I know that many of you have this down and I've read
> > about it on here and some other places but it's still
> > not clicking all the way.
> > Can anyone give me examples of situations and things
> > that would be considered natural consequences and
> > things that would be considered not natural
> > consequences and why?
> >
> > Thank you Thank you Thank you
> > -Denise
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! Music Unlimited
> > Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
> > http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
>
> Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: <http://www.unschooling.info>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
diana jenner
Liz in AZ wrote:
them go out in whatever they felt comfortable wearing, but I used my
vast life experience to pack along what I knew they'd need eventually.
Once at a friend's house the kids were all outside playing, mine without
coats. Someone was aghast that I would let them out in their
shirtsleeves instead of forcing the coat upon them, I assured her they
would be back for the coats as soon as *they* got cold -- sure thing,
they did and they were so grateful for a mom who thought ahead and
brought coats, instead of resenting a mom who forced her will upon them.
The "you'll see" nastiness that my parents had towards anything they
"knew better" than me didn't make them any smarter in my eyes, it made
them ucky and not someone I wanted to be around. (aha! a natural
consequence right there <g>)
:) diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>whether that is a natural consequence or not it's meanThis was a big issue for others when my kids were small. I would let
>and lame.
>
>For example: you are going out on a cold day; your child swears s/he
>won't be cold without a coat. If you leave the coat behind, despite
>your greater knowledge, so that the child can experience
>the "natural consequence" of being cold... that's just mean. Help
>the kid. Take the coat.
>
>
them go out in whatever they felt comfortable wearing, but I used my
vast life experience to pack along what I knew they'd need eventually.
Once at a friend's house the kids were all outside playing, mine without
coats. Someone was aghast that I would let them out in their
shirtsleeves instead of forcing the coat upon them, I assured her they
would be back for the coats as soon as *they* got cold -- sure thing,
they did and they were so grateful for a mom who thought ahead and
brought coats, instead of resenting a mom who forced her will upon them.
The "you'll see" nastiness that my parents had towards anything they
"knew better" than me didn't make them any smarter in my eyes, it made
them ucky and not someone I wanted to be around. (aha! a natural
consequence right there <g>)
:) diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/29/05 1:40:37 PM, kevin-tucker@... writes:
invite them in and feed them and let them sit next to the fire and play video
games and watch movies.
Abuse can happen outside, for one thing.
Leading kids to believe that abuse comes from entering buildings is wrong
nineteen ways.
Helping kids practice saying "NO" and letting them know how to get help,
telling them to stay with the other kids, telling them it's okay to scream and run
home if they EVER feel afraid.... lots of things work better than rules and
grounding.
Kids who were grounded have gotten pregnant, run away, and murdered their
parents (not all at the same time, as far as know). Grouding someone isn't
safer or better than giving them information and freedom.
-=-We've been discussing the dangers of going into houses, etc. but she
doesn't want to believe it. -=-
Going into a house isn't dangerous. If you're telling her that as a truth,
she will soon come to doubt other things you say.
This might have some ideas for you. The first two (or three?) links on the
left are really good:
http://sandradodd.com/rules
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> To her, it seems like a natural thing to do, but I'm worried aboutIt IS a natural thing to do. If kids came to play here, I would absolutely
> potential abuse situations, etc.
>
invite them in and feed them and let them sit next to the fire and play video
games and watch movies.
Abuse can happen outside, for one thing.
Leading kids to believe that abuse comes from entering buildings is wrong
nineteen ways.
Helping kids practice saying "NO" and letting them know how to get help,
telling them to stay with the other kids, telling them it's okay to scream and run
home if they EVER feel afraid.... lots of things work better than rules and
grounding.
Kids who were grounded have gotten pregnant, run away, and murdered their
parents (not all at the same time, as far as know). Grouding someone isn't
safer or better than giving them information and freedom.
-=-We've been discussing the dangers of going into houses, etc. but she
doesn't want to believe it. -=-
Going into a house isn't dangerous. If you're telling her that as a truth,
she will soon come to doubt other things you say.
This might have some ideas for you. The first two (or three?) links on the
left are really good:
http://sandradodd.com/rules
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Deb
--- In [email protected], <kevin-tucker@c...>
wrote:
didn't because you knew the folks involved. So... How about go along
and meet the families? Get to know the kids and the parents. Invite
them over to your house to play. (Holidays, BTW, are good because
you have a built in reason to take a plate of cookies over and say
Happy Holidays, chat a bit, and scope out the situation some). Find
out who is home when (are a bunch of 8 yr olds roaming around in a
garage with lots of chemicals and sharp stuff and no supervision or
is the garage more of a big empty play space where they can play
jacks and jump rope when it rains? Or are we talking 14 yr olds
sitting around listening to the stereo and making up dance
routines?). If you're grounding her out of fear of what might
happen, it's definitely going to be pretty limiting all around and
very likely she's going to start not trusting what you say because
she goes to 9 houses and nothing happens so when you say 'all' are
dangerous and 9 aren't she's set up for that 10th house that might
be a problem. It also is a great way to encourage 'sneaking out'.
How about empowering her to know what is and isn't safe, maybe give
her a prepaid type cellphone so she can call home if she needs help,
etc. and if you really feel it necessary, a short course in self-
defense moves (of course most self defense courses start with
trusting your gut to know what is and isn't a safe place to be).
There needs to be a balance here which seems to be missing (from
what you posted) - it seems like it's currently an all or nothing
situation - all houses are dangerous so you can't go to any. Strike
a balance somewhere - discuss what seems reasonable to each party
and find a middle ground - perhaps open to the world areas (open
garage, all-windows/screens out front enclosed porch, etc) okay,
inside closed spaces to be evaluated (for example, if the mom and DD
are the only ones there, dad at work, no sibs - odds pretty good
that what you fear won't occur, ok; if mom and dad at work and teen
brother is 'supervising' the girls, then maybe it needs more
time/investigation; etc).
--Deb
wrote:
> I agree. However, we're having a similar situation that I'd liketo hear others input on.
>Did you have the same issue at your old house? I'd bet that you
> We've recently moved to a new area, and we don't really know
>anyone well. However, our daughter has made friends with several
>of the local girls, which is good. However, she tends to go into
>their houses, garages, porches, etc., which we don't feel is very
>safe. To her, it seems like a natural thing to do, but I'm worried
>about potential abuse situations, etc. The "natural consequence"
>would be irreversible, and so, we've been implementing unnatural
>consequences (grounding), which feels wrong to me, but I can't
>think of anything better. We've been discussing the dangers of
>going into houses, etc. but she doesn't want to believe it. Does
>anyone have any ideas on alternative methods of addressing this
>situation?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kevin
didn't because you knew the folks involved. So... How about go along
and meet the families? Get to know the kids and the parents. Invite
them over to your house to play. (Holidays, BTW, are good because
you have a built in reason to take a plate of cookies over and say
Happy Holidays, chat a bit, and scope out the situation some). Find
out who is home when (are a bunch of 8 yr olds roaming around in a
garage with lots of chemicals and sharp stuff and no supervision or
is the garage more of a big empty play space where they can play
jacks and jump rope when it rains? Or are we talking 14 yr olds
sitting around listening to the stereo and making up dance
routines?). If you're grounding her out of fear of what might
happen, it's definitely going to be pretty limiting all around and
very likely she's going to start not trusting what you say because
she goes to 9 houses and nothing happens so when you say 'all' are
dangerous and 9 aren't she's set up for that 10th house that might
be a problem. It also is a great way to encourage 'sneaking out'.
How about empowering her to know what is and isn't safe, maybe give
her a prepaid type cellphone so she can call home if she needs help,
etc. and if you really feel it necessary, a short course in self-
defense moves (of course most self defense courses start with
trusting your gut to know what is and isn't a safe place to be).
There needs to be a balance here which seems to be missing (from
what you posted) - it seems like it's currently an all or nothing
situation - all houses are dangerous so you can't go to any. Strike
a balance somewhere - discuss what seems reasonable to each party
and find a middle ground - perhaps open to the world areas (open
garage, all-windows/screens out front enclosed porch, etc) okay,
inside closed spaces to be evaluated (for example, if the mom and DD
are the only ones there, dad at work, no sibs - odds pretty good
that what you fear won't occur, ok; if mom and dad at work and teen
brother is 'supervising' the girls, then maybe it needs more
time/investigation; etc).
--Deb
diana jenner
kevin-tucker@... wrote:
Even at a very young age, I talked with my kids about trusting their
gut, that little tingle or voice that warns of "something hinky" in the
environment, and to remove themselves and come back to me. Hannah (9,
now) has done it a couple of times, just returned from friends' homes
because it "didn't feel right" -- no specific behaviors or
conversations, just that inkling and she left (even as young as 6).
Hayden (7, now) has called and requested I pick him up from my parents'
home for the same reason, nothing overt, just general "not feeling
good"-ness going on. I respond, support and I'm open to talking about
it... mostly they're glad to know they can trust me to trust their
instincts.
I don't think there's anything wrong with requesting that you know where
she is and to be alerted to her entering someone's home, nor is it
improper for you to meet these people and gage your own reaction to them.
tell my parents or they'll punish me" instead of giving her a life skill
to add to her tool box for life. Someday (already here!) she will need
to trust herself, to be able to judge for herself which situations are
unsafe and she *doesn't* need an "I-told-you-so" parent waiting for her
at home. If she has a great time, she should be able to share that with
you and know you're happy for her joy; if she has something traumatic
happen, she should be able to share that with you knowing you'll be
supportive and loving to her; if it's just another day in the life, she
wants to know you're okay with that, too.
It's really *NOT* dangerous to go into someone's home, porch or garage
-- you're lying and she knows it. It's far more dangerous for her not
to trust herself and even MORE dangerous that you've played an
adversarial role in her life. Stop fear mongering now and be on her team.
:) diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>We've recently moved to a new area, and we don't really know anyone well. However, our daughter has made friends with several of the local girls, which is good. However, she tends to go into their houses, garages, porches, etc., which we don't feel is very safe. To her, it seems like a natural thing to do, but I'm worried about potential abuse situations, etc.How old is your dd? Different ages will bring different advice :)
>
Even at a very young age, I talked with my kids about trusting their
gut, that little tingle or voice that warns of "something hinky" in the
environment, and to remove themselves and come back to me. Hannah (9,
now) has done it a couple of times, just returned from friends' homes
because it "didn't feel right" -- no specific behaviors or
conversations, just that inkling and she left (even as young as 6).
Hayden (7, now) has called and requested I pick him up from my parents'
home for the same reason, nothing overt, just general "not feeling
good"-ness going on. I respond, support and I'm open to talking about
it... mostly they're glad to know they can trust me to trust their
instincts.
I don't think there's anything wrong with requesting that you know where
she is and to be alerted to her entering someone's home, nor is it
improper for you to meet these people and gage your own reaction to them.
>The "natural consequence" would be irreversible, and so, we've been implementing unnatural consequences (grounding), which feels wrong to me, but I can't think of anything better. We've been discussing the dangers of going into houses, etc. but she doesn't want to believe it. Does anyone have any ideas on alternative methods of addressing this situation?I'm thinking that the unintended lesson being taught here is "I can't
>
>
tell my parents or they'll punish me" instead of giving her a life skill
to add to her tool box for life. Someday (already here!) she will need
to trust herself, to be able to judge for herself which situations are
unsafe and she *doesn't* need an "I-told-you-so" parent waiting for her
at home. If she has a great time, she should be able to share that with
you and know you're happy for her joy; if she has something traumatic
happen, she should be able to share that with you knowing you'll be
supportive and loving to her; if it's just another day in the life, she
wants to know you're okay with that, too.
It's really *NOT* dangerous to go into someone's home, porch or garage
-- you're lying and she knows it. It's far more dangerous for her not
to trust herself and even MORE dangerous that you've played an
adversarial role in her life. Stop fear mongering now and be on her team.
:) diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Deb
--- In [email protected], diana jenner
<hahamommy@s...> wrote:
year. Mid-summer, lovely day, beautifully manicured lawn with kid
pool and playscape. DS decided not to wear his sandals at all - so I
just grabbed them and carried them along. He played merrily and DH
and I chatted and relaxed. Meanwhile, SIL and bro spent half their
time scolding their two boys (both are younger than DS who was 6 at
the time) and putting the kids' shoes and socks back on them.
Somewhere late in the day, as the sun headed west and the grass got
cool, DS came and asked for his sandals so we went and got them from
the spot I had stashed them and off he went back to playing merrily.
We had such a nice day and SIL meanwhile finally said "Fine whatever
you never listen to me anyway" sounding frustrated and resentful
toward her kids and the kids were probably frustrated already
because they kept trying to get their shoes and socks off and kept
having them put back on. (BTW I could understand if they were
running around in just socks - I'd probably ask DS to either remove
the socks or add the shoes, his choice, because of the nasty grass
stains - but then again I wouldn't likely suggest shoes and socks
for a summertime picnic anyhow - sandals all the way for DS for as
much of the year as possible here in New England).
Same kind of strife over food and just about everything else for
them that day. Telling the kids they couldn't go back on the
swings/playscape until they ate x amount of hot dog. We just let DS
know that hot dogs were ready, he decided he didn't want any right
then. Later on, when he felt hungry, wanted a break, he came and we
got him food. Throughout the event, we'd check in and see if he
needed water, food, a quick break to rest a bit in the shade (it
wasn't particularly hot though), etc.
DH knows that after that kind of family event, I'm going to
eventually overflow and unlock my tongue and pour out the
frustrations...
--Deb
<hahamommy@s...> wrote:
>I remember going to my sister's house for a family gathering last
> Once at a friend's house the kids were all outside playing, mine
>without
> coats. Someone was aghast that I would let them out in their
> shirtsleeves instead of forcing the coat upon them, I assured her
>they
> would be back for the coats as soon as *they* got cold -- sure
>thing,
> they did and they were so grateful for a mom who thought ahead and
> brought coats, instead of resenting a mom who forced her will upon
>them.
year. Mid-summer, lovely day, beautifully manicured lawn with kid
pool and playscape. DS decided not to wear his sandals at all - so I
just grabbed them and carried them along. He played merrily and DH
and I chatted and relaxed. Meanwhile, SIL and bro spent half their
time scolding their two boys (both are younger than DS who was 6 at
the time) and putting the kids' shoes and socks back on them.
Somewhere late in the day, as the sun headed west and the grass got
cool, DS came and asked for his sandals so we went and got them from
the spot I had stashed them and off he went back to playing merrily.
We had such a nice day and SIL meanwhile finally said "Fine whatever
you never listen to me anyway" sounding frustrated and resentful
toward her kids and the kids were probably frustrated already
because they kept trying to get their shoes and socks off and kept
having them put back on. (BTW I could understand if they were
running around in just socks - I'd probably ask DS to either remove
the socks or add the shoes, his choice, because of the nasty grass
stains - but then again I wouldn't likely suggest shoes and socks
for a summertime picnic anyhow - sandals all the way for DS for as
much of the year as possible here in New England).
Same kind of strife over food and just about everything else for
them that day. Telling the kids they couldn't go back on the
swings/playscape until they ate x amount of hot dog. We just let DS
know that hot dogs were ready, he decided he didn't want any right
then. Later on, when he felt hungry, wanted a break, he came and we
got him food. Throughout the event, we'd check in and see if he
needed water, food, a quick break to rest a bit in the shade (it
wasn't particularly hot though), etc.
DH knows that after that kind of family event, I'm going to
eventually overflow and unlock my tongue and pour out the
frustrations...
--Deb
[email protected]
>Absolutely. I think our main problem, as Deb pointed out in another response, is that we're not familiar with the families, and we need to remedy that situation.
> From: SandraDodd@...
> Date: 2005/11/29 Tue PM 03:49:34 EST
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Re: What is natural consequence and what is not?
>
>
> In a message dated 11/29/05 1:40:37 PM, kevin-tucker@... writes:
>
>
> > To her, it seems like a natural thing to do, but I'm worried about
> > potential abuse situations, etc.
> >
>
> It IS a natural thing to do. If kids came to play here, I would absolutely
> invite them in and feed them and let them sit next to the fire and play video
> games and watch movies.
>
> Abuse can happen outside, for one thing.I'm not exactly saying that "going into buildings" is dangerous, but that being in a place that is hidden from view, with people we don't know is potentially dangerous.
> Leading kids to believe that abuse comes from entering buildings is wrong
> nineteen ways.
>
> Helping kids practice saying "NO" and letting them know how to get help,Very good points. I will work with her on these points.
> telling them to stay with the other kids, telling them it's okay to scream and run
> home if they EVER feel afraid.... lots of things work better than rules and
> grounding.
>
> Kids who were grounded have gotten pregnant, run away, and murdered theirI don't think I've been stating it as an absolute truth, but maybe she's not hearing it that way. I do want her to be able to trust us.
> parents (not all at the same time, as far as know). Grouding someone isn't
> safer or better than giving them information and freedom.
>
> -=-We've been discussing the dangers of going into houses, etc. but she
> doesn't want to believe it. -=-
>
> Going into a house isn't dangerous. If you're telling her that as a truth,
> she will soon come to doubt other things you say.
>
> This might have some ideas for you. The first two (or three?) links on theThanks for the pointers. We've been trying to live by principles rather than rules, but we're not there yet.
> left are really good:
>
Kevin
> http://sandradodd.com/rules
>
> Sandra
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/29/2005 2:41:01 PM Central Standard Time,
kevin-tucker@... writes:
We've been discussing the dangers of going into houses, etc. but she doesn't
want to believe it. Does anyone have any ideas on alternative methods of
addressing this situation?
~~~
Hi, Kevin!
I don't remember how old your daughter is.
Instead of such an ineffective unnatural consequence, how about an effective
one? Supervise her more closely. If she wants to meet someone new, go over
and introduce yourself and check things out for yourself. Or invite the new
person over to your house, instead.
Maybe she goes in because she's invited and it's cold outside.
I don't think grounding is a good idea. I wouldn't even mention the word.
Just be with her outside more.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
kevin-tucker@... writes:
We've been discussing the dangers of going into houses, etc. but she doesn't
want to believe it. Does anyone have any ideas on alternative methods of
addressing this situation?
~~~
Hi, Kevin!
I don't remember how old your daughter is.
Instead of such an ineffective unnatural consequence, how about an effective
one? Supervise her more closely. If she wants to meet someone new, go over
and introduce yourself and check things out for yourself. Or invite the new
person over to your house, instead.
Maybe she goes in because she's invited and it's cold outside.
I don't think grounding is a good idea. I wouldn't even mention the word.
Just be with her outside more.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
>Hi Karen!
> From: tuckervill2@...
> Date: 2005/11/29 Tue PM 07:49:40 EST
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Re: What is natural consequence and what is not?
>
>
> In a message dated 11/29/2005 2:41:01 PM Central Standard Time,
> kevin-tucker@... writes:
>
> We've been discussing the dangers of going into houses, etc. but she doesn't
> want to believe it. Does anyone have any ideas on alternative methods of
> addressing this situation?
>
>
>
>
> ~~~
>
> Hi, Kevin!
>
Been a while since the L&L!
> I don't remember how old your daughter is.She's 6.75.
>
> Instead of such an ineffective unnatural consequence, how about an effectiveI do go out with her, but most of this happens while I'm at work.
> one? Supervise her more closely. If she wants to meet someone new, go over
> and introduce yourself and check things out for yourself. Or invite the new
> person over to your house, instead.
>
Part of the problem is the fact that we're still moving into our house, and most of her toys are still not yet unpacked, so there's not much for them to do inside our house.
> Maybe she goes in because she's invited and it's cold outside.
>
> I don't think grounding is a good idea. I wouldn't even mention the word.
> Just be with her outside more.
>
> Karen