Podcast #12: The Nature of Children

And we're back! Our longish break from publishing podcasts was mostly unintentional, though once it became clear we would be taking some time off, I suppose we could have written a post to let everyone know. Basically, we just got busy pursuing other values in our lives--grad school, homeschool, vacations, etc. But we missed podcasting, and we have more coming soon, hopefully on a semi-regular basis. Yay!

The Line Up

• Situation of the Week (Jenn): How Jenn handled an ongoing issue with kids not cooperating and being rude (it has to do with going to the pool, so you can tell this was recorded in the summer!)

• Topic: The Nature of Children (begins 8:59)

• Q & A: When did we start using PD with our kids? (begins 32:39)

Most of what we discuss in the Topic section is based on a post written by Kelly called "The Nature of Children." So don't miss that post!

Thanks for listening!

Powered by Podbean.com

link test

Parenting and the Metaphysically Given

(originally posted at Reepicheep's Coracle)

Remember that old serenity prayer?

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

There's a lot in there that is applicable to Objectivists and to parents. Ayn Rand herself, in her essay "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made" in Philosophy: Who Needs It, used the wording of the prayer to discuss what can and cannot be changed.

"In regard to nature, “to accept what I cannot change” means to accept the metaphysically given; “to change what I can” means to strive to rearrange the given by acquiring knowledge—as science and technology (e.g., medicine) are doing; “to know the difference” means to know that one cannot rebel against nature and, when no action is possible, one must accept nature serenely." - Ayn Rand

So, a rational person does not fight against the facts of reality or waste time wishing they were different. He accepts that they are true and forms his plans taking these unchangeable facts into account. He uses the dictates of nature to succeed; he cannot succeed by fighting against them.

Another Ayn Rand quote from the same article: "The metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is—and man determines the truth or falsehood of his judgments by whether they correspond to or contradict the facts of reality. The metaphysically given cannot be right or wrong—it is the standard of right or wrong, by which a (rational) man judges his goals, his values, his choices. The metaphysically given is, was, will be, and had to be."

It's easy to see how to apply this principle in scientific endeavors. It would rock if we could sit around all day eating yummy chocolate chip cookies and still be fit and healthy. But nature dictates that bodies require certain kinds of nutrients. A person who fought this rule would be miserable. He would keep trying to make excessive amounts of cookies and health line up, and he would continue to fail because he has not accepted the metaphysically given.

It's not always so easy to apply this principle to social interactions (including parenting) because we have characteristics dictated by nature and characteristics that we are able to change and control. As parents, though, we have to be able to identify the metaphysically given and not spend time trying to change things about our children that can't be changed.

First, I think we have to accept the nature of children qua children (don't I sound super philosophical now?). Read my thoughts on the nature of children and how that metaphysically given nature should influence our parenting here.

I also think that we have to accept the temperament that our children are born with. Temperament may change over time, and a full personality is certainly something we can change, but some basic traits just are, such as extroversion/introversion. For more thoughts on temperament, you can check out this podcast or Jenn's post or my post.

The metaphysically given aspect of parenting that I want to focus on in this post is developmental stage. We all know intuitively that children at different ages behave in certain ways. Everyone talks about "the terrible twos" or "a typical teenager." But there are tons of stages that aren't quite so infamous and well-known, and it can be really useful to know what they are. It can really help to know what to expect and what is normal for children of a certain age.

There has been some discussion recently on OGrownups about toddlers. The initial discussion was about a 15 month old child, whom I might not even classify as a toddler. I generally think of toddlers as children between the ages of 18 months and 3 years. (Yes, I know toddlerhood is supposed to start when children learn to walk, but no 9 month old is a toddler, even if he can walk. It's about more than just motor skill development.)

So here's what I think is metaphysically given about toddlers:

1. Toddlers don't know how to behave. They all do really inappropriate things, like hitting, biting, spitting, throwing toys, tantrums, and much more.



2. Toddlers have poor impulse control. When they feel like doing something, they do it.



3. It takes lots of time and lots of repetition to teach better behavior to toddlers. No matter how reasonably you explain, how firmly you set limits, even how harshly you punish (but please don't), you'll have to do it again and again.



4. Toddlers are early in the conceptual process, but they are forming concepts. They are beginning to learn to use logic and reason. They are not only perceptual like animals.

So, since these facts about toddlers are metaphysically given, fighting against them is like banging our heads against a wall (and that's what parenting a toddler feels like sometimes!). We have to accept these facts and use parenting strategies that take them into account.

Here are some ideas about how to use each metaphysically given fact in parenting a toddler:

1. Be prepared for these yuck behaviors. Know they are coming. Read up on developmental stages. And when your child hits, don't think, "Oh God! He's a rights violator and will probably turn out to be a communist!" Instead think, "Wow, he's really exhibiting the traits of a toddler! What can I do to stop him from doing inappropriate things and help him learn what is more appropriate?"



2. Practice GOYB (Get Off Your Butt) parenting. Because toddlers have trouble controlling impulses, you gotta get right into the fray and be ready to stop hitting or biting. You can't say from your comfy computer chair, "Stop hitting, Little Johnny!" You have to get up, grab Johnny's hand to prevent the hitting, and then reinforce with words. 2 year old Johnny cannot stop himself, so you better be ready to it for him.



3. One day, one week, or even one month of putting your hand over a toddler's mouth while saying, "Keep your spit in your mouth," is not gonna do it. Your child is not particularly recalcitrant and purposefully trying to drive you to insanity. He's just little, and you will have to say it over and over and over and set the limit over and over and over. And eventually, he will mature and learn. Expecting instant or even quick success when you are not going to get it will only make you feel like a failure.



4. Since toddlers, who are developing conceptual capability, aren't mentally like dogs, who are never gonna be conceptual, we can't treat them the same way. Behaviorist ideas, like punishments and rewards, don't help a child learn how to think about what is right and wrong. Setting a limit, with both action and words, and helping the child to understand the reason for the limit respect a child's developing conceptual mind. (For toddlers, this would be very simple. I grab his hand (gently) and say "No hitting. Hitting hurts Mommy.")

Finally, a personal note: When Livy was a toddler, I thought I would go insane repeating myself and watching her so closely when she interacted with other children. She was a super intense toddler, with tantrums like you would not believe, and a fair amount of hitting. And yet, she matured into a happy, sweet child who keeps her hands to herself and tells me pretty calmly when she is upset with me. Toddler behaviors don't last forever, thank god!

Podcast #3: Why Non-Punitive Discipline?

And this process is becoming slightly easier! Hooray! A million thanks to Brendan for his work. We had a few technical wrinkles to smooth over (hopefully the final wrinkles), so this week’s podcast is a little simpler in production.

• Situation of the Week (Jenn): A child models correct behavior for another child, FTW!

• Topic: Why Non-Punitive Discipline/The Ambassador Analogy (begins 3:42)

• Q&A: Celebrating Holidays as non-religious parents (begins 12:55)

We hope you enjoy! See you next week!

Note: You can play it here, or you can go to our Podbean site and download it directly to your iPod or other player. Turning these into iTunes files is on our list of Things To Do, but it'll still probably be a while before we get to that step.

Powered by Podbean.com

"Go To Your Room!" PD or Not?

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

I've been meaning to address this question from Amy (in the comments of this blog post) for quite a while, but life has a way of interrupting my blogging. Which is good, because I really am trying to have a Life here.

This thread has long since died down, and I think people have had their say for the most part. I'm not trying to open up the whole thread again (especially because Amy has asked that more philosophical parenting discussions stay off of her blog, and I'd like to respect that request).

But this minor exchange in the comments was interesting to me, and I hope to explain this a little better, to clarify my position on this.

First I said this (added emphasis):

Secondly, we send our kids to their rooms–that is a technique that can be handled positively. When people are spitting or hitting or screeching until my eardrums bleed, they are given some choices. They can control their body. They can let me help them control their body. Or they can leave and go somewhere else and do that annoying thing. When they are ready to control their body–and DEMONSTRATE this control by their behavior–THEY get to decide when to leave their rooms. Sometimes, especially with more than one child, it’s not feasible for me to leave room, and you’re right, it’s not always in my self-interest to be the one doing the leaving. Plus it’s not fair.

We use the “go somewhere else” method not as a punishment, but as a true alternative, a choice for the child to make. Often, they don’t want to be separated from the rest of us (we’re too fun!), so they make the choice to control their own body. Sometimes they do and we’re spared the inappropriate behavior/being used as a punching bag. Sometimes the “elsewhere” choice is their room; sometimes it’s going outside; sometimes it’s going into the bathroom to use the sink to spit.

And then Amy said this:

But I am surprised that you, Jenn, send your kids to their rooms. My recollection of Jane Nelsen’s book (or maybe it’s just stuff I’ve read on the Yahoo group or Kelly’s blog) is that that is punishment and not ok.

I can see how this might be confusing. On one hand, I have repeatedly said that we don't punish our kids for bad behavior. On the other, I said that we send them to their rooms as a discipline method.

I think I mis-wrote (that's the bloggy equivalent of misspoke, yes?) when I wrote that we "send" our kids to their rooms. Here are two examples, showing what we do, and what we don't do. Let's take the scenario that a child is hitting others and can't seem to control himself. This would be a child who is old enough to understand the rules and exhibit some impulse control--say, around 4 and up. We handle hitting issues much differently with Sean, who is 20 months old.


What we don't do:

"You're hitting! You can't be around others just now, so go to your room and stay there until I tell you that you can come out."

This is how room-going was handled when I was a kid. You did something wrong and made mom mad. She sent you to your room until she told you that you could come out. Sometimes this happened after lots of chances to change your behavior; sometimes this happened right away--no second chance--particularly for serious transgressions like hitting others.


What we do instead:

"You're hitting! There's no hitting in our house. What can you do instead? [Help kid come up with options: ask a grownup for help, use words, etc.]

Okay, that's right. You need to control your body and use words. Is that something you can do right now, or do you need me to help you? Do you think you might want to apologize to your brother for hurting him?

. . .

You're hitting again, after you agreed to control your body and use words. The rest of us need to be safe from hitting, because hitting hurts. Can you go into another room until you are able to control your body? Then we can problem-solve.

. . .

[If the kid refuses to leave the area where others are, and his body control is still non-existent, then: ]

Okay, you've shown me that you are not in control of your body and you will not leave this area. So I will help you go up to your room. [Firmly but kindly take the kid up to his room or other area apart from others.] You can come back and be with the rest of us when you can show me that you are in control of your body.


The essential difference (besides the wordiness, heh) is that the child really has quite a bit of choice in what will happen to him (even if he doesn't quite appreciate this fact!). At every subsequent step along the way, he has a choice.

If he can pull himself together and control his body, then we will not make him go upstairs. If he wants to go to another place in the house, or outside, that is also up to him. When to come back and rejoin the family is also completely under his control. There is no fixed time set by me to remain in the room as punishment, no timer. If he decides to come back downstairs but is still not in control of his body, then he will be asked to leave (and/or escorted from) the room again. We will do this as many times as it takes until the child is back in control and is not hitting people. (And lest you worry unnecessarily, these sorts of hitting events are very rare in our household!)

So, that is how we "send" people to their rooms. It is not punishment in the sense of : If you do X, then I'll do Y to you, so that you will learn a lesson or feel bad about the way you behaved.

What we do instead gives the child a lot of control and chances to make up his own mind about how (and whether) he will respect the rights of others.

It may look like a traditional punishment from the outside-looking-in, if you didn't hear the conversation leading up to the room-going. If you saw one of my kids hitting and then me escorting him up to his room, you might think that I am not adhering to my "no punishment" principle.

Much of PD, and indeed, discipline in the larger sense, has to do with parental intent. Is it my intent to make the child feel bad about hitting by sending him away? No. Would I like him to feel badly when he hurts others? Well, yes, but that's not the reason I am sending him out of the room. I am sending him out of the room in this case in order to protect the rights of others not to be hit. I am also giving the offender a chance to exercise some inner-discipline, and to honor his efforts if/when he is truly able to do so.

Parental intent is crucial. Even though what I might do (escort the kid up to his room) may be the very same action a non-PD parent would take, we are acting for different reasons, and probably after different types of interactions leading up to the limit-setting journey to the room. (For another example of this, see this post I wrote last summer.)

So many times in my own childhood, I got to the point where I was able to control myself, but was punished anyway, since my parents felt that a good old-fashioned punishment would drive home their (probably worthy) point. But what does additional punishment say to the child who realizes he's done wrong and IS able to (or attempting to) exercise that inner discipline that we all want our kids to have? I think it sends a message to the child that inner discipline is less important than feeling bad about the transgression, or that Mommy has to "win" this battle (might makes right). That's certainly how I recall feeling. Is it more important for Mommy to win than to have the child demonstrate that he is in control of his body and is able to respect the rights of others?

How might a child who is still unable to control himself interpret the additional punishment? How about: "Well, I have to do the time, so I might as well do the crime?" That would be a very Brendan-y interpretation, I think. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that, Brendan!)

Occasionally I get caught up in that feeling of wanting to win over my kids: I'll show you! You think you can hit me or a sibling and get away with it?

When I feel that way, I have to consciously remind myself of my parenting principles--that my goal here is to help them and give them chances to develop inner self-discipline. If someone who has just popped his baby brother over his head is truly remorseful and able to control himself, then I will not give him a punishment designed to make him feel worse, or to drive home my point.

Mind you, I feel completely free to express MY emotions about what happened: "Well, I'm glad you can control yourself now, but it makes me very angry when Sean gets hurt!!! It makes me feel like I need to watch over you guys really carefully for a little while, just to make sure. What can you tell me about what happened to reassure me that this won't happen again?"

No, they don't get extra punishment, but they do get to experience the results of their poor choices/lack of self-control. I think that's okay--when they are adults, they will experience similar results. I think this experience is more effective in helping them learn to understand about the rights of others or the effects their actions have upon others, than any "go sit up in your room" sort of punishment. If they are only ever sent up to their rooms, they will miss the opportunity to see how hitting makes a baby brother or a Mommy feel. They will be mad about what was done to them, but will they see what it was they did to someone else?

So anyway, a way overdue response to that question! I hope this has clarified my thoughts . . . if indeed anyone was still wondering! :o)

On Children, Parents, and the Use of Force

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

The issue of force and children is an important one, and one that I have often heard discussed in real life as well as online. I've also seen the following quotation by Leonard Peikoff used in these discussions among Objectivists (emphasis added):

There are only two fundamental methods by which men can deal with one another: by reason or by force, by intellectual persuasion or by physical coercion, by directing to an opponent’s brain an argument—or a bullet. Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, p. 90 (via the Ayn Rand Lexicon)

(However, I think this drops the context. Dr. Peikoff is talking about adults here--and I agree with this statement. But kids are a different case, as you'll see.)

Is it ever proper for a parent to force a child to do something (or not to do something)? If so, how does a parent determine when such force is warranted and what kind of force should be used? (I'm using the word force here to include any kind of coercion, from spanking to physical restraint to bribing with food or stickers.)

The short answer is: Yes. Sometimes a parent must force a child to do (or not do) things. Yes, we have forced our kids to do things against their wills.

So how can I advocate Non-Punitive Discipline? If I am not a parent who imposes and enforces punishments, then when and how am I using force, and should I be?

I am aware that many view Non-Punitive Discipline as too permissive. That using such methods necessarily results in what I call Doormat Parenting (or perhaps Un-Parenting would be a more accurate term), where the kids steamroll all over Mom and Dad because they do not fear punishment. That children need to be punished (up to and including hitting) in order for them to learn how to behave.

In practice, nothing is further from the truth. Just ask my children. :o) My kids are not punished or hit, and are learning how to behave just fine. Because I set limits and then enforce them.

This post is an attempt to delineate the nuts and bolts of setting rational limits, define a couple of guidelines I use when deciding whether to employ force with the children, and explain again why I think punishments and rewards are to be avoided. It's an overview of the general principles, not an attempt to address every unique situation (but I'm hoping that the principles will prove useful in this regard). It's a long post, so I hope you'll stick with me.

(Before I begin in earnest: I've written a couple of posts already that serve as general overviews of Positive Discipline--"Discipline without Punishment," and "The Art of War for Parents." If you haven't read those and are curious, it's a good place to start. Also, I tend to use Positive Discipline, PD, and non-punitive discipline interchangeably. Positive Discipline is the name used by Jane Nelsen, who has written many books on the subject and has a website for parents (highly recommended, btw). But there are many others who advocate this style of parenting, and I think non-punitive is a good way to describe it.)


The Life, Limb & Rights Principle (Or, Setting Rational Limits)

How should a parent go about setting rational limits on the behavior of their kids? It helps to have a standard, a principle. Funny, huh? :D And yet, I know so many parents who unfortunately don't have any consistent principle to guide their decision-making in this area, and way too many parents who set limits just because it was a limit they had to endure as children.

The standard for limit-setting that I use is an idea I borrowed from Kelly, who just formulated it so nicely that I can't think of a better way to put it. The standard is this: if the child's own life, limb, health or mental health and/or if someone else's rights (which of course include their life, limb, etc.) are in definite or probable danger, then a limit must be set. Let's call this the Life, Limb & Rights Principle for short.

In cases of possible/probable serious or irreparable harm to life, limb, etc., the parent will probably set the limit before being faced with such a dire situation. Examples of such preemptive strikes include things like riding in car seats, playing in traffic, jumping off the roof, the taste-testing of Windex or other such cleaning supplies, etc. These are examples good blanket rules that we have ahead of time, and I'm sure every household has a few of these.

Sometimes you can imagine ahead of time that you might need to set a limit, but yet you don't really know until you're in the situation HOW you might best apply or phrase the limit. So you need to tweak. An example of this might be one of our household rules: Respect the Stop or the No. Of course I could imagine that we'd have a need to handle the "He's touching me!" situations (having two siblings myself, heh), but I waited until we had a real need for that limit to set it with the children. I suppose it's possible that my kids wouldn't annoy each other with the touching, and then I'd never have an actual need for such a rule.

Many times, though, you can't really predict what kinds of limits you might need to set. These are situational, and sometimes optional (more on that in a bit). For example, I never predicted I'd have to set a "No Poop on Walls" limit, and yet, there you go. Again--based on unique situations in your family, the need for particular limits might need to be set that are not needed in other households. Still, the Life, Limb & Rights Principle serves as a guideline for both predictable situations and those pesky unpredictable ones, too.

More Rational Limits:

• Wear seat belts in the car
• Keep peanuts out of our house
• Loud, bothersome noises need to be produced outside or away from others if so requested
• Use markers on paper
• Don't empty out the kitchen cabinets unless you're willing to put the things back
• The sledgehammer is for Daddy to use
• Brush your teeth at least once a day
• Ask me before you use my iPhone
• No hitting/kicking/pinching/biting/punching people; use words instead.

Each of those limits can be traced directly to a reason based on the Life, Limb & Rights Principle. If the kids don't understand the reason for a particular limit, I can easily point it out, using reality and explaining my thinking on the matter.


Erring on the Side of Freedom (or, Opting Not to Set a Limit)

I've discussed this principle often. Sometimes, you the parent can think of a rational limit based on your own knowledge and experience. And yet if nobody else's rights will be violated, and if the consequences to the child's Life, Limb, etc. will not be severe, that's when I will often decide to Err on the Side of Freedom, giving the child the Freedom to interact with Mr. Reality without my interference.

An example of this is coat-wearing. My kids are often inappropriately attired for weather, as you will be aware if you've ever seen our pictures. This is an area in which I do not choose to enforce a limit. I'll suggest a coat, demonstrate to them that it's cold outside, remind them how useful coats generally prove to be in such weather, and then back off. Often, the child will make a good decision in the matter without any interference or further discussion from me. This is good practice, this kind of decision-making!

The only time I insist on a coat is in the (rare, for us) situations where their bodies could come to serious or irreparable harm. In other words, if the weather is really cold enough for frostbite, and we're planning to be outside for a lengthy amount of time, then I will insist on coats. I think this has only happened once, in Chicago while visiting relatives.

What happens if the kid insists on No Coat, it's not a "serious or irreparable harm" situation (say it's 40 degrees), but you're going to be somewhere outside for a good long while, and can probably count on some kind of severe whining episode as a result of the child's poor decision? Kelly told me of a situation she experienced recently with her daughter (it was sandals without socks, not a coat though). Kelly let her choose No Socks, but they agreed to bring back up socks in case her daughter changed her mind.

I've done this myself, with the coats. It's okay for you to make this non-irreparable-harm decision about your own body, but it's also not fair to the rest of us to ruin the fun of our outing if you later decide you've made a bad decision (this falls under my right to not be driven crazy by the whining). In those cases, a Plan B is a fair agreement. You are still giving the child the freedom to interact with Mr. Reality, but you are helping her (and yourself) work out a plan everyone can live with, should that decision indeed prove to be a mistake.


Enforcing Limits

So you have a bunch of limits. Now what? Well, first of all, make sure that everyone understands. Sometimes the best way to inform someone about your limit is when it first happens, in the moment. "Ouch! Don't pull my hair, it hurts." Okay, now everyone knows about the limit.

Next, prepare to remind people All. The. Live. Long. Day. Because they're new here, and they might forget. Because they might not completely understand. Because they don't agree. Because they're in a "testing" developmental stage and want to find out if you're really serious about this limit. Because they're trying to get on your nerves. Because, essentially, they're not fully rational and independent yet.

Reminding, Asking, and Encouraging

• Ask: "Why don't you do the chest clip and I'll do the other buckles?"
• Ask a kid who enters the house chewing peanut candy to finish his snack at his house
  
• Give the kid a choice between being quieter in this room and being loud in another room/outside
• Put paper in front of the child and remind him of the rule: "Color on paper, please!"
• Remind the child that he's expected to put things away after he's done
• Remind him that Dad wants kids to leave the sledgehammer alone
• Offer to brush your teeth alongside the child. (Misery loves company, right?)
• Remind her to ask me for a turn with the iPhone first
• Say "Use words instead of hitting when you're mad! What could you say instead?"

Finally, be prepared to enforce the limit--to use some degree of force upon the child to make sure that they stay within the limit. Sometimes this means physically preventing the child from doing something. Sometimes it means putting away some property that is in danger of damage--even putting it away for a really long time.

And prepare to enforce your limit many times, too, for all of the reasons mentioned above.

Methods of Enforcing Limits (not an exhaustive list, just ONE of many possible ways for each limit):

• Physically strap child into car seat
  
• Take peanut food out of the house myself
  
• Take loud child to another room
• Put the markers away temporarily
• Put a lock on a cabinet
• Keep off-limits tools way up high in the garage
• Brush the child's teeth for him
• Put iPhone out of their reach
• Hold child's arms/legs still for him

Appropriate Use of Force

Using force is a necessary part of the parenting job. How can an Objectivist justify coercion, the use of force, against their children? Isn't force supposed to be bad?

As Kelly discussed in her post "The Nature of Children," children are neither fully independent rational adults, nor are they irrational adults, nor are they animals. Therefore when kids resist a rational limit and when rights are being violated, or they are endangering themselves, then the parent is right to act in order to ensure that everyone/everything is safe. Force is appropriate to the extent that a child is not behaving rationally, and when rights are in danger.

However. And this is a Big However, so pay attention. Children are not fully mature, independent, rational adults--but neither are they dumb animals who must be conditioned to behave appropriately. And they are not irrational adults either, which is why I believe that the above quotation from Dr. Peikoff is not applicable to parenting situations. With irrational adults, when reason proves futile, then force is pretty much what you're left with.

Children are just learning to be rational. From the first concept formed during the first year of life until they leave your house never to return, they are working on their burgeoning minds. They're going to make mistakes along the way, because of inexperience or experimentation or simply because their brains are immature. When those mistakes could or will violate the Life, Limb & Rights Principle, a rational parent's job is prevent the full and complete consequences of those mistakes.

Yet I want my children, as they set out on their own as adults, to have practiced using their own minds to make rational choices about their lives. Therefore it is absolutely critical that they have not been encouraged to obey authority figures without question; to make decisions about their behavior based on punishment or reward systems; to have become accustomed to being coerced by others.


The Minimum Force Principle

What to do? Force is necessary, sometimes. And yet, they must not become accustomed to its use.

Here is another parenting principle, a corollary of the Life, Limb & Rights Principle: Use force on children as minimally and infrequently as you possibly can. Let's call this the Minimum Force Principle.

The Minimum Force Principle helps me remember that my kids hate being forced to do things just as much as I do, by virtue of the fact that they are human beings. As much as I hate being forced to pay taxes, they hate having me tell them what to do. And they're allowed to have those feelings about it.

I don't want them ever to become accustomed to the feeling of being forced. There are enough "sheeple" in this world already, people who do not even understand when they are being coerced into doing something they otherwise might not want to do. I am not raising dumb animals; I do not need to condition them through carrot-and-stick methods to act in ways of which I approve.

I am trying to guide new humans, with their young little minds, into adulthood. I know that rationality and independence (among other virtues) are crucial to their future happiness as adults. If I cripple their minds now through the frequent use of heavy-handed force, how can I expect them to know how to use their minds at the age of 18 or 22? This is their time to practice being rational, to practice being independent, while under the guidance (and yes, protection) of their parents.


And Speaking of the Carrot and the Stick . . .

When using the Minimum Force Principle, I use the minimum force necessary to ensure the limit is followed. This also means that I do not add on another Mom-imposed consequence after I've gotten that compliance. In other words--a punishment.

A punishment is imposed by the parent onto the child, over and above the enforcement of the limit. Sometimes it's to help them "learn." Sometimes it's done as an act of retribution. Examples of punishments include: spanking, grounding, sitting in a time-out chair to contemplate one's transgressions, doing extra chores around the house, etc.

Here's the thing. The kid will understand what they're supposed to do, learn what they ought to learn, simply by having the parent enforce rational limits consistently and fairly. If I am consistent and principled, then the child will learn "Mom will make me sit in my car seat, even if I don't want to." I do not need to spank him into it, threaten or scare him into it, bribe him into it, take away his toys into it, or ground him into it. I simply have to put the child into the car seat every. single. time. he is unwilling to do it himself. Case closed, end of story.

A special word about spanking--obviously, since I don't advocate punishments of any form, I don't support spanking. Using the Minimum Force Principle will sometimes include firm physical handling, and yes, those situations can be infuriating.

Spanking is the ultimate argument from authority. It's a great way to win compliance and get results. No doubt. But hitting a child--even just a "pop" on the hand--is really just "because I said so" with a dose of physical pain to back up the words. I oppose any form of hitting a child for the same reasons I oppose "because I said so"--because it teaches a child to obey rather than think.

Spanking is particularly egregious because teaches children that Mom and Dad, their protectors, the ones they are supposed to trust more than anyone else in the world, will cause them physical pain. In addition to reinforcing obedience, I think hitting damages trust in a relationship that needs so much of it due to the dependence of one party upon the other.

We don't use reward systems either. Rewards are the flip side of punishments in a way. Rewards include: gold star-type systems where the kid can "earn" a reward, or bribery.

Rewards are nicer, gentler Mom-imposed methods designed to get a child to behave in a desired way. But they're still a form of coercion. A child can easily become conditioned to behave desirably when the reward system is in place, but then might stop after Mom runs out of stickers or candy. I made this mistake when we were potty-training Ryan. Once he figured out he wouldn't get his reward every time, he actually looked at me and asked, "Well then why should I do it?"

I think it's easier and kinder to just enforce the limit as gently as possible rather than to try to make the kid want to do it for a piece of candy or a gold star. I think the use of external parent-initiated rewards and bribes can encourage second-handedness in a child. I know many kids about Ryan's age who can't do many things without looking up to see if the adult in the room is nodding approval or ready to give them a treat. These kids have already learned to substitute adult approval for their own judgment.

Ryan didn't learn to use the potty because we gave him treats; he used the potty because we sat him on it whenever we thought he looked like he needed to go. He hated this use of force, by the way, and I suspect that might be why he eventually decided that he might as well just go ahead and do it himself.

Keeping the focus on limit-setting has another great result, too. Once the child is willing and able to comply with the limit, he is effectively substituting his own inner discipline for your previous external discipline. Ryan uses the potty just fine now--he is self-disciplined in this area of his life.


Why Non-Punitive Discipline?

The Life, Limb & Rights Principle, the Err on the Side of Freedom Principle, and the Minimum Force Principle serve as a framework for most (if not all) of my parenting decisions. I've been considering how to formulate these principles for many, many years now, since before I became a parent. And boy it feels great to have finally articulated them! (Although the formulation of the Life, Limb & Rights Principle is not originally mine as I stated above--thanks, Kelly!) These principles are not derived from, but are compatible with, Non-Punitive Discipline techniques.

I think about what it means to be a good parent all the time, for many reasons. It's my day (and night) job, so I'm constantly faced with parenting challenges opportunities; I want to parent differently from my own parents; I want to parent according to my values and philosophy; but mostly because I have three wonderful children and they deserve good parenting.

As an Objectivist, I value rationality, justice, honesty, and independence (among other virtues, of course). I want my kids to value those things, too. One of the reasons I use PD tools is because I can reinforce such virtues while simultaneously modeling them for my kids. They can practice these things AND see Mommy doing those things, too. WIN-WIN.

The PD techniques I use and have described here in the past support rational limit-setting, consistent enforcing of those limits, using minimal force only when necessary, and without punishments or rewards. With a focus on getting input from the children about the limits, kindness yet firmness when enforcement is necessary, and partnership in problem-solving so that we can all improve next time, PD helps me live (and parent) according to my ideals. I am parenting in a virtuous way to get those three little values of mine going in the world.

Kelly Elmore and Brendan Casey provided valuable feedback on this post, for which I'm extremely grateful. I owe you both some kind of fancy dinner at the very least. Additionally, Kelly's contribution to my thinking about parenting cannot be emphasized enough. We have had hours of interesting conversation about parenting techniques and philosophy. Without these talks, I'm sure both my parenting and my writing would not be as far along as they are. :o)

A Quick Positive Discipline Example

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

You can't always tell what discipline method a parent has chosen just by looking at what happens when a child misbehaves--or, as I prefer to view it--when a child makes a mistake or a bad decision.

Take our situation this morning. Over the past few days, Morgan has consistently refused to help clean up her art supplies. So today she does not have access to them.

Upon hearing that Morgan doesn't get to use her art supplies, you might think that she is being punished for her refusal to clean up. But you're missing out on the whole discipline story if you are only aware of the problem and the end result.


A Punitive Scenario

The Problem: Morgan wants to use her art supplies, but has refused to help clean up her art mess for the last three days.

The Discipline:

Mom or Dad says, "You never clean up your art mess, so you're grounded from your art supplies today!" And hopes the child will remember this and become motivated not to make a mess tomorrow.

The Result: Morgan spends a day without access to her art supplies.


A Non-Punitive Scenario

The Problem: Morgan wants to use her art supplies, but has refused to help clean up her art mess for the last three days.

The Discipline:

Mom or Dad says, "I feel mad when I have to clean up the art mess without your help. I've had to clean it up for the last three days, and I don't want to clean an art mess up again today. So we'll keep your art supplies put away until tomorrow. What would you like to play with instead?"

Morgan: "But that's not fair! I want my art supplies!"

Dad: "You can have them tomorrow. And tomorrow I know that you will show us that you want to have access to them. Do you know what's a good way to show us that?" "What?" "By helping us clean them up. So anyway, would you like to read a book or play with your dogs now?"

The Result: Morgan spends a day without access to her art supplies.


In both scenarios, the Problem and the Result are exactly the same. Discipline is a process, and you can approach any given problem in different ways and still achieve similar results.

In the Punitive Scenario I imagined (based on how it might have been handled when I was a child), Mom or Dad is (justifiably) frustrated and doesn't want to clean up the inevitable mess without help. Yes, the consequence is a logical one--Behavior X = Consequence Y--but the process used is designed to make the child feel bad, in the hopes that the bad feeling the child experiences will be a deterrent for future behavior. The parent's view of the child is as someone who has misbehaved.

In the Non-Punitive Scenario, Dad explains his justifiable feelings about having to clean up the mess without help and how does not want to do it again. That he is basing his prediction about what might happen today on what has happened in the past. He is protecting his rational self-interests (not having to spend his own time cleaning up a mess he hasn't created) for today by making sure that the mess can not be created in the first place.

When the child raises an objection, Dad reminds her that she can get her art supplies--tomorrow. He expresses his confidence in her that she might want to demonstrate her willingness to help clean (empty words in the past), and gives her a suggestion about how she might do that. He tells her that he is willing to give her another chance to show that she will do what she says--tomorrow. Then he redirects her energy toward something that she CAN do (read a book), to help her not remain caught up in the feeling of what she CAN'T do. [Sometimes the redirection works; sometimes not. It's okay if she wants to feel sad about what's happening for a while longer.]

The child is not being made to feel bad in order to make her change her future behavior. She is being held accountable for the consequences of her poor decisions. She is being reminded that the other people in this family have rational self-interests, and that they have a right to them. She must accept the consequences for her mistake, but her parents do not dwell on the mistake--the focus is on the confidence they have in her that she is capable of making a better decision next time. And they are telling her that she WILL get that chance. They give her an idea for making a better choice, and then they leave that decision up to her. The parents view of the child is that of someone who has made a mistake. They view the situation as a mutual problem that needs resolution rather than a misbehavior on the part of one party.

This is the "positive" part of Positive Discipline. The focus isn't on trying to change their future decisions by making kids experience negative feelings (about themselves or their parents). The focus is rather on holding them accountable for their decisions, expressing confidence in them, helping them out by making suggestions or problem-solving, and showing them kindness even while a limit is being firmly enforced.

We'll find out what decision she makes tomorrow! If she makes another bad decision, then we will handle the situation in the exact same (non-punitive) way. Our emphasis is on expressing confidence in her, reiterating our needs and why, and our willingness to give her our help and as many chances as she needs. We are setting this fair limit for our own self-interested reasons.

I'm completely confident that we'll get this all figured out. :o)

Horrendous Tantrum, Desire to Punish, and What I Did Instead

originally posted at Reepicheep's Coracle

Dear Blog Readers (I hope there are a plural number of you),

In the interest of full disclosure about non-punitive discipline and the parents who practice it and the children they practice it on, I am going to blog about the worst freaking tantrum incident we have had (maybe ever). It happened today, and, besides giving people a glimpse into the worst and best of what we do, I also just need to vent a bit. Warning: If you think that non-punitively disciplined children behave well all the time, please sit down before reading this. And if you are not a parent, please remember that these days are few and far between, and don't let this post be the impetus for your tubal ligation or vasectomy.

It all started with a lovely canoe trip on the Chattahoochee. We ate snacks, fed ducks, jumped in and out of the canoe, paddled, and had a lovely time. After the canoeing, we were planning on going bike riding along the river. When it was time to stop swimming and go to get dry clothes on in preparation for the biking (we had mutually agreed on a number of minutes to swim), Livy sat down on the ground and started to cry. So, I told her to get up and come along, and I started walking toward the bathrooms. She cried louder that she needed to clean herself off (conveniently in the swimming hole), and I told her we could do that in the bathroom.

Now, having a hard time leaving is something we often experience, so I said my usual thing about how leaving with grace and dignity and a decent attitude is a part of getting to come back. Then I reminded her that we were about to go biking. Here is where we started to deviate from the usual and into the crazy-making kind of behavior that makes me want to sell her to gypsies. For some reason, unknown to me, she just lost it. She was crying and refusing to get up and follow me, so I said, "Follow me now," and I walked away. She didn't follow until I was way down the sidewalk, and by then, I was feeling mad and miserable, and I just wanted to go home. So, I said, "Livy, I have had it. We're going. I don't want to bike ride with you when you are acting like this."

As you can imagine, she got even angrier and sadder, and she wouldn't get into the car. So I said the usual child-doesn't-want-to-do-what-must-be-done thing: "You can get into the car on your own, or I will put you in." She said that her choice was to go bike riding, so I said, "Sounds like you do need my help," and I made to pick her up. And here is where she did what she never did before. The child actually ran away from me. I was so mad that I wanted to hit and yell and punish and generally beat her (physically or emotionally) into submission. Thank goodness I didn't do those things, but I did raise my voice a bit and said, "Get into this car now" in a kind of mean and serious voice. She did, crying and screaming the whole time about how she still wanted to ride bikes.

On the way home, she unbuckled her seat belt, in order to make me mad, I think, and to get me to stop and go back. I pulled over, buckled her back, and held her hands until she said she wouldn't unbuckle it again. At this point, I was furious, and I did yell at her to keep it buckled. I am sorry that I yelled, but not too sorry, cause it was not the worst thing I wanted to do to her, and it was the worst thing I did and only this once.

Once we were back on the road, she said (and by that I mean howled) very mean things to me about wanting to go to her dad's house and not wanting to live with me anymore. As any divorced parent knows, these are the most hurtful and scary words you can hear. I live in perpetual fear that the parenting I know is right will make her want to choose to live with him when she is older. I know it is my obligation to do the right thing anyway, but you can imagine the sting of her words, in light of my worries. But, though this story may seem like it is at the lowest point, here is where I really did well. I let Livy see how much this had hurt me. I asked her how it would feel to her if I told her I didn't want her to live with me. She got a stricken expression on her face, and she said, "Really sad." I told her that was exactly how I felt when she said it to me. She saw that I was crying, and she apologized and told me that she did want to live with me and that she loved me and that she was so so so mad. At her age, she thinks an apology makes everything okay, and I explained that I was still very hurt and very mad about her words and about her behavior. She cried all the way home.

We talked some after we were both calm about why I would not bike with her after such an awful tantrum. I told her I was too mad, and that it would not be fun for me to spend time with someone who treated me so badly. We talked about some other (more healthy, rational, and kind) ways to tell me that she is mad instead of saying very hurtful things. We talked about how scared I feel when she takes off her seatbelt and how I will not let her sit in the front seat (we have turn off airbags) if I cannot trust her to use a seatbelt like a grown-up. We talked about how people still feel horrible, even after you say sorry, if you are cruel to them. We talked about the way you have to treat other people if you want them to do things for you and to do things with you. We talked and talked and talked, hugged and kissed a lot, and reconnected.

Livy hasn't had a big tantrum in a very long while, and this was the first time I really showed her my feelings about it. I decided she was mature enough to see the consequences, not just of her actions (huge fits end the fun) but also of her words (mom is crying and her feelings are incredibly hurt.) It is interesting to me, in retrospect, (when I wasn't feeling simultaneously furious and crushed) how much of an effect it had on her to see the result of her actions on our relationship. It was a huge learning experience, and she said to me afterward without any kind of prompting, "Biking isn't as important as loving you, Mama."

Overall, I am pleased with how I handled this situation. Honestly, keeping my temper for the most part seems like a triumph worthy of a freaking arch being built in my honor. Punishing Livy would have made her feel bad (mostly for getting busted, as I remember from my own childhood) and would have given her the feeling of being off the hook once the punishment was over. The non-punitive way I handled it allowed her to feel the natural consequences of behaving so badly (people don't want to hang out with you, people get their feelings hurt, relationships will take time to mend) and didn't encourage her to feel that since she had served her time, it's all over. She knows that we have lots more talking to do and that the future is changed (I will be more hesitant to go canoeing or biking or swimming in the river, and I will continue to feel hurt for a while.) She will be disappointed that we didn't get to go biking for a while, as well.

I also realized that, for me, punishment really does come with a feeling of vengeance. Revenge is what I wanted when I thought about punishing her. I wanted to make her feel bad because she had made me feel bad. I don't see how that would be any different from her saying mean things to me to make me feel bad because I wouldn't go biking. I suppose punishing parents often do it coolly, instead of in anger, but I never seem to need to punish when I am cool. I can always think of a creative way to work through a situation. My desire to punish only seems to arise when I am boiling mad. I usually follow that feeling with an order to stand back and get my breath, cool down a bit, and be inventive. It's never failed me yet, when I can make myself do it.

So, the moral of this story is: Today, I found that my non-punitive strategies work, even in the most hellish circumstances. And feel free to come and read this post again on your bad days. Maybe the comradeship will prevent you from hitting, yelling, punishing, or selling them to the gypsies.

P.S. The photo above is of Livy and me at her dance recital, proving that there really is a darling little girl, oozing with sugar and spice and everything nice, underneath the hell beast of the above story. :)

Discipline Without Punishment

(Originally posted at Rational Jenn)

I've been writing about our experience with and applications of Positive Discipline methods for a while now. I'm aware that there may be some new readers who have found this blog (hi!) and so I wanted to do a quick review of what PD entails, how it fits well with my principles as an Objectivist, and to revisit the most controversial aspect of this parenting method: no arbitrary punishments and rewards.

(If you would like to read more about PD, check out my list of resources in this post.)

One of the reasons I like using the PD approach is that it reminds me to treat the children as if they are young human beings--because they are in fact, young human beings. A carrot-and-stick approach may be necessary with lower animals (and I'm not entirely sure if I think that's always so), but young humans, while not fully rational, are not the same as animals. They need guidance, sure. But their nature as humans demands that we treat them differently from other animals.


The Ambassador

I once read an analogy on a discipline discussion group that is a really wonderful way to describe the positive discipline approach. (If you happen to know the origin, please let me know so I can credit it properly.)

Imagine that you are a government official (no, really--it's a good analogy. Stay with me.) and your job is to introduce a foreign ambassador to our country. The Ambassador is brand new here. He has no knowledge of our language or customs, but he sure is excited to be here, and is eager to do things just right. As he tries to get along with "the natives," he's going to make some mistakes. LOTS of mistakes. Your job is to show him the way to do things around here. The Ambassador likes you a lot and has readily accepted your authority in the matter of All Things This Country. What is the best way to help him understand how to behave?

Imagine a dinner party where the Ambassador reaches across the table and grabs food off of someone else's plate. That's how they do it in his country, but not here. Should you smack his hand away and scold him for being rude? Should you scream at him? Should you talk condescendingly to him? Should you force him to apologize to the other guests for his behavior?

Or should you say "In our country, we only eat off of our own plates. If we'd like more food, we can say 'Please pass the carrots.' and someone will pass us the bowl."?

Imagine he doesn't know how dangerous a moving car can be. (They only ride horses in his country.) The Ambassador walks heedlessly into traffic. You grab his arm and stop him just in time. Do you now smack him? Scream at him for being so foolish?

Or do you say in probably a loud, obviously stressed out tone of voice "Don't walk into the road! Those moving cars could hurt you!"

Imagine that he lies to you about something important. Do you make him sit in his hotel room and think about what he did? Do you make him wash the windows of the embassy (a chore he hates) as punishment?

Or do you explain to him that truthfulness and trust is extremely important, that your relationship depends on it, that tricking someone by lying to them is a good way to damage a relationship and make yourself miserable? That because your trust is damaged, you'll be doing an extra careful job of making sure that what he says is true, so that you can continue to help him out?

And if I had belittled or smacked the Ambassador, what would his impressions of our country be? He might feel inadequate or stupid for not somehow automatically knowing what the rules were. He might view the our country as a place that doesn't make sense, and maybe a place that he can't ever understand.

What might he think of me? He might worry that I didn't really like him. He might learn to fear me instead of look to me for guidance and protection and answers about the way things are. He might become scared to try anything new (since my reactions were negative and unpredictable to him), afraid of making a mistake and facing my anger or a punishment or physical pain.

If I treat the Ambassador in a kind way, answering his questions, correcting his behavior, helping him make sense of things that are incomprehensible to him, he will begin to understand the customs, act in accordance with them, and he will look to me as a resource--someone who can help him out.


No Punishment? Really?

When I first started reading about PD, I couldn't get over the whole "no punishing" thing. I kept looking for loopholes--because I simply couldn't see how a child who isn't punished for his wrong actions would learn the right way to behave. How he wouldn't just act like a crazy hooligan all the time. How his parents would keep him under control.

And then I realized--discipline shouldn't be about keeping kids "under control." It should be about helping them understand rational (not arbitrary) boundaries and how to control themselves. In time, as the child matures, he will understand not only what the boundaries are, but why they are necesssary, and have the self-discipline required to abide by those boundaries. He will understand how to correct his mistakes. He will want to do the right thing because it is right--not because he'll be punished for doing the wrong thing, or rewarded with a prize for doing the right thing.

I should define what I mean when I say "punishment." I'm talking about an arbitrary, adult-imposed sanction upon a child for a specific transgression. If you run out into the street, I'll smack your bottom. If you scream at me, I'll make you sit in the Time Out Chair. If you throw a toy, I'll smack your hand. If you hit me, I'll hit you. If you break something precious of mine, I'll send you to your room. If you speak rudely to me, I'll withhold love, affection, or television privileges. If you lie to me, I'll ground you. In other words, punishment is something negative I'll do TO you in order to let you know you did something wrong (or something I don't like).

All of these parental actions are designed to get the message across that the child's action is unacceptable. Because those behaviors are unacceptable (accidents excepting). And of course kids ought to learn those things. And they CAN learn them if they are not punished for making mistakes or bad decisions.

Does this mean that there's an "anything goes" policy at my house? No! The kids take responsibility for their mistakes and bad decisions--but the consequences they face are reality-driven, not mommy-driven.

Children need rational, non-arbitrary boundaries based in reality, because like The Ambassador above, they are new here and don't automatically know the right way to act. If such limits are set and consistently enforced, then there is actually no need for an additional parent-imposed punishment. The child bangs up against the limit, the rule is enforced, end of story. In a way, handling limits in this manner sets the parent free (to a certain degree) from being the Bad Guy or JJ&E (Judge, Jury & Executioner). Mom is there to help the child respect the limits which are grounded in reality. The child can rant and rage against Mr. Reality (and my kids often do this), but Mr. Reality has a way of being constant and immovable, doesn't he?

Non-arbitrary limits include: Cleaning up a spill you made. A parent quickly grabbing you before you run into the street. Being held firmly by a parent until you can stop your arms from hitting. Being asked to choose between taking your screaming voices outside or quieting down a bit. Getting strapped into your carseat against your will, or being taken from a store or restaurant because you are flipping out and disturbing others.

Punishments do discourage unwanted actions. Rewards (the positive flip-side of punishment) do encourage desirable actions. But both are ways of controlling the child as opposed to helping the child learn to control himself in a rational way. In fact, punishments and rewards encourage second-handedness, I think, because the child learns to look to others for an indication of whether he has done right or wrong. He learns to expect consequences (positive or negative) to come from others--not reality. And he doesn't learn why right and wrong actions are right and wrong--only that others say so.


Examples!

Some limits need no Mom-intervention whatsoever. Walking on gravel in your bare feet is a reality-based experience that needs no adult comment. Not wearing a coat or sweater outside when it's 38 degrees--again, No Mommy Necessary (except to bring a backup jacket). The negative consequence to those actions are "punishment" enough, yes?

The vast majority of the limits my husband and I set for our kids are rooted in Ethics, of course. And the principle we use is that of individual rights (although we don't often use that term when explaining our reasoning, since that's a bit too abstract for them just yet).

When the child's actions infringe upon the rights of another, we put a stop to the action. There is no additional consequence--because all I want to do is stop the violation of someone else's rights. I always explain why the behavior must stop (in terms they can understand), but the most important thing is that the rights violation ceases. The kids will--and have--figure out that what they were doing is unacceptable and as they mature, they will be able to stop themselves from doing it, and they will eventually be able to truly understand WHY the behavior is unacceptable. (Ryan has been flirting on the edge of this true understanding for a while now, but at nearly 7, he's not all the way there. I'll let you know when he gets there--I still expect it to be a while.)

So--hitting. Hitting hurts and is not respectful of other people's bodies. You must stop. If you can't stop your arm, then I will help you, asking you to stop hitting, or by moving you away from the victim, or even occasionally by holding your arm still.

Screaming at me rudely. Well, I really dislike that, and screaming at me makes me not want to help you out. I'm much more willing to help you open the milk if you ask me in a kind way. If you scream, then I'll probably won't help you.

Bossing your friends. Your friends won't want to play with you if they are bossed incessantly. Guess what? I'm happy to report that Ryan is changing his behavior and is treating his friend more kindly.

Coloring on my walls (or writing ASS on it!). My walls belong to me and I like them sans colorful words. (Also, I like them poop-free. Yes.) So you must erase it and if you need to write things, please find some paper.

Trashing your room rock-star-style. The things in your room belong to you, yes, but I wash your clothes and you need to keep them neat and tidy in your dresser drawer. So you'll need to clean them up. Also, we vacuum every other week, so you'll need to clean up the floor, too. And you'll need to get this cleaned up now, so I don't think we'll have time to read your story tonight. Oh, your friends helped you make this mess? Well, then you'll need to ask them to stop making a mess next time, since this is your room. If they won't stop, come and ask me for help. Also, I think you and your friends shouldn't be alone in your room for a while.

In any of the above examples, I can't see how adding a punishment on to what happened would have done anything more toward having the kids understand the limits and why.


Rational Discipline

The best thing about positive discipline techniques is that they are very compatible with my principles. When I am guiding my children through a situation, I am focused on reality; I'm thinking about ideas that are important to me; I'm treating my children as individuals; I'm making sure they treat me and others as individuals with rights; I'm protecting them from catastrophic harm; I'm staying out of the way of them experiencing the consequences of their actions; I'm ensuring that they are thinking about things for themselves instead of accepting an argument from authority (me).

PD tools reinforce the virtues which I try to exercise on a daily basis for my own happiness. When I slip back into JJ&E mode (and I do), I'm not a happy mommy. I don't like thinking up punishments and enforcing them; I'd rather enforce the rational rule. I don't like implicitly asking my kids to do something merely because I want them to do it; I like them understanding that it's important to do something because it's right to do it (even if they don't like it in the moment).

In the words of Aristotle: we are what we repeatedly do; excellence is not an act, but a habit. With rational, reality-based limits, kids will get experience making good and bad choices, and lots of practice in how to navigate the local customs. I think they'll enter adulthood with experience and skills in their own toolboxes to help them be happy, productive adults.

I realize that some of my readers may have disagreements about these ideas. Feel free to comment (pros and cons!).