 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Parenting our children
-> Toddlers
Shalshelet
|
 Mon, Aug 24 2009, 6:36 pm
| ShakleeMom wrote: | | Shalshelet wrote: | | Does anyone know how it fits into parenting the Jewish way? From what I understand, you're not supposed to show emotions or explain the reasoning behind the consequences. It seems kind of harsh at first glance. |
I don't get your question. You calmly show then kid in a respectable way that what you just did is a ONE. They know that if it continues it will be a TWO. This is the most decent way to discipline in my opinion. It emowers the child to take control and change in a positive way. |
Yes, but as I'm not yet an aficionado, I have issue with the fact that you can't explain the reasoning behind your counting, which can leave a child in the dark and perhaps also foster deep rooted rebeliousness. I don't agree with teaching the so-called "Bais-Yaakov" way, where questions and a deeper understanding were looked down upon. Maybe, disciplining is different, so I'm open to hearing your response on this.
Thanks.
| |
|
| Back to top |
 0
 0
|
PinkandYellow
|
Wed, Aug 26 2009, 6:50 am
|
I think the idea is that instead of getting into complicated logical and/or philosophical discussions with a young child, you are giving him structure. Part of it is that there are rules in the house and when you don't comply, there are consequences. So when he spills his water onto his plate of chicken, instead of getting into a whole discussion/monologue of how now the chicken is ruined and can't be eaten and there is a mess that will have to be cleaned up and now he doesnt have dinner, you just say 1. After all, he knows that what he did is wrong. If he continues with the negative behavior, its 2, and if he persists its 3/timeout. Not a punishment, but a natural consequence. By no emotion, we mean no screaming/yelling/hysterics/guilt trips/making a child feel bad.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
RachelEve14
|
Wed, Aug 26 2009, 7:44 am
|
Like Pink and Yellow said, the child knows what he did was wrong (and the author specifically says if the child honestly doesn't know, explain after). If you would ask your 6 year old "should you tease your sister?" when she isn't teasing, she would say no. She knows it's not nice, it makes her feel bad, etc. No one wants to listen to a lecture. So instead of repeating the whole shtick your kid knows, you are just saying "1" as a warning. No lecture, no discussion, the child knows it's wrong and knows it needs to stop.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Shalshelet
|
Thu, Aug 27 2009, 5:50 pm
Pink andYellow and RachelEve14, thanks so much for trying to clarify. I'll just comment on PinkandYellow's post for simplicity:
| PinkandYellow wrote: | | I think the idea is that instead of getting into complicated logical and/or philosophical discussions with a young child, you are giving him structure. Part of it is that there are rules in the house and when you don't comply, there are consequences. |
are the rules already conveyed to the kid then at some earlier point?
| Quote: | | So when he spills his water onto his plate of chicken, instead of getting into a whole discussion/monologue of how now the chicken is ruined and can't be eaten and there is a mess that will have to be cleaned up and now he doesnt have dinner, you just say 1. After all, he knows that what he did is wrong. If he continues with the negative behavior, its 2, and if he persists its 3/timeout. |
for he's ruined his chicken/dinner, how can he do it again? there is no dinner for him now.
| Quote: | | Not a punishment, but a natural consequence. |
can you please elaborate?
| Quote: | | By no emotion, we mean no screaming/yelling/hysterics/guilt trips/making a child feel bad. |
So, what emotion is suggested?
TIA
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
RachelEve14
|
Fri, Aug 28 2009, 1:49 am
| Shalshelet wrote: | Pink andYellow and RachelEve14, thanks so much for trying to clarify. I'll just comment on PinkandYellow's post for simplicity:
| PinkandYellow wrote: | | I think the idea is that instead of getting into complicated logical and/or philosophical discussions with a young child, you are giving him structure. Part of it is that there are rules in the house and when you don't comply, there are consequences. |
are the rules already conveyed to the kid then at some earlier point?
| Quote: | | So when he spills his water onto his plate of chicken, instead of getting into a whole discussion/monologue of how now the chicken is ruined and can't be eaten and there is a mess that will have to be cleaned up and now he doesnt have dinner, you just say 1. After all, he knows that what he did is wrong. If he continues with the negative behavior, its 2, and if he persists its 3/timeout. |
for he's ruined his chicken/dinner, how can he do it again? there is no dinner for him now.
| Quote: | | Not a punishment, but a natural consequence. |
can you please elaborate?
| Quote: | | By no emotion, we mean no screaming/yelling/hysterics/guilt trips/making a child feel bad. |
So, what emotion is suggested?
TIA |
A natural consequence is anything that happens in nature, without you intervening. Your 7 year old leaves his lunch at home, he goes hungry or has to borrow food from friends or borrow money to buy. He refuses to bring a raincoat when you tell him rain is forceast, and he gets wet, etc. A logical consequence is a related consequence you impose to avoid the natural consequence. You don't want your 4 year old to get hit by a car from running in the street c'vs, so when he refuses to hold your hand going to the park you can't trust him to be out, so you have to go home and skip the park. But telling him "no TV" for not holding your hand isn't related, so it's not a logical consequence. Having to come inside and be safe is. In the chicken example, the logical conseqence is the child has water in his chicken or no supper, not the child can't go on a playdate tomorrow because he was annoying you tonight.
The voice you use is your regular firm voice, not shouting or yelling.
Again, his whole theory is the child knows what he did is wrong, so you don't have to sit and explain it. If a wife is running late and lights candles late, what is more helpful. For the husband to say "honey, it's getting late can I help in some way" or for him to go into "you know it's late, I guess I will have to skip shul. This happens every week, maybe you should have thought about what time Shabbos starts and how long it takes you to get ready before you decided to sit on imamother this morning, it's not like the Shabbos time isn't published you know. Remember last week when you barely lit on time, how did it feel, don't you remember how upset I was? And I guess there will be no special cookies again this week because you didn't plan your day better. I"m really disappointed. With some planning we could have had nice Shabbos cookies and a relaxed meal, now because of your poor time management skills we will have to skip desert and rush into Shabbos. Please remember this next week, I don't want to be disappointed again.
The message is instead of a whole lecture, the "1" is tellign the child you know what he's doing is unacceptable and it has to stop. Teh "2" is you mean it. And by "3" he's away from you for X minutes so at least you are getting a break from him and him from you. No screaming, no yelling, no "please stop, I asked you to stop, you are annoying your sister, DIDN'T I TELL YOU TO STOP TEASING HER ALREADY, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???????????????????????????????" and after you dont' need to make the child feel all guilty by going over it again, because he knows verywell he was timed out for teasing. You just go get him and start again, no further guilt trip needed.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
sped
|
Fri, Aug 28 2009, 2:08 am
|
RachelEve14, I really like your Shabbos example! I guesss I had better get off the computer.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Shalshelet
|
Sun, Aug 30 2009, 12:24 am
| RachelEve14 wrote: | | Shalshelet wrote: | Pink andYellow and RachelEve14, thanks so much for trying to clarify. I'll just comment on PinkandYellow's post for simplicity:
| PinkandYellow wrote: | | I think the idea is that instead of getting into complicated logical and/or philosophical discussions with a young child, you are giving him structure. Part of it is that there are rules in the house and when you don't comply, there are consequences. |
are the rules already conveyed to the kid then at some earlier point?
| Quote: | | So when he spills his water onto his plate of chicken, instead of getting into a whole discussion/monologue of how now the chicken is ruined and can't be eaten and there is a mess that will have to be cleaned up and now he doesnt have dinner, you just say 1. After all, he knows that what he did is wrong. If he continues with the negative behavior, its 2, and if he persists its 3/timeout. |
for he's ruined his chicken/dinner, how can he do it again? there is no dinner for him now.
| Quote: | | Not a punishment, but a natural consequence. |
can you please elaborate?
| Quote: | | By no emotion, we mean no screaming/yelling/hysterics/guilt trips/making a child feel bad. |
So, what emotion is suggested?
TIA |
A natural consequence is anything that happens in nature, without you intervening. Your 7 year old leaves his lunch at home, he goes hungry or has to borrow food from friends or borrow money to buy. He refuses to bring a raincoat when you tell him rain is forceast, and he gets wet, etc. A logical consequence is a related consequence you impose to avoid the natural consequence. You don't want your 4 year old to get hit by a car from running in the street c'vs, so when he refuses to hold your hand going to the park you can't trust him to be out, so you have to go home and skip the park. But telling him "no TV" for not holding your hand isn't related, so it's not a logical consequence. Having to come inside and be safe is. In the chicken example, the logical conseqence is the child has water in his chicken or no supper, not the child can't go on a playdate tomorrow because he was annoying you tonight.
The voice you use is your regular firm voice, not shouting or yelling.
Again, his whole theory is the child knows what he did is wrong, so you don't have to sit and explain it. If a wife is running late and lights candles late, what is more helpful. For the husband to say "honey, it's getting late can I help in some way" or for him to go into "you know it's late, I guess I will have to skip shul. This happens every week, maybe you should have thought about what time Shabbos starts and how long it takes you to get ready before you decided to sit on imamother this morning, it's not like the Shabbos time isn't published you know. Remember last week when you barely lit on time, how did it feel, don't you remember how upset I was? And I guess there will be no special cookies again this week because you didn't plan your day better. I"m really disappointed. With some planning we could have had nice Shabbos cookies and a relaxed meal, now because of your poor time management skills we will have to skip desert and rush into Shabbos. Please remember this next week, I don't want to be disappointed again.
The message is instead of a whole lecture, the "1" is tellign the child you know what he's doing is unacceptable and it has to stop. Teh "2" is you mean it. And by "3" he's away from you for X minutes so at least you are getting a break from him and him from you. No screaming, no yelling, no "please stop, I asked you to stop, you are annoying your sister, DIDN'T I TELL YOU TO STOP TEASING HER ALREADY, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???????????????????????????????" and after you dont' need to make the child feel all guilty by going over it again, because he knows verywell he was timed out for teasing. You just go get him and start again, no further guilt trip needed. |
Wow! Thanks for the great examples! Really enlightening. I'm going to look for the book in the library. You've got me intrigued.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
