Meredith

--- In [email protected], "Melissa" <autismhelp@...>
wrote:
>> So implied judgement means that by saying doing an action is not
okay, that the child
> himself is not okay?

I was thinking more that "hitting is not okay" is a judgement in and
of itself, and one that is really terribly complex. Its a rules-vs-
principles thing. Hitting *is* okay in certain situations, so saying
its not sets up the whole rules dynamic.

> child in this situation was watching to see if adults were paying
attention, planning which
> toy that he wanted, and then walking across the area to hit and
take the toy.

This tells me the child *has* heard plenty of "no hitting" type
statements. No-one is helping him understand *why* its not (always)
okay to hit, or helping him get what he wants in other ways, though,
so he keeps doing it bc it works. That's what happens with rules. If
they are inconvenient, people find ways around them. This guy knows
the rule and is learning to subvert it.

> So, for a child who apparently thinks hitting is a way to solve
problems, how helpful is
> it to tell this boy that hitting hurts?

You're assuming he's comfortable hurting people. I'm assuming he's
found an effective way to get what he wants and isn't thinking about
the other people at all. That may sound strange, but young children
really don't make the same kinds of connections that adults do. He
*needs* to hear that hitting hurts *and* people don't necessarily
like to be hit/hurt. It's not intuitively obvious to him. His mom
may not realize that either. He may also need to hear just
plain "Stop!"

What he *really* needs is someone being more proactive in helping
him get his needs met so he isn't put in the position of using a
default strategy like hitting.

> I think we do need to talk, you're right. I don't see how he could
have felt 'forced' to share
> when the toys belonged to the museum and someone else had them
first. He doesn't have
> first claim on every single toy, which seemed to be his
perspective.

Of course its his perspective. Why shouldn't it be? Doesn't the sun
rise and set around little children? He needs help seeing *another*
perspective. That's perfectly normal for a young child.

I'm seeing you falling into the trap of thinking he's a "bad kid"
for not having very much empathy right now. Several of your
statements about him seem to imply that. He needs more support and
facilitation than other children, maybe. I'm not saying that's your
job! but I'm disturbed by the implications of statements like: "For
this particular child, from playdate to playdate, that seems to be
the goal, to hurt a baby."

He's not a monster. He's a little kid who's struggling to understand
social situations and using the only tool he has.

---Meredith (Mo 5, Ray 13)

Ren Allen

~~Hitting *is* okay in certain situations, so saying
its not sets up the whole rules dynamic.~~

So true.
It's not as useful when trying to resolve day-to-day issues with
people, but it can be a great way to escape harm.:)

With Jalen, it was a lot more useful to say something simple like "use
words" or "WAIT, I'll help you!" (as I'm intervening) rather than
"don't hit". When we repeatedly model how to get what you want with
positive and healthy methods, our children eventually learn that.

Ren
learninginfreedom.com

Melissa

And 'use words' is what we've always said in our home, because it just seems to be a good
reminder. And it doesn't mean you have to talk, it can mean that you use sign language, or
write angry words with red crayon on a piece of paper. But having a child with significant
language needs, it just has become our saying.

I know that someone has said that saying 'using words' is not always appropriate, so what
specifically would *you* say or do in this exact situation?
Thanks
melissa
--- In [email protected], "Ren Allen" <starsuncloud@...> wrote:
>
> ~~> With Jalen, it was a lot more useful to say something simple like "use
> words" or "WAIT, I'll help you!" (as I'm intervening) rather than
> "don't hit". When we repeatedly model how to get what you want with
> positive and healthy methods, our children eventually learn that.
>

Nicole Willoughby

I know that someone has said that saying 'using words' is not always appropriate, so what
specifically would *you* say or do in this exact situation?>>>>

Well Ive strayed a bit away from use words with my younger 2 because my 5 yr old is nonverbal and my 4 year old ....well to be honest *I* have a lot of trouble understanding what she is saying and she gets very frustrated when I tell her to slow down or please look at me and speak louder so...........

can you show me? and "help me understand" has been very useful around here. Often the 4 year old simply slows her self down and it solves the problem ..........but shell also get creative and drag me to it, draw a picture, use brothers PECS, etc. The 5 year old autistic one well............he usualy just throws himself on the floor and screams .

Nicole


---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Meredith

--- In [email protected], "Melissa" <autismhelp@...>
wrote:
> And 'use words' is what we've always said in our home, because it
just seems to be a good
> reminder.

I sometimes us it the same way with Mo (or just "words!"), and
sometimes that's all she needs. I wouldn't use the expression with
someone else's kid unless I'd seen his/her mom use it successfully.
I'm more likely to offer help in either case.

I'm going to look for the specific thread on this topic - it may be
over at AU, now that I think about it. I'll see what I can dig up.

> so what
> specifically would *you* say or do in this exact situation?

In the specific museum instance I'd have called the kid's mom - hey
someone needs help, here!

At this point, I'd talk with the other mom *before* the issue can
come up again. Once a child has reached the hitting point, there
aren't a lot of good in-the-moment options to begin with, and with
tempers high, its hard to be creative. So having options laid out
before hand is really important. How does mom prefer these sorts of
situations to be handled? How can you make it easier for her to help
her kid get his needs met without stomping all over others? Maybe
something like:

"Kid didn't seem to have a very good time at the museum - he seemed
to be getting really frustrated. Is there something we/I can do
differently to help him out, next time?"

and listen to what mom has to say. She may need some help, but not
know how to ask - or if its okay to ask.

I'd also really want to talk with the other moms in the group -
didn't you say this is an ongoing issue? What's their perspective?
Is everyone equally baffled or is there some information or history
that you aren't aware of? Do you just have different expectations
than the rest of the group as to what happens when groups of
children play together?

---Meredith (Mo 5, Ray 13)

Meredith

--- In [email protected], "Melissa" <autismhelp@...>
wrote:
>
> And 'use words' is what we've always said in our home, because it
just seems to be a good
> reminder. And it doesn't mean you have to talk, it can mean that
you use sign language, or
> write angry words with red crayon on a piece of paper. But having
a child with significant
> language needs, it just has become our saying.

Okay, I found the thread I was thinking of, and it *is* over at AU
and kind of long, besides, so I don't really want to pull the whole
thing over here. I am going to copy a post and reply out of the
middle, though, since they speak directly to the quote above and why
this strategy doesn't work for certain kids at certain times:
***********************************

Re: [AlwaysUnschooled] Why does this phrase ruffle my feathers?

Laureen wrote:
> When you're really, really upset/frustrated/angry, the circuits are
> already at overload. I have seen adults in my family go nonverbal
over
> something plenty of times. So arrogantly and controllingly
insisting
> that someone tamp it all down so as to communicate their upset with
> language shows that the person just doesn't understand what it's
like
> inside your head. It proves the listener's/observers supreme lack
of
> empathy, and it's a sign that they're putting their need to control
> the situation ahead of the experiencer's emotional wellbeing.
>
> If you *know* the person is at overload, don't ask them to explain
it,
> *hand them the pillow to hit*. Give them the discharge. *Then*
talk it
> all down rationally.
>
> Grin. Think of it as strewing tools for temper control before
> demanding that control. =)
>
>

Danielle replied:

I really like the way you've cast this, Laureen. I think you've
really
gotten to the core of the issue when you point to the need to control
the situation over the emotional well-being.

I do say "words please" or "I can't help you if I don't know what you
need"--depending upon how many words *from me* I think the child can
process. In part, it is about me wanting to control the situation--
i.e.
help fix what ever's wrong. But, also, I think it probably ties into
that emotional need for myself to be able to make things right. Not
always the purest motivation, as we've talked about before here at
AU.

Another thing I'll do is remind them to breathe--another good
strategy
for calming and regaining access to language.

This conversation has me reconsidering whether calming and fixing are
really the best reactions on my part, wondering whether empathy first
wouldn't be a better approach. Lots of food for thought and a great
reminder to be more mindful of my own reactions in these situations.

In theory, I agree empathy first is a great approach, but practically
I'm not so sure it's that easy.

First, it's kinda hard to empathize without understanding. Of course,
there can be pure love without understanding, but often when a child
is
wanting empathy, what they're needing is precisely that
understanding--another human being who can say, I understand, I get
it,
which validates the emotions and needs.

Second, not all kids in all situations are going to want empathy
first.
Sometimes fixing it really is what they want--and NOW! I have totally
been on the receiving end of a
"make-it-better-now-or-you're-completely-useless-to-me!" attitude
that's
born of pure frustration.

And I don't have kids who want to hit pillows--that's just never
been a
useful strategy for us. *shrug* Even Sam, who can really rage, has
never
wanted or accepted redirection for his anger, and we've brainstormed
*a
lot* and tried lots of different possibilities. He pretty much justs
wants to discharge in his own way--not hitting a pillow, or a couch,
or
a bed, just pure raging. Getting him into his room where he can
throw,
hit, bang, whatever, in these moments has been what works best for
us--Sam can release and move through his intense emotions more
quickly
while everyone and everyone's things stay safe. Of course, I'm not
telling him to use his words in these situations either. ;)

Deb Lewis

***And 'use words' is what we've always said in our home, because it
just seems to be a good
reminder.***

Dylan wasn't a hitter and we were lucky that most of his friends in those
days were gentle, pacifist kids too. <g> One little boy though, was from a
big family and was knocked around by his older brother. If he'd had a
scuffle with his brother before he came to our house he'd be rough with
Dylan and rough with toys and cats.

I didn't say "use word" because he thought he had used words to solve his
problem when he first said "give me that or I'll hit you," or just "NO!" or
"MINE."

What I said if he seemed to be getting worked up was a
specific-to-the-moment, "Don't hit him! I'll help you." I tried to keep
the cats out of his way but if I hadn't done that I would remind him, "Don't
hit the cat, I'll move her."

I didn't say "People shouldn't hit," because his mom spanked and his
siblings smacked each other so his experience was that people DO hit.
Shouldn't schmoodent. When you're five, and have just been whacked in the
knee with a baseball bat, philosophy means nothing at all.


Deb Lewis