Julie Bogart

Too many posts to figure out which to respond to.

Siblings without Rivalry (Faber and Mazlisch) is a great book with
lots of ideas for how to break up fighting.

One thing I remember is that when one kid is about to hit anyone, she
suggests yelling, "Quick - You to the other room and you to the
couch." Something like that. She says not to yell disapprovingly but
to defuse the situation by separating the kids and stopping the action.

Worry about the sources of the anger after you've stopped the
potential for harm.

If the hitting is coming at you, I think you could do something
similar. Grab the hands of the child and walk that child to another
part of the room saying, "Quick. Hands down. Stand here while you get
control of your body again."

If the response is "flat" (without anger or shock), the child will see
that you are taking control of his out of control feelings without
shaming him. If you repeat that over and over again, he will slowly
get the message that hitting isn't required to gain control of a
situation. He can turn to you instead and eventually will be able to
control himself.

To deal with the emotions that led to the hitting, we try to get our
kids talking to each other with our help.

We sit the two kids on the couch opposite each other. Then we ask each
kid to express what he or she is feeling to the other child. The other
child is to listen and then say back to the first child what he or she
expressed. We help them to do this as there is usually lots of
miscommunication.

Our goal isn't to lecture or fix the problem. It is to allow the kids
to say what is really going on until there is some mutual
understanding. We also ask them to think of ways to avoid the problem
that might come up again in the future. If there is a lot of anger and
no movement, we sit quietly and wait. It has taken a long time sometimes.

This process is one we've used for fifteen years. My oldest kids now
(18 and 15) used to say how "dumb" it was to talk on the couch... yet
now they are the first to suggest it, even when we are out of sorts
with them or each other. One of the kids will say, "Mom, you can't
keep going on with the day until you resolve things with X (child)."

The point is that it takes loads of hours to patiently model and
support respectful disagreements. There are probably lots of ways to
do it too. But over time, if you care about it every time, they will
learn.

Julie B

C Lane

I just ordered that book. I've gotten lots of recommendations for it.



Celeste Lane

<http://www.simplynaturalfamily.com/> www.SimplyNaturalFamily.com

"Your Source For Products That Satisfy Your Conscience!"

HABA toys and games

_____

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Julie Bogart
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 8:48 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Fighting kids



Too many posts to figure out which to respond to.

Siblings without Rivalry (Faber and Mazlisch) is a great book with
lots of ideas for how to break up fighting.




_____



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

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/25/05 6:48:41 AM, julie@... writes:


> We sit the two kids on the couch opposite each other. Then we ask each
> kid to express what he or she is feeling to the other child. The other
> child is to listen and then say back to the first child what he or she
> expressed. We help them to do this as there is usually lots of
> miscommunication.
>

I've found it much more useful to let the children communicate through me
when they're younger, and when they got older I saw them using that same
technique to settle arguments (because there are three of them) if I wasn't around.

To "sit" a kid on the couch and require him to speak to another person seems
to be WAY in the realm of torture and coercion. When I'm too angry to speak
with Keith, I need to be away from Keith, not to have someone twice my size
"sit" me anywhere and tell me what to say to Keith or how to say it.

Sandra


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

Julie Bogart

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/25/05 6:48:41 AM, julie@b... writes:
>
>
> > We sit the two kids on the couch opposite each other. Then we ask each
> > kid to express what he or she is feeling to the other child. The other
> > child is to listen and then say back to the first child what he or she
> > expressed. We help them to do this as there is usually lots of
> > miscommunication.
> >
>
> I've found it much more useful to let the children communicate
through me
> when they're younger, and when they got older I saw them using that
same
> technique to settle arguments (because there are three of them) if I
wasn't around.

With all of there, that is what is happening. No one is left to his or
herself. And if someone is very angry, we take time before sitting
together like that.

>
> To "sit" a kid on the couch and require him to speak to another
person seems
> to be WAY in the realm of torture and coercion.

Who said anything about torture and coercion? What I'm talking about
is facilitating the expression of feelings and each person's version
of the events. It's worked for us.

When I'm too angry to speak
> with Keith, I need to be away from Keith, not to have someone twice
my size
> "sit" me anywhere and tell me what to say to Keith or how to say it.
>

When did I say anything about telling the kids what to say? I am
pretty sure I said that we let them say what they need to say to each
other. It's pointless to tell someone what to say.

Please don't jump to conclusions. You can certainly ask me questions
for clarification if what I posted seems unclear. What you describe is
nothing like what we do.

Julie B

Julie Bogart

Sandra, I just wanted to add to my previous email. It was the use of
the word "torture" that got my back up. That's why I came off testy.

What we've done with our kids has had the opposite effect of torture.
Torture is the feeling of being victimized by the bigger, more
powerful person without recourse. What we are facilitating in our home
is the possibility of redress - that both parties can find a way to
get their point of view across and come to a reasonable alternative to
yelling, hitting, fighting, calling names or throwing things.

That is not torture. That is compassionate communication.

Miscommunication is common in all relationships so we, as the parents,
are a part of the process when the kids are learning how to say what
they need to say without their making it worse with abusive comments
or out of control emotions. We *help* them feel heard and express what
they want to say in such a way that it is heard and understood by the
other party. We explore solutions that make everyone feel considered
in the process.

Is this not what you do when you are the "third party" to help sort
out the issues between your children?

To me, coercion exists when someone uses their power abusively to hurt
or control another person, to intentionally bring pain.

What happens in our family is that we have created the conditions for
healthy communication so that whoever feels victimized can have a way
to communicate with the other person without worry that he or she will
be unheard, further injured or dismissed.

The result all these years later? A family who can be together on
vacation for 18 days 24/7 without conflict. Kids who know how to
express their hurts without insulting or damaging the other person.
Kids who are willing to hear someone else say "You hurt me when you
said it that way." Parents who know that they are responsible to
apologize for abusing their power when that occurs. a family that
doesn't use hitting or violence to get their points across. Kids who
feel that they can hold each other and their parents accountable to
kinder, considerate communication.

Julie


--- In [email protected], "Julie Bogart"
<julie@b...> wrote:
> --- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 7/25/05 6:48:41 AM, julie@b... writes:
> >
> >
> > > We sit the two kids on the couch opposite each other. Then we
ask each
> > > kid to express what he or she is feeling to the other child. The
other
> > > child is to listen and then say back to the first child what he
or she
> > > expressed. We help them to do this as there is usually lots of
> > > miscommunication.
> > >
> >
> > I've found it much more useful to let the children communicate
> through me
> > when they're younger, and when they got older I saw them using that
> same
> > technique to settle arguments (because there are three of them) if I
> wasn't around.
>
> With all of there, that is what is happening. No one is left to his or
> herself. And if someone is very angry, we take time before sitting
> together like that.
>
> >
> > To "sit" a kid on the couch and require him to speak to another
> person seems
> > to be WAY in the realm of torture and coercion.
>
> Who said anything about torture and coercion? What I'm talking about
> is facilitating the expression of feelings and each person's version
> of the events. It's worked for us.
>
> When I'm too angry to speak
> > with Keith, I need to be away from Keith, not to have someone twice
> my size
> > "sit" me anywhere and tell me what to say to Keith or how to say it.
> >
>
> When did I say anything about telling the kids what to say? I am
> pretty sure I said that we let them say what they need to say to each
> other. It's pointless to tell someone what to say.
>
> Please don't jump to conclusions. You can certainly ask me questions
> for clarification if what I posted seems unclear. What you describe is
> nothing like what we do.
>
> Julie B

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/25/05 3:53:47 PM, julie@... writes:


> > > We sit the two kids on the couch opposite each other.
>

Starting right there I assumed it was the first pass at communications
following the problem.

-=-> To "sit" a kid on the couch and require him to speak to another
person seems
> to be WAY in the realm of torture and coercion. 

-=-Who said anything about torture and coercion?-=-

I did. I said "seems to me" which means to me "seems."

Maybe your kids don't get as angry as I've seen mine. For me to "sit"
(would be "set" and either way it's one person putting another person in a place)
my child on the same couch with the one he had just been physically accosting
would not, in the scenarios asked about or that I've been describing, have been
easily possible, so it would have taken some coercion to pull it off.

What a child will express in such a situation might not be as honest as if he
can express himself while he's still angry and away from the other party.
What he expresses while he's angry and in the absence of the other party can
be therapeutic and also helpful to the mom or other mediator. What he
expresses while he's angry (which can be therapeutic and helpful) doesn't leave the
lasting sting on the other child. The other child can hear it softened and
neutralized rather than in its harshest, crudest light and noise.

When I'm too angry (I was talking about how I feel when I'm angry, and not
jumping to conclusions) I don't want anyone else saying "Sit right there, and
we're going to put [Keith or whoever else] on the other end of the couch now.
Just stay there. Trust me." I might not want to be around the other person
for hours, and waiting hours for someone to calm down doesn't give him a
chance to express his frustration.

If that works, placing children together and coaching and rephrasing and then
asking the other to say whatever he wants to say TO that person in front of
witnesses, then your children are not like mine in such situations, and I KNOW
it would cause more hurt than help with them to do it that way, so it is
possible that if those children in the original problem family are even more
volatile than mine (who don't hit me), then putting the two of them on a couch would
be coercion and also possibly dangerous.

-=-What you describe is
nothing like what we do.-=-
[quote from the beginning]
-=-> > We sit the two kids on the couch opposite each other. Then we ask each
kid to express what he or she is feeling to the other child.-=-

Sandra


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/25/05 5:40:26 PM, julie@... writes:


> To me, coercion exists when someone uses their power abusively to hurt
> or control another person, to intentionally bring pain.
>

If someone coerces me into a "gentle" (yet non-optional) situation of
communication on their terms, that is not freedom or choice.

-=-The result all these years later? A family who can be together on
vacation for 18 days 24/7 without conflict. Kids who know how to
express their hurts without insulting or damaging the other person.-=-

We haven't tried 18 days, but all three kids went with us yesterday to meet
another family whose oldest child was not yet "schoolage", and Kirby went on
his own (he had been in a new-job orientation) and though he and Marty could've
left early they stayed until we were all ready to go. When we went on our
last road trip, people got along really well. It was only eight days or so,
but it was in a van.)

The arguments I've written about weren't frequent. MAYBE once in two months
in the busy season and once in six months or a year as they got older.

-=-Kids who are willing to hear someone else say "You hurt me when you
said it that way."-=-

That's useful, but the hurtful phrases are still inside us and I like to try
to avoid them entirely if possible.

-=-Kids who
feel that they can hold each other and their parents accountable to
kinder, considerate communication.-=-

We have that, but we don't have formalized meetings where the two have to be
together on the same furniture.

Keith said something kinda snippy to me one night and I just stood up and
quietly left the place, but I heard Holly behind me say "That was mean," and I'm
sure they discussed it and I'm sure Keith won't do that again, but I didn't
need to hear any more than I had already heard. He was cranky and I didn't want
the brunt of it.

Sandra


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

Julie Bogart

>Julie:
> -=-Kids who
> feel that they can hold each other and their parents accountable to
> kinder, considerate communication.-=-

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
> We have that, but we don't have formalized meetings where the two
have to be
> together on the same furniture.

The principle in our house has been that if you are nasty with
someone, you are accountable for it.

If a family member uses his or her power (verbal, physical or psychic)
to control or hurt someone else, that kid or parent can't just go on
as though it didn't happen; he or she can't simply use "I don't want
to talk about it right now" or "I'm too angry to talk to you" as a way
to continue the abuse or avoid the impact of his or her meanness.

If the victim isn't interested in resolving at that time (needs space
to recover), that's different. That person can take some time to
regroup. Then we address it when the victim is ready.

If both are being cruel, we stop the fighting and then help everyone
say what needs to be said in a kinder, more useful manner.

But if the one being cruel powers-over to get the computer or X Box
and then doesn't want to deal with the hurt he or she caused but wants
to go right ahead with the X box or whatever, that isn't okay.

We talk first.

The couch is just a piece of furniture. It's not "formalized," it's
just handy. We have seven people. Sometimes sitting down helps to
lower the tone of the arguing. Standing can add to the sense of one
being bigger than the other. Sitting equalizes. We sometimes suggest
breathing before talking too.

I noticed that my oldest (18) almost always takes big deep breaths now
on his own when he and his sister tangle before he addresses what she
said that hurt/angered him. I find that interesting.

What I've noticed is that in many families, kids say mean things to
each other and the parents just issue a "don't you dare say that to
your brother" kind of comment. That does nothing to hold the abusive
child accountable nor does it aid the victim in voicing his or her own
anger or perspective. Having to stay with the impact of your beahvior
is what helps someone to change in the future.

Walking out on abusive speech is a good way to handle it immediately.
But if you are in the middle of your computer turn, it sure doesn't
work. You lose your turn as you leave and the mean one gets the
control he wanted. So it depends on whether or not walking out is helpful.

Frankly, we just almost never have these issues any more. We've been
consistent in stopping cruelty between family members for over fifteen
years. And when something comes up now, I hear the victim say things
like, "Hey, I'll give you a turn but you don't have to raise your
voice" or "You can't talk to me like that. Tell me what you want
without being mean." And those things actually work because the kids
are used to working their stuff out with each other.

Our goal has been to empower the victim and to hold the abuser
accountable. That's it.

Julie B

arcarpenter2003

--- In [email protected], "Julie Bogart"
<julie@b...> wrote:
==If a family member uses his or her power (verbal, physical or psychic)
> to control or hurt someone else, that kid or parent can't just go on
> as though it didn't happen; he or she can't simply use "I don't want
> to talk about it right now" ==

I notice throughout your post you're using the concepts of "abuser"
and "victim." I find that interesting - we don't think in those terms
at our house. Whether someone is hitting or is being hit, they are in
pain. (There's actually very little hitting around here, but fill in
your own action.) I will not let the hurting continue. But I do not
make a person talk about it until he's ready.

My son can get so frustrated that he just can't verbalize -- he needs
to rage and cry for a bit just to release the tension. That's when I
just am present with him and sympathize. Then after that, he needs a
break. Even if he was the one doing the harmful action, he just needs
a break, because he tends to be so hard on himself and the pain and
shame overwhelm him -- he needs to poke his head up and remember that
the world goes on and his favorite things are still there and people
still love him.

So the time that we usually talk about those things is when we're
snuggled up in his bed before he goes to sleep, while I'm scratching
his back. That's our really safe time to talk about all sorts of
things. So after he tells me his favorite Dragonball character and
what his score is on Megaman, I say, "We still need to talk about
something." That's the time that he's very responsive and open to
listening, and it can just be a loving discussion of the facts (what
happened) and the options (what could we do differently).

And I often do what Karen and Sandra were talking about -- change the
environment -- based on what we come up with during that talk. Or I
make a plan about how I'm going to engage a bit differently.

It's funny that the words "peaceful parenting" became an issue in the
previous discussion, because all that forethought and attention to
factors outside of the actual incident between kids, all that *action*
but not *reaction* -- that *is* what I think of as peaceful parenting.
Not just the talk -- heck, my 2 y.o. doesn't talk yet and as I said,
my 8 y.o. sometimes can't verbalize. But seeing the whole picture,
and seeing the world through my children's eyes, so I can create a
space for them that leads to more peaceful living -- all that, to me,
is peaceful parenting.

Peace,
Amy

Julie Bogart

--- In [email protected], "arcarpenter2003"
<arcarpenter@g...> wrote:

> I notice throughout your post you're using the concepts of "abuser"
> and "victim." I find that interesting - we don't think in those terms
> at our house. Whether someone is hitting or is being hit, they are in
> pain. (There's actually very little hitting around here, but fill in
> your own action.) I will not let the hurting continue. But I do not
> make a person talk about it until he's ready.

But what if the other person needs to talk *to* him? That's what I'm
talking about - being willing to hear the impact of hurtful words is
important, imho.

>
> My son can get so frustrated that he just can't verbalize -- he needs
> to rage and cry for a bit just to release the tension. That's when I
> just am present with him and sympathize.

It is easier to sympathize when you are not the target. Even if the
anger is based on reasons I can understand as the mother, I find it
just as important to offer support to the child on the receiving end.
That may mean that the one being mean has to listen or stay put long
enough to hear from the person who was hurt by the one raging.

His rage and anger is an imposition. Sometimes hearing the person who
was hurt is an imposition on him.

Isn't the goal to learn how to curb that raging and crying so that it
doesn't spill over onto others?

Then after that, he needs a
> break. Even if he was the one doing the harmful action, he just needs
> a break, because he tends to be so hard on himself and the pain and
> shame overwhelm him -- he needs to poke his head up and remember that
> the world goes on and his favorite things are still there and people
> still love him.

Not all kids are hard on themselves after being mean. Sometimes they
cathart by raging and then think others are being unreasonable for
reacting badly.

>
> So the time that we usually talk about those things is when we're
> snuggled up in his bed before he goes to sleep, while I'm scratching
> his back. That's our really safe time to talk about all sorts of
> things. So after he tells me his favorite Dragonball character and
> what his score is on Megaman, I say, "We still need to talk about
> something." That's the time that he's very responsive and open to
> listening, and it can just be a loving discussion of the facts (what
> happened) and the options (what could we do differently).

I understand that and like it.

>
> And I often do what Karen and Sandra were talking about -- change the
> environment -- based on what we come up with during that talk. Or I
> make a plan about how I'm going to engage a bit differently.

We have lots of kids so I can't control all of their enviornments all
the time. They benefit from learning how to interact with each other
even when we're not present.

Julie B

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/26/05 8:37:16 AM, julie@... writes:


> If a family member uses his or her power (verbal, physical or psychic)
> to control or hurt someone else, that kid or parent can't just go on
> as though it didn't happen; he or she can't simply use "I don't want
> to talk about it right now" or "I'm too angry to talk to you" as a way
> to continue the abuse or avoid the impact of his or her meanness.
>

Often such meanness is a response to stimuli. How can you co clearly know
who is the victim and who is the "accountable" ONE?

What if all rape victims had to report and discuss their rape with the
victim, sitting on the same couch? YES, that's an extreme example. But there's a
scale of seriousness, and from my point of view it's not always apparent who
(if either) "did the damage" but it is possible for further damage to
potentially be done in the "settling" of the problem.

-=-he or she can't simply use "I don't want
to talk about it right now" or "I'm too angry to talk to you" as a way
to continue the abuse or avoid the impact of his or her meanness.
-=-

If someone was angry enough to be hurtful, she needs to let the anger
dissipate or the potential danger remains. So you do seem to be suggesting that
it's okay for a person "to be held accountable" before he calms down. That
has got to involve coercion.

-=-The couch is just a piece of furniture. It's not "formalized," it's
just handy. We have seven people. Sometimes sitting down helps to
lower the tone of the arguing. Standing can add to the sense of one
being bigger than the other. Sitting equalizes.-=-

If a person doesn't want to sit but is required to sit, that is not
equalizing. The requirer is bigger then the one who is now, against his or her
wishes, sitting.

-=-
I noticed that my oldest (18) almost always takes big deep breaths now
on his own when he and his sister tangle before he addresses what she
said that hurt/angered him. I find that interesting.-=-

Kirby got that tool down well by the time he was six. He and the other kids
will remind each other to breathe if they're frustrated or scared or
overwhelmed. They will remind me or Keith to breathe. They will remind visiting
friends to breathe, if they seem to be having a hard time with a project, move,
decision.

-=-
What I've noticed is that in many families, kids say mean things to
each other and the parents just issue a "don't you dare say that to
your brother" kind of comment.-=-

I don't think that's helpful either.

-=- Having to stay with the impact of your beahvior
is what helps someone to change in the future.-=-

"Having to stay" where? Being made to stay by whom?

What helps someone change is awareness and desire to do better. Staying
doesn't create change.

-=-Walking out on abusive speech is a good way to handle it immediately.
But if you are in the middle of your computer turn, it sure doesn't
work. You lose your turn as you leave and the mean one gets the
control he wanted. So it depends on whether or not walking out is helpful.
-=-

This doesn't apply to anything at our house. Leaving the computer (or food
or a movie or a good seat on the couch) because of a disagreement wouldn't be
the same as leaving because one was going to do something else. No one in
this family would say "you left, so I took it" if a person left to get adult
assistance or left to calm down.

-=-Frankly, we just almost never have these issues any more.-=-

We never had many of them.

-=-Our goal has been to empower the victim and to hold the abuser
accountable. That's it.-=-

We've never had abusers. We've had people whose situations got out of
control, and every time they had new tools and experiences to help keep it from
getting there again. And they're able to help others with those tools as
well.

Sandra


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/26/05 9:53:13 AM, julie@... writes:


>
> It is easier to sympathize when you are not the target. Even if the
> anger is based on reasons I can understand as the mother, I find it
> just as important to offer support to the child on the receiving end.
>

We have almost never had an instance of one being mean and the other being a
victim. It starts small and gets worse. When it doesn't get worse, it's
not a problem. Only the exchange that the kids can't handle on their own are
"incidents," and by the time they're incidents that need mediation, probably
both have contributed to the problem.

-=-Isn't the goal to learn how to curb that raging and crying so that it
doesn't spill over onto others?-=-

The goal is not to get to a raging and crying stage at all.

-=-Not all kids are hard on themselves after being mean. Sometimes they
cathart by raging and then think others are being unreasonable for
reacting badly.-=-

Aside from the question of "being mean" (which I still am not clear on in
your writing on this topic), sometimes the person who goes into a rage or cries
*IS* the victim. Sometimes the person who stabs another person WAS the
victim, up to that point, of violence, bullying, attempted rape, mortal insult, and
the stabbing was a reasonable response under the circumstances. Sometimes a
person who gets really violent or destructive does so after just one too many
adults ignored the fact that he/she was being bullied and belittled and
tweaked over and over and over by people who never did any overt photographable
thing.

None of this applies to my kids because they have since they were little had
lots of ideas (naturally occurring and developed after conversations) for
defusing situations and distracting irritated others and backtracking when they
saw they were being irritating and needed to back off.

-=-They benefit from learning how to interact with each other
even when we're not present.-=-

If you're not present, will one of them "sit" two others down on the couch
and have them take turns addressing one another until everyone's happy?

If I call the police on my neighbors behind, I don't want the police to set
us both down on the same porch and take turns telling the other what we'd like
to see happen in the future, and I don't want to tell him how hearing him
threaten his wife made me *feeeel.* I want the police to know I didn't call
until it got bad and that I shouldn't even be a factor in that guy's following the
law.

Sandra


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

arcarpenter2003

--- In [email protected], "Julie Bogart"
<julie@b...> wrote:
==
> But what if the other person needs to talk *to* him? That's what I'm
> talking about - being willing to hear the impact of hurtful words is
> important, imho.==

I meet the need of the person who got hurt by listening to him, by
attending to his hurts, by validating, by apologizing for my failure
to protect him if needed. I definitely pass on any messages that need
to be passed on to the person who was doing the hurting. *If* the
person who got hurt has a need to talk directly to the person who hurt
him, *then* I would make sure that can happen in a way that doesn't
escalate the situation.

I give feedback to other family members all the time about the impact
of their words and actions, to the degree that they can hear it
(depending how emotional or distracted they are in the moment). Not
just as follow-up to an argument -- as part of life. "That was cool
to hear about your Pokemon battle." "I'm glad you can tell me what's
wrong." "Your voice is so loud it's hurting my ears." "I wouldn't
like it if you were holding my hands when I didn't want them held."
"I can see you getting frustrated. Would a couple of breaths help?"
And so on. The rest of my family does this as well. That's how we
meet the need of each of us to have feedback and information about how
our words and actions are affecting others.

Again, the concepts of "abuser" and "victim" just don't really
register on my radar. It's more about meeting needs and giving
information.

==I find it
> just as important to offer support to the child on the receiving end.==

Yes, and I certainly wasn't saying that I was taking sides or giving
more attention to one or the other. I split my time between those in
need.

==That may mean that the one being mean has to listen or stay put long
> enough to hear from the person who was hurt by the one raging.
>
> His rage and anger is an imposition. Sometimes hearing the person who
> was hurt is an imposition on him.==

I think this is where the parent, who is already present, can help
create a safe space for the child who is melting down, so it's not an
imposition on others.

== Isn't the goal to learn how to curb that raging and crying so that it
> doesn't spill over onto others?==

My goal is not to "curb" it if that means repression or oppression.
I'm not sure what you mean. My son's crying doesn't hurt anyone else
-- if it's too loud, we leave or he leaves the room, so he can have a
good cry in peace. If he's throwing himself around, again, I can keep
everyone safe -- some cushions near him and the rest of us in a safe
place.

My goal is to give tools for self-awareness and social awareness, to
accept the need for crying as part of healing and learning, and to
create a peaceful space overall so that there aren't unnecessary
meltdowns and bickering and fighting.


== Not all kids are hard on themselves after being mean.==

No, but I think it's worth pointing out that some -- many -- are,
especially after their side of the story has been heard and understood.

== Sometimes they
> cathart by raging and then think others are being unreasonable for
> reacting badly.==

I'm not sure what you mean here. Yes, kids need to rage sometimes
(otherwise known as a "tantrum" or a meltdown) to release tension. As
a parent, I can give them a safe space to do so, where it doesn't
affect others.

I think it's human nature to see only your own side of things when you
are upset ("thinking others are being unreasonable") and that is
coming out of real pain and feeling misunderstood and not heard. I
prefer to show some understanding while still giving feedback and
information about the effect on others (and this is where some finesse
comes in, giving information when it can best be heard), rather than
blaming the child for feeling his emotions.

As a general rule, I think kids who are respected and have access to
good information about self-awareness and social awareness grow out of
the meltdowns and rages -- brain development and emotional maturity
catch up when they're ready, much like reading and the other things we
talk about in unschooling do. I don't see it as something that needs
to be curbed as much as worked with and worked through.

Peace,
Amy

Julie Bogart

I have a hunch we're talking about different situations.

I'm not talking about a melt down or a tantrum. I'm talking about one
kid being inconsiderate or using his size or age to power-over the
other kid. I'm talking about those rude interchanges where someone
uses name-calling or grabs the remote without asking or yells to get
his way.

It's in these instances that I think it's important for the parents to
support better communication. We do that by bringing them together to
talk (and we happen to use our couch to do that).

Sandra has said that asking them to sit on the couch to talk it out is
coercive. She does not think it coercive to tell kids to breathe,
however. (I hate it when my husband reminds me to breathe when we're
fighting, for instance. But I don't mind it at all if he suggests we
stop what we're doing to sit down and discuss the issue more
rationally. These are just differences.)

It feels coercive to be in a conflict that demeans you or prevents you
from expressing your viewpoint. That's what I want to help my kids
work through.

As parents, we have explained to our kids that when there is a
conflict, we will help them to talk to each other civilly until
everyone feels heard and a solution agreeable to all has been reached.
They know this before anyone has a conflict.

The end result has been that our kids know how to work out their
problems with each other, they know they will have support when they
run out of ideas for how to get their point across and they won't
settle for less than clear communication and respectful speech between
them.

I'm still scratching my head about why this suggestion is being
described as torture or coercion.

But so be it.

I've got to get back to work, so I'll have to let it go for now.

Julie

--- In [email protected], "arcarpenter2003"
<arcarpenter@g...> wrote:
> --- In [email protected], "Julie Bogart"
> <julie@b...> wrote:
> ==
> > But what if the other person needs to talk *to* him? That's what I'm
> > talking about - being willing to hear the impact of hurtful words is
> > important, imho.==
>
> I meet the need of the person who got hurt by listening to him, by
> attending to his hurts, by validating, by apologizing for my failure
> to protect him if needed. I definitely pass on any messages that need
> to be passed on to the person who was doing the hurting. *If* the
> person who got hurt has a need to talk directly to the person who hurt
> him, *then* I would make sure that can happen in a way that doesn't
> escalate the situation.
>
> I give feedback to other family members all the time about the impact
> of their words and actions, to the degree that they can hear it
> (depending how emotional or distracted they are in the moment). Not
> just as follow-up to an argument -- as part of life. "That was cool
> to hear about your Pokemon battle." "I'm glad you can tell me what's
> wrong." "Your voice is so loud it's hurting my ears." "I wouldn't
> like it if you were holding my hands when I didn't want them held."
> "I can see you getting frustrated. Would a couple of breaths help?"
> And so on. The rest of my family does this as well. That's how we
> meet the need of each of us to have feedback and information about how
> our words and actions are affecting others.
>
> Again, the concepts of "abuser" and "victim" just don't really
> register on my radar. It's more about meeting needs and giving
> information.
>
> ==I find it
> > just as important to offer support to the child on the receiving
end.==
>
> Yes, and I certainly wasn't saying that I was taking sides or giving
> more attention to one or the other. I split my time between those in
> need.
>
> ==That may mean that the one being mean has to listen or stay put long
> > enough to hear from the person who was hurt by the one raging.
> >
> > His rage and anger is an imposition. Sometimes hearing the person who
> > was hurt is an imposition on him.==
>
> I think this is where the parent, who is already present, can help
> create a safe space for the child who is melting down, so it's not an
> imposition on others.
>
> == Isn't the goal to learn how to curb that raging and crying so that it
> > doesn't spill over onto others?==
>
> My goal is not to "curb" it if that means repression or oppression.
> I'm not sure what you mean. My son's crying doesn't hurt anyone else
> -- if it's too loud, we leave or he leaves the room, so he can have a
> good cry in peace. If he's throwing himself around, again, I can keep
> everyone safe -- some cushions near him and the rest of us in a safe
> place.
>
> My goal is to give tools for self-awareness and social awareness, to
> accept the need for crying as part of healing and learning, and to
> create a peaceful space overall so that there aren't unnecessary
> meltdowns and bickering and fighting.
>
>
> == Not all kids are hard on themselves after being mean.==
>
> No, but I think it's worth pointing out that some -- many -- are,
> especially after their side of the story has been heard and understood.
>
> == Sometimes they
> > cathart by raging and then think others are being unreasonable for
> > reacting badly.==
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. Yes, kids need to rage sometimes
> (otherwise known as a "tantrum" or a meltdown) to release tension. As
> a parent, I can give them a safe space to do so, where it doesn't
> affect others.
>
> I think it's human nature to see only your own side of things when you
> are upset ("thinking others are being unreasonable") and that is
> coming out of real pain and feeling misunderstood and not heard. I
> prefer to show some understanding while still giving feedback and
> information about the effect on others (and this is where some finesse
> comes in, giving information when it can best be heard), rather than
> blaming the child for feeling his emotions.
>
> As a general rule, I think kids who are respected and have access to
> good information about self-awareness and social awareness grow out of
> the meltdowns and rages -- brain development and emotional maturity
> catch up when they're ready, much like reading and the other things we
> talk about in unschooling do. I don't see it as something that needs
> to be curbed as much as worked with and worked through.
>
> Peace,
> Amy

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/26/05 2:41:35 PM, arcarpenter@... writes:


>
> As a general rule, I think kids who are respected and have access to
> good information about self-awareness and social awareness grow out of
> the meltdowns and rages -- brain development and emotional maturity
> catch up when they're ready, much like reading and the other things we
> talk about in unschooling do.
>

That happened with Kirby. He liked the feeling of being in control of his
emotions better than he liked the feeling of raging, and though he was VERY
quick to melt and lost it when he was younger, help from me and his dad to learn
to breathe deeply and slowly and to remember what he needed and wanted to do
(which was not to tear things up or hurt people) and also karate (learning
physical control in similar and other ways) have resulted in one of the calmest
and most collected people I know. I know how he was, and I know how he is.
He's had the need to calm strangers down before and has done it with humor
strength of character and eye contact. He's never lain a hand on another person
in those situations. In one, the guy was laying hands on Kirby and Kirby
just dodged and turned casually until the touching was gone. He didn't have to
lift his arm a bit, and the person (a weirdo who had come to the store where
he was working, wanting money--not a robbery, a beggary <g>) didn't feel
embarrassed or chased off, but treated with dignity. Many others (including his
karate teacher) said "you should've done THIS and THAT" (physical responses),
but Kirby was happier with his quiet send-off.

Sandra


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

Robyn Coburn

<<<< I'm still scratching my head about why this suggestion is being
described as torture or coercion.>>>>

Maybe the answer lies in what would be your next step should one or both of
the fighters say "no, I don't want to" or "no, I want to be by myself" when
asked to sit on the end of the couch and express.

Robyn L. Coburn

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 7/25/2005

Betsy Hill

**I have a hunch we're talking about different situations.

I'm not talking about a melt down or a tantrum.**

When we started this thread, I thought we were talking about an 8 year
old who was hitting his mother repeatedly, in one incident, despite her
efforts to stop him. That's more than just a tiff.

Betsy

arcarpenter2003

--- In [email protected], "Julie Bogart"
<julie@b...> wrote:
==> I have a hunch we're talking about different situations.
>
> I'm not talking about a melt down or a tantrum. I'm talking about one
> kid being inconsiderate or using his size or age to power-over the
> other kid. I'm talking about those rude interchanges where someone
> uses name-calling or grabs the remote without asking or yells to get
> his way.==

I was thinking more about this, so I thought I'd think "out loud" here
and see what happens.

This really isn't about Julie's process for resolving conflict -- it
sounds like that's worked for you (though I think others on the list
need be careful about adopting this method in a way that forces kids
to "work it out or else," or "apologize or else," or that sort of thing).

So -- there are meltdowns that are angry in nature (there are sobbing
sad ones, too, but originally I was referring to an angry meltdown
situation). Sometimes they're turned inward or turned towards a bed
or a pillow -- sometimes they're turned outward toward another person.
Meltdowns tend to be an out-of-control explosion.

There's also the kind of hitting/meanness that seems more calculated
-- "I want this and I'm bigger and so I'll take it." Or "You didn't
give me what I wanted so I'll hurt you." But even in those
situations, in my experience, there is a bit of an explosion, an
inability in the moment to think of what *else* to do, or to see
another solution as more beneficial.

The original poster said her son punched her for 15 minutes. The way
I saw the interaction taking place, he was
out-of-control/meltdown/raging angry. I think it's useful to try to
understand that.

To me, there are only limited differences between having an angry
meltdown and having an angry meltdown where you try to hurt others.
The big difference is that somebody needs to keep the others safe
during this time, and get the angry person to a place where he/she
can't hurt others.

But past that, there is still the anger to deal with -- that's the
biggest part of the problem. So here are some thoughts about anger.

One definition I've heard: anger actually stems from helplessness --
it's a way to feel powerful when one actually feels very
out-of-control and powerless under the surface. Fear and sadness are
also often a big part of anger.

Another way to think of it -- anger is a way to make yourself big and
scary when there's a dispute over limited resources. Not usually a
great solution for living in civilization, but it works very well in
nature, and the fact that it remains with us speaks for its
evolutionary usefulness.

Something else I've heard about anger -- when we are infants,
screaming and crying are the main tools we have to get our needs heard
and met. When things go poorly and our brains shut down, that's what
we revert to.

Adrenaline is a big part of an anger reaction -- the "fight or flight"
reaction is a very difficult one to reason ourselves out of once it
hits. In addition to giving us quick reactions and additional
strength, adrenaline gives us "tunnel vision" -- we are only able to
think about, or even see, one or maybe two variables at a moment (as
opposed to when our conscious minds function normally, and we can
juggle 5-7 variables in a situation).

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm just philosophizing (in a non-helpful
way) about anger. I have collected these tidbits about anger because
it has played a big part in my own life. It is only in the past few
years that I can consistently count on myself to act the way I want
to, even when "driven to anger." Knowing these things about anger
have helped my own self-awareness, which led to much more peaceful
behavior on my part.

Because of my own past, my focus with my children has been to address
the underlying issues of anger, and not to focus as much on their
behavior as "inappropriate" or "unacceptable," or on them as
"abusers." Anger is a difficult emotion to feel, and then when others
think that one is a freak or an abuser for feeling a lot of anger, or
for feeling it very intensely -- that makes it that much more difficult.

(I'm still not saying that it's okay for anyone to be abused, and if
someone does get hurt, that hurt needs to be dealt with just as much
as the other person's anger. I just don't think that it's helpful to
put the main focus on the hitting or other abuse, at least in my
situation.)

So I think that knowing and understanding something about what anger
is can be very helpful for a parent's relationship with their kids and
for helping a child with their own self-awareness. It's normal to get
angry when you don't get your way. Our brains are set up so that we
need to work a little harder at problem-solving and win/win situations
-- these aren't always our first responses. We can work past that,
but we can also have have some understanding and tenderness toward our
kids' anger (and our own).

I also think that knowing how narrowly focused the brain gets when
angry does highlight the need for giving information. People get very
self-absorbed when they're feeling angry and needy. As well as
dealing with the needs themselves, when the child is in a better frame
of mind, the parent can point out things that the child may not have
considered. "It's not fun for me when you're fighting at the grocery
store."

But all that information often can't be heard if the a person is still
in angry mode or "fight or flight" mode -- adrenaline doesn't make
enough room in the brain for any more information or talking at that
point. That information tends to be more helpful before a situation
arises, with some forethought as to what might arise before it does.
It's also more helpful afterwards, when the child is calm and has a
chance to re-think the situation.

(Of course, giving information in a direct, condensed form in the
middle of an angry situation can sometimes help the person re-focus.
"That hurts, so stop." "Your voice is hurting my ears." "If you
throw that it will break, and you won't have it anymore.")

At my house, we do have a word for that before-and-after talking and
thinking -- we call that processing. Or briefing and de-briefing --
I've heard it called that, too.

There was some talk about the word, "processing," on the list, too,
with some unpleasant examples/associations of the word -- all true. I
do have another view.

Processing is also what a computer does to information, breaking it
down into binary information that it can work with. We process grain
in a mill and then in an oven -- breaking it apart, taking out the
hard unhelpful parts, and cooking it with other things so that our
bodies can swallow and digest it.

Digestion itself is a process, and through it our cells get the fuel
and nutrients in a form they can use them -- and our bodies get rid of
the crap we don't need in the same process.

I wouldn't want to process people, but I think processing ideas and
emotions and one's understanding of a situation can be pretty useful.
I usually need to do it quite a bit, for my own peace and
understanding.

I just would never force anyone else to join me in the process or to
go through it themselves if they weren't ready. That causes stress,
and as we all know, stress doesn't aid digestion -- of food or ideas
-- well at all.

Peace,
Amy

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/30/05 11:48:57 AM, arcarpenter@... writes:


> I hope it doesn't sound like I'm just philosophizing (in a non-helpful
> way) about anger. 
>

I object to "just" <g>.
Philosophizing is good.

-=-  Knowing these things about anger
have helped my own self-awareness, which led to much more peaceful
behavior on my part.-=-

That's part of how we helped Kirby get past his native and normal childhood
reactions. He is truly a VERY calm and calming person now at 19, and it
started out with "just philosophy," and understanding that he was likely to become
angry quickly, and helping him find ways to avert that.

It seems some people want to let people be the way they are regardless of the
effect on others, but I doubt many people really want to be anti-social to
the extent that they would have a hard time keeping friends, roommates, wives,
freedom... We could've encouraged Kirby to destroy property and to rave and
roar, but we helped him breathe and think and decide what would be most useful
and appropriate in various situations.

-=- I just don't think that it's helpful to
put the main focus on the hitting or other abuse, at least in my
situation.-=-

I agree (if I understand you correctly, and I hope I'm not writing something
that goes against what you meant). If it's gotten to the point of
hitting, it went too long without intervention or solution.

-=-
I wouldn't want to process people, but I think processing ideas and
emotions and one's understanding of a situation can be pretty useful.
I usually need to do it quite a bit, for my own peace and
understanding. -=-

Yeah, I do it all the time.
Doing it to my own ideas is not the same as doing it to another person (or
his ideas).

Sandra



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

arcarpenter2003

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:

> -=- I just don't think that it's helpful to
> put the main focus on the hitting or other abuse, at least in my
> situation.-=-
>
> I agree (if I understand you correctly, and I hope I'm not writing
something
> that goes against what you meant). If it's gotten to the point of
> hitting, it went too long without intervention or solution.==

Yes, I think we're saying the same thing. And most people make that
mistake once or a few times, but if it's a pattern, it's time to look
really closely at that, and find some new tools and understanding.

Peace,
Amy

arcarpenter2003

--- In [email protected], "arcarpenter2003"
<arcarpenter@g...> wrote:

==Adrenaline is a big part of an anger reaction -- the "fight or flight"
> reaction is a very difficult one to reason ourselves out of once it
> hits. In addition to giving us quick reactions and additional
> strength, adrenaline gives us "tunnel vision" -- we are only able to
> think about, or even see, one or maybe two variables at a moment (as
> opposed to when our conscious minds function normally, and we can
> juggle 5-7 variables in a situation).==

I'm responding to myself here <g>, but if as I look more at the
adrenaline reaction with anger, that really does give a *lot* of
useful information about how to help someone who is approaching this
reaction or is in the middle of it.

--Breathing deeply helps our cells get oxygen and flush out the
chemicals (hormones) associated with an adrenaline reaction.
--Drinking liquids helps the cells flush out the adrenaline itself.
--Eating protein helps the conscious, problem-solving part of the
brain wake up and start working again.
--Sleep restores our ability to make judgements and problem-solve as well.
--Changing the environment ---removing the thing that the angry person
is fixated on helps relieve the tunnel vision problem.
--Trying humor or something pleasantly surprising can get the
conscious mind working again and over-ride the anger response.
--Giving needed information in a quick, calm and direct form has the
best hope of getting through.

And as far as what not to do:

--Physical restraint of any kind does somewhat heighten the "fight or
flight" response. In this mode, the angry person trying to beat down
resistance -- even someone holding up their hands to ward off our
blows. If we feel a physical resistance of any kind, that's a signal
to the body that we need *more* adrenaline, and to fight harder.

(As I think about it, that may explain why Sheila had to hold her
hands up for 15 minutes -- a really long time -- to protect herself
against her son. She needed a different strategy that didn't send a
signal for *more* adrenaline.)

I think there are times we have to physically intervene, and it's
better than nothing if someone's going to get hurt, but it makes sense
why it needs to be a last-ditch effort.

--Excessive talking just increases the fear and confusion -- lots of
information and my poor little monkey brain (at the moment of anger)
can only focus on one thing. At best, lots of talking is useless --
at worst, it's confusing and adds stress.

--Yelling in a threatening tone just increases the adrenaline
response. Adding anything to the environment that would be perceived
as a threat or that causes pain may only add to the response.

--Sensing fear in others might add to the adrenaline response, much
like in dogs and horses, I think. The over-focused brain picks up on
the fear and figures that it might mean another threat -- "maybe I
should be afraid, too."

We talk about these things a lot on the list -- I just like having an
organizing concept that ties them all together like this. I've always
been one of those people that needs to know why.

Maybe others can add things or offer other considerations to this list.

I'm hesitant to send this because it might be too obvious and
spelled-out, but it might help others to put it all together, too.

Peace,
Amy

Linda

Hey, that was really helpful to me! I'll be printing it out as soon
as I get my printer fixed! I can post it around the house and use it
as a quick guide when I need to.
Humor and distraction is definitely somethig we do alot here. When I
see that things are starting to get hairy, I'll start up a game of I
spy or a kind of 20 questions game that we play, and that often
prevents a disaster. Like, with the pool problem, I'd start one of
these games while staying in the pool and keep playing until probably
one or the other child (or both) determined that either they didn't
need me, the in-pool child decided to get out, or whatever...It works
in the grocery store, or standing in line - all kind of places.
Anyone else use games like this? and if so, what other types of games
do you use where you don't need pencil and paper of anything - just
yourselves?
Another thing in the grocery store type of problem is maybe I'd tickle
the child doing the bothering of the other child, or stick my toungue
out at him in a humorous way - it's not a mean thing and it often gets
the kids laughing when they see me do stuff like this and it lightens
the mood.
Linda

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/31/05 4:37:37 AM, playingwith3@... writes:


> Hey, that was really helpful to me!  I'll be printing it out as soon
> as I get my printer fixed!  I can post it around the house and use it
> as a quick guide when I need to. 
>

I haven't linked it up from other pages or polished it, but I did give it a
home here:
http://sandradodd.com/peace/anger

Sandra




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

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/31/05 4:37:37 AM, playingwith3@... writes:


>   Like, with the pool problem, I'd start one of
> these games while staying in the pool and keep playing until probably
> one or the other child (or both) determined that either they didn't
> need me, the in-pool child decided to get out, or whatever...
>

I just remembered when I read that what Keith used to do when he was playing
with one kid but another needed him, in pool situations. He would carry the
smaller one on his back and keep playing with the bigger one.

Sandra


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

Quinlon's Mommy

When I was in college I learned, when confronted by
someone who was angry, to lower my voice, offer them
water, and listen as we walked. If the person is old
enough offering them gum was also a good trick.

Most of the people I dealt with back then were 3yrs
and younger, but when I graduated and started working
more in board rooms than play grounds I found these
methods to work just as well.

Of course now that I'm home with my kids I generally
try humor as a first method to counter anger (mine and
theirs)

It's also a policy to allow anyone who wants one a
place and time to cool off. I usually go into the
bathroom or in the backyard. My 3 yr old like to go
into the bedroom and bounce on the big bed and throw
pillows, my one year old likes to go "shopping" at her
stuffed animal bookshelf "store" and my DH usually
goes to the gas station or somewhere else kinda quick
but away.

I know there are times when growing likes to shake up
our hormones and talking about anger and rage when in
a calm relaxed environment helps to diffuse it,
understand it, and plan for it.

my .02cents



Love and Laughter,
Amy
snugglebugg.com

Wife to Casey
Mom to Quinlon
and Morgan Moira

Cleaning and cooking can wait for tomorrow,
For babies grow up, I've learned, to my sorrow.
So quiet down, cobwebs, dust, go to sleep.
I'm rocking my baby, and babies don't keep.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Gwen McCrea

Amy, your posts on anger couldn't be more timely for me! I printed
them out, and plan on leaving them around so DH will find them.

Lately, Gabe (almost 9) has been getting angry a lot, mostly at his
dad and his friends. Amy's post is helping me think more carefully
about why. I had some vague ideas before about what was bothering him
(in general, rather than the triggers for each specific meltdown), but
I know that I need to be much more focused on what's going on, so that
I can be more proactive, and try to help him avoid these episodes as
much as possible.

In one month, we'll be moving halfway across the country, so, no
surprise, I think that's a big contributor to the stress that Gabe's
feeling.

But I think the things that set him off are also important. With his
friends, he's been feeling lately that he is much more generous with
them than they are with him. We live in a complex with lots of kids,
so he never really has any down time unless I make him come inside. He
always wants to bring popsicles and other food and drinks outside to
share, but rarely would the other kids do so. (I have a feeling that
it is partly because their parents can't or won't buy them enough, so
they feel like they have to hoard what they have...) Eventually we
suggested that he not offer things, because the lack of reciprocity
was making him feel bad, and none of our compliments about his
generosity made him feel any better.

another big factor, and the one I have the hardest time with, is his
dad's attitude about respectful parenting. We've (I should say "I've")
been doing this more thoughtfully for less than a year, and DH's
"paradigm shift" regarding parenting is a bit behind mine. He's still
too authoritative too often, and DS is not having it. Gabe is very
sure of himself, and he fights back. I do intervene, and I'm getting
better at doing so in a way that defends DS while not pitting me
against DH. But Gabe still has the cumulative effect of often having
to rebel against ridiculous/arbitrary rules.

Anyway, for DH, I can't wait for the Live and Learn Conference! And
for DS, I hope that understanding his anger better will help me to
intervene and advocate better for him.

Gwen