# "children need boundaries" (is this true?)



## mykdsmomy (Oct 10, 2004)

I have heard over and over again that children need boundaries to feel secure. I feel like setting boundaries and gd dont always mesh. If my two year old hits one of his friends, I tell him, hitting hurts....please dont hit. ( I get this look from other parents







). If my son tries to take away a toy from another friend, I tell him, "your friend is sad because you took away his toy...can you please give it back....(ds runs off screaming, I run after him and tell him I need to give the toy back to friend because it's his). Again, I get







from the other mothers.
So, in the above instances, was I setting boundaries? Are "boundaries" supposed to have greater consequences than just "please dont do that"?
I feel like since I've been using more gd, my mainstream friends look at me like "what are you going to do about that?"







:


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

I don't think children need boundaries to feel secure, but all people need boundaries to maintain order and civilization. The examples you gave were setting boundaries. You made it clear that he should not hit or take other people's things. To me, no boundaries would mean everyone running around doing whatever he wanted with no thought to how his actions affected others. But boundaries don't have to mean punishment. I've never punished my children and they managed to learn boundaries just fine (well, some things are still being worked on, but for the most part they get the basics, even the 3 yr old).


----------



## eloise24 (Nov 17, 2005)

Having boundaries doesn't mean you aren't GD. If you don't allow your child to run in the street, you are setting a boundary. If you don't want your child smashing the china on the floor, it's a boundary. If you don't give your child boundaries, you are telling them that they can do anything they want, and they probably will feel insecure, that you don't love them enough to keep them from harm.

So yes, you can have boundaries and still GD. Just enforce the boundaries with gentleness and love.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

I think it really depends on the individual child. Really. A lot.

Some children do well with no, or very few, boundaries. For them, the best thing a parent can do is get out of their way.

Others seem to crave limits and boundaries, and if they don't get them, will anxiously or aggressively push hard to get some set for them.

I think overall there are more children in the second category, needing some limits, needing to know they are not always in charge and they can depend on someone else to keep them safe even though they don't act like they appreciate it much. I think its better to start with some boundaries and then ease up if the child doesn't seem to need them, than to start with few boundaries and have to try to "tighten up" after the child has already become fearful or aggressive.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I look at it this way: boundaries are things that a person sets around himself or herself - _only_. I set the boundaries about what is OK for me, and I have no right - or even ability - to set a boundary around another person. Not even my children.

For example: it is not OK to me to be hit. If DS were to whack me, he would most certainly be butting up against a boundary, but it would be one that I make known is mine.

For me to think that there is any way to impose a sort of invisible fence around another person and dictate what happens within it is folly. It's controlling, pure and simple. I control my sphere, and help DS learn about and express his sphere.

DS gets to set his boundaries too. He is a human after all, and has that right like all other humans. If he is making known to me that we a treading on or near one of his boundaries, we talk it out and find a solution that we are both (all) happy about.

Looking at it this way keeps my thinking in line with respecting DS's feelings. It's not that he gets his way all the time - who does? - but that he is in control of what feels OK to him, and expresses it. And perhpas most importantly, _is heard_.


----------



## theskuldt (Jul 24, 2004)

aira - that is EXACTLY what I am always trying to explain to people! Thank you for articulating it so perfectly, can I quote you?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I look at it this way: boundaries are things that a person sets around himself or herself - _only_. I set the boundaries about what is OK for me, and I have no right - or even ability - to set a boundary around another person. Not even my children.

For example: it is not OK to me to be hit. If DS were to whack me, he would most certainly be butting up against a boundary, but it would be one that I make known is mine.

For me to think that there is any way to impose a sort of invisible fence around another person and dictate what happens within it is folly. It's controlling, pure and simple. I control my sphere, and help DS learn about and express his sphere.

DS gets to set his boundaries too. He is a human after all, and has that right like all other humans. If he is making known to me that we a treading on or near one of his boundaries, we talk it out and find a solution that we are both (all) happy about.

Looking at it this way keeps my thinking in line with respecting DS's feelings. It's not that he gets his way all the time - who does? - but that he is in control of what feels OK to him, and expresses it. And perhpas most importantly, _is heard_.

But one person's boundary can't conflict with another person's boundary--in your hitting example, your right not to be hit is a boundary on your ds's behavior in that he does not have the right to hit you. Like the saying about how your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. And the boundary isn't just yours, because everyone has a right not to be hit, not just you, right? I mean you wouldn't tolerate hitting of someone else just because it wasn't you, would you? Aren't those universal boundaries of people's natural rights? Sorry if I'm missing your point here.


----------



## Joannarachel (Dec 10, 2005)

I believe that children need boundaries. Children who do not know what is expected of them are confused and miserable. The same applies when parents are inconsistent about boundaries.

I can say this with some authority...I remember it clearly from my own childhood.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie*
*I think it really depends on the individual child. Really. A lot.*

Some children do well with no, or very few, boundaries. For them, the best thing a parent can do is get out of their way.

Others seem to crave limits and boundaries, and if they don't get them, will anxiously or aggressively push hard to get some set for them.

I think overall there are more children in the second category, needing some limits, needing to know they are not always in charge and they can depend on someone else to keep them safe even though they don't act like they appreciate it much. I think its better to start with some boundaries and then ease up if the child doesn't seem to need them, than to start with few boundaries and have to try to "tighten up" after the child has already become fearful or aggressive.









:
Exactly. Bolding emphasis mine. You took the words RIGHT out of my mouth! I think it's up to us as parents to figure out what "kind" of kid we have....a kid that needs some boundaries and doesn't get them is going to be as bad off as a kid who needs more freedom and is restricted. I think if we're trying one way and it's not working, to try the other even if it seems unnatrual to us - after all, we're supposed to be listening to our children, not just stuck in some set way of doing things. Of course, either of the above ways can be done GENTLY.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I look at it this way: boundaries are things that a person sets around himself or herself - only. I set the boundaries about what is OK for me, and I have no right - or even ability - to set a boundary around another person. Not even my children.

For example: it is not OK to me to be hit. If DS were to whack me, he would most certainly be butting up against a boundary, but it would be one that I make known is mine.

For me to think that there is any way to impose a sort of invisible fence around another person and dictate what happens within it is folly. It's controlling, pure and simple. I control my sphere, and help DS learn about and express his sphere.

DS gets to set his boundaries too. He is a human after all, and has that right like all other humans. If he is making known to me that we a treading on or near one of his boundaries, we talk it out and find a solution that we are both (all) happy about.

Looking at it this way keeps my thinking in line with respecting DS's feelings. It's not that he gets his way all the time - who does? - but that he is in control of what feels OK to him, and expresses it. And perhpas most importantly, is heard.
True dat.


----------



## turtlemama77 (Jul 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mykdsmomy*
I have heard over and over again that children need boundaries to feel secure. I feel like setting boundaries and gd dont always mesh. If my two year old hits one of his friends, I tell him, hitting hurts....please dont hit. ( I get this look from other parents







). If my son tries to take away a toy from another friend, I tell him, "your friend is sad because you took away his toy...can you please give it back....(ds runs off screaming, I run after him and tell him I need to give the toy back to friend because it's his). Again, I get







from the other mothers.
So, in the above instances, was I setting boundaries? Are "boundaries" supposed to have greater consequences than just "please dont do that"?
I feel like since I've been using more gd, my mainstream friends look at me like "what are you going to do about that?"







:

But you DID do something about it! You persisted with what you consider your ds's boundaries to be (taking toys from others is not okay), and I'm assuming here, but did the child get his/her toy back from your ds? I'm sorry those other moms aren't seeing the bigger picture, which is teaching your ds about being kind and respectful rather than teaching him that bigger people enforce rules with punishments. What did they WANT you do to? Freak out and make a huge deal out of typical toddler behavior? Sheesh.

In my opinion, when you give your ds information about what is okay and not okay, you ARE laying down boundaries. He will get it eventually, and I think it will happen without harsh punishments.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Yeah, children need boundaries, and in the examples in the OP, yes you were setting boundaries. You told your son not to hit and explained why. You removed the ill-gotten toy to its rightful owner. You just set boundaries in a different way than those mainstream mothers who roll their eyes.

I do believe children need boundaries. I have a friend whose son is extremely violent. She either ignores it, or tells him for the zillionth time why it's not cool to attack other children. For me, when talking isn't working, that is the time to make the boundary a little firmer. Time out, anyone? It would not be my first or second strategy for sure, but for this kid, he really needs some firm limits somewhere in his life. I believe he is looking for them, and they are nowhere to be found. I had to stop bringing my young child around this boy as his sole aim was to torture her.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Theskuldt, sure - no problem!









Brigianna, I don't really see universal boundaries here. But everyone who has an aversion to being hit has a personal boundary. If DS were to hit a stranger, I'd speak for that person, explaining that (s)he doesn't like it, etc...

Just as a counter example of why I don't see it as universal, DH and I practice martial arts. (I've mentioned this here before, but I see that you're new.







) We actually handle the hitting boundary in a very unususal manner. We turn it into play in a martial kind of way (I taught a kids' class for years...) and when the mood is cheerful, we talk about how other people don't want to play this way - only Mommy and Daddy, or in the dojo. And that we don't hit when angry, we talk. We've never had any problems with DS hitting. It's also noteworthy that we give him our utmost attention when he has a problem, and give him the language to express his feelings. That's a big part of it too. He never resorts to hitting in frustration.

So the conclusion here, is that yes, I think children need boundaries. Their own. They need to have parents who make _their own_ boundries clear and consistent - and who facilitate the child in expressing his or her boundaries. And of course, respecting those boundaries with communication and negotiation.

How many times can I fit the word "boundaries" in one paragraph?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Theskuldt, sure - no problem!









Brigianna, I don't really see universal boundaries here. But everyone who has an aversion to being hit has a personal boundary. If DS were to hit a stranger, I'd speak for that person, explaining that (s)he doesn't like it, etc...

Just as a counter example of why I don't see it as universal, DH and I practice martial arts. (I've mentioned this here before, but I see that you're new.







) We actually handle the hitting boundary in a very unususal manner. We turn it into play in a martial kind of way (I taught a kids' class for years...) and when the mood is cheerful, we talk about how other people don't want to play this way - only Mommy and Daddy, or in the dojo. And that we don't hit when angry, we talk. We've never had any problems with DS hitting. It's also noteworthy that we give him our utmost attention when he has a problem, and give him the language to express his feelings. That's a big part of it too. He never resorts to hitting in frustration.

So the conclusion here, is that yes, I think children need boundaries. Their own. They need to have parents who make _their own_ boundries clear and consistent - and who facilitate the child in expressing his or her boundaries. And of course, respecting those boundaries with communication and negotiation.

How many times can I fit the word "boundaries" in one paragraph?









Okay but I still don't think I'm getting the distinction between setting boundaries around yourself and setting boundaries around other people. In your example you can be hit in a martial arts context because you consent to it, but it's still a universal right not to be hit non-consensually, right?

Sorry if I'm just being dense.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Well, I still don't agree that there are universal boundaries, but yes, I agree to be hit if I consent to it.

I suppose if you saying that there is a universal right not to have anything happen to someone without their consent, I certainly agree with that. But I don't think there are universal specifics that everyone has. Some people really like to be hit (consentually) to the point it hurts. Others think that's crazy. There are no blanket preferences, only guidelines that we all get to say what's OK for us.

I've got a little one climbing all over me and a scortching headache right now - sorry if I'm not making sense...


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Well, I still don't agree that there are universal boundaries, but yes, I agree to be hit if I consent to it.

I suppose if you saying that there is a universal right not to have anything happen to someone without their consent, I certainly agree with that. But I don't think there are universal specifics that everyone has. Some people really like to be hit (consentually) to the point it hurts. Others think that's crazy. There are no blanket preferences, only guidelines that we all get to say what's OK for us.

I've got a little one climbing all over me and a scortching headache right now - sorry if I'm not making sense...

Okay, I think we are saying the same thing but using different terms.







I would consider having a universal right not to have something done to you without your consent to be a universal boundary. Each individual chooses how he will exercise that right, but no one has the right to violate it.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)




----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Havent' read the replies- I have to hurry and type while I'm not nak!
I don't think that kids "need boundaries to feel secure" per se.
I definitely don't think they need arbitrary boundaries or limits. They need to know what the real boundaries *are* (or rules, or whatever). They need to know what is acceptable and what is not, so they don't get caught offguard. I imagine most parents (at least here) make sure they communicate that type of info to their kids.
I have boundaries- I don't like to be hit, ds insn't allowed to come near the oven when its open, he can't drink my coffee (lol). And I think it is quite possible to enforce those types of boundaries in a gentle respectful way. I usually give info, then redirect (by giving acceptable related alternatives- that are fun, hopefully). That usually does it. I think kids (at least my ds) know when something is important and when its not. So arbitrary rules get met with much more resistance than true boundaries. Or if you try to set arbitrary boundaries often, you might get resistance to all of it. lol
I do also think that kids need parents to be in a position of authority. Not like "I'm the boss." More like not looking to your kid for guidance on how to raise him. But I also respect his opinion and when he gives it, and if he dissents to something that I'm doing to him, I generaly stop.

If your ds stopped hitting after you did what you did (whether he stopped of his own volition or you stopped him), then you set a boundary. There's no need to go further than giving info and redirecting (well, perhaps physically stopping the hitting if dc can't/won't stop). What did they expect you to do more than what you did? Punish?


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I agree that children need boundaries. The reason (eloquently explained in _The Continuum Concept_) is that children are born aware that they are small and vulnerable and inexperienced, and they are wired to seek guidance and imitate the ways of their people. The boundaries should be observed by the whole family and taught to the child by example, rather than being imposed on the child by authority figures who are themselves "above" the rules.

Unfortunately, a lot of people say, "Children need boundaries," as justification for whatever they want to make kids do by whatever means.









Mykdsmomy, you ARE using boundaries in your discipline, and I think your gentle explanations are excellent.







The only thing I would change is that in one of your examples, you are asking a question ("Can you please give it back?") where it probably would be more effective to use a gentle-but-firm statement ("That belongs to Michael. Give it back to him."). When you ask a question, it sounds like "no" is an acceptable answer.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
Unfortunately, a lot of people say, "Children need boundaries," as justification for whatever they want to make kids do by whatever means.









Yes, I agree with this. My dd just had her 3 year old well-child visit, and the ped asked me if we were using time-out. I said no, we don't punish, and he told me that: "Children need boundaries."

I personally think it is ridiculous to try and dream up "extra" boundaries to enforce. Children have so many natural boundaries anyway, way more than we have as adults. There are so many things that are already out of their control. I agree w/EnviroBecca, we can teach them appropriate social behavior through modeling and occasionally pointing out or enforcing the "finer" points, without having to drive it home with a punishment or imposed consequence.

Having said this, I also want to disagree with BellinghamCrunchie and Donosmommy04 and say that it's not some *children* that need boundaries, it's some *parents*. Like me. In order for GD to work in my family, we use a more coercive, authoritative model. I am not a patient person, at all. My mother hit us a lot, and even though I hated it, and hate to admit it, the reflex to do the same to my children is still very strongly there. So we have a top-down family structure with lots of rules, and this keeps things pretty peaceful, for the most part, around here. I think that if I could maintain a healthy relationship with my children and have less coercion or less rules, they'd be fine, but this is the mom they got, and this is the way we make our relationships work.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

I think your examples are acceptable. Areyou saying that your freinds want more done?

I also think that if you are trying this (what you explained) and yur son comes back and hits again and again, then it isn't working. You tried it, but he didn't learn anything from it.

Allowing a child to repeatedly hit, or take toys with only a simple explanation and returning the toy ...will only end up in isolation. These are the kids who get ONE invitation to a birthday party...the other parents see the behaviour and make a mental note NOT to invite that child to the next party.

However, my daughter was the type that just a simple reprimand would have been MORE than enough to stop the behavior. I never needed to go any further. She refused to apologise, but that was a whole other issue. (and not worth the power struggle)

Every kid is different. Some are very strong willed, and some want to please.

You need to find what works for *your* kids. Like I said, what you do would have been plenty for my daughter. If they learn from what you are doing, then it is perfect. Don't let others intimidate you into doing something you are not comfortable with.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
The only thing I would change is that in one of your examples, you are asking a question ("Can you please give it back?") where it probably would be more effective to use a gentle-but-firm statement ("That belongs to Michael. Give it back to him."). When you ask a question, it sounds like "no" is an acceptable answer.

I agree. Never leave the option of "No" out there for the kids. I always laugh at people who say "pick this up..OKAAAAY?" then the kids say "No" and the parents are all surprised. LOL

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
Yes, I agree with this. My dd just had her 3 year old well-child visit, and the ped asked me if we were using time-out. I said no, we don't punish, and he told me that: "Children need boundaries."


But, in my world, "time out" means to just "chill out" it isn't punishment. It's a few moments to settle down and regroup. It can be on the couch watching a movie....it can be in her bed listening to music...but we all need some time out. Do you have any idea how many times I have wanted to sit in my car in the garage and turn on the radio????? GAWD that sounds nice some days.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I think that (most) children DO need boundaries. But I also think that people in general go a little nuts and controlling in creating them. Just like I think time outs can be a good idea, but they are often over used and misused.
I also agree with thismama. In speaking to him you did give him a boundary, and nothing works overnight, but sometimes it never works. Then I think one needs to be firmer. There's nothing wrong with that.. Some kids at some stages are going to need firmer boundaries.


----------



## mykdsmomy (Oct 10, 2004)

Thanks everyone....I appreciate all the responses. I"m actually having a bit of difficulty in my present situation with my son because he is having a really hard time with self regulation. Even when I tell him "please dont hit, hitting hurts", he continues to hit me or (other friends). When he hits me, I try to block his hits or move out of the room reminding him that I wont allow him to hit me. This angers him and he comes after me harder







I feel like that is not a boundary because he's really not getting the point, or is he?
Many of you said it would be different if he kept hitting and he might need a bigger consequence.....well this is what's happening. We will get some in home counseling for him soon which will hopefully help but I'm concerned they wont take the "gentle" approach








I'm just wanting to know which "boundaries" are effective and which ones arent so much boundaries as just "no, dont do that, stop" (when they just keep doing it







)


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Gosh....the way some of you are discussing boundries is odd to me. You talk as if it's the same as a punishment of some sort. *A punishment isn't a boundry.*

Here's a definition from Dictionary.com:

"*bound·a·ry*

Something that indicates a border or limit.
The border or limit so indicated."

OP, if other moms are looking at you like you've done something wrong, it's not because you haven't demonstrated or inforced boundries with your DS. _You are clearly establishing boundries with him._So it's perhaps because they are expecting you to punish your DS, or to be firmer with him in some other way.

Giving children boundries is establishing lines or fences for them, and giving them an idea of what they can and can not do, where they can and can not go. Establishing boundries is not a matter of total control. People cross boundries all the time-- especially kids. It's not some crazy, authoritarian way to parent. It's how we keep ourselves safe, keep our children safe, keep others safe, keep behaviors legal, and give our kids a clue as to what's going on in the world and why people do (or don't do) certain things, and act in certain ways. If you don't let your kid run into the street, then you've set a boundry. If you don't let other people discipline your kid, they you've set a boundry around your kid that you maintain for him. If you don't let your kid or anyone else hit you, then you've set your own personal boundry, and you don't let others violate it.

When children don't know what limits they have, they sure can grow up feeling insecure. It's hard to understand why anyone does anything without knowing what many common personal and societal boundries are. Imagine how you would feel if you felt like you lived in a world where everyone else, including your parents, had been given some secret code or manual for how to operate in a certain place or situation, and you were the only one who didn't know the deal? And all because your parents just decided you didn't need to know what the "boundries" were in that particular environment?
You would not only feel out of place. You'd probably feel like your parents did you a disservice, to say the least. Surely we've all felt out of place and not in-the-know, and wished we were clued in, from time to time? Right? I mean, knowing what the boundries are, but choosing to violate them can feel mighty powerful sometimes. But not knowing can make you feel insecure. It can make you feel like your traveling in a foreign land, even though you haven't left home.

And *Akira*, I really don't get what you mean when you say you can't set boundries for your son or anyone else. I mean, I like that you say you have taught your son to only hit in the dojo. (Sounds like a limit to me.) But if your son _were_ to *hit* someone elses son, does this mean that you would stand back and watch, and wait for the other little boy to establish his own boundries with your son? Does this mean you wait for the other little boy to tell your son "Don't hit me?" If not....if you would tell your son that he can't hit the other child, then you are establishing boundries for both your son and the other child. But I'll wait for you to explain this better.

Faith


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Faith, I love what you wrote.

Boundaries, to me, are information. Information about navigating in the world. Some boundaries are about safety, others about interpersonal relations, and so forth. Some boundaries are based on physics - my body can only jump so high, or run so fast.

All PEOPLE need an awareness of boundaries. Whether or not they choose to respect them, or to respect some and ignore others, is up to the individual.

I don't think people need arbitrary boundaries, or punishment for crossing boundaries. I think they need reasonable boundaries and a flexible way to deal with the times boundaries are ignored/defied/forgotten. Sometimes its a good thing to cross a boundary. Ask Rosa Parks!

Children are not served by being denied information (i.e., most people will not respond well to being hit) but they aren't served by rigidity in the name of rigidity, either. Too many people use boundary as a code word for punishment.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
And Akira, I really don't get what you mean when you say you can't set boundries for your son or anyone else. I mean, I like that you say you have taught your son to only hit in the dojo. (Sounds like a limit to me.) But if your son were to hit someone elses son, does this mean that you would stand back and watch, and wait for the other little boy to establish his own boundries with your son? Does this mean you wait for the other little boy to tell your son "Don't hit me?" If not....if you would tell your son that he can't hit the other child, then you are establishing boundries for both your son and the other child. But I'll wait for you to explain this better.

Well, I thought I addressed this, but I was a little out of it yesterday... Of course I would not sit back while DS hit people. And I'm not really sure why it's always the automatic assumption that a little monster is growing when someone says they don't impose artificial boundaries, or punish, or even *gasp* that they _trust_ their child to learn about the world and participate as a respectful human!

This isn't meant personally (even though you were the one quoted). I'm just so tired of that widespread assumption. And apparently feeling a little cranky about it at the moment.

[/rant]

I don't see it as setting boundaries around DS to stop him from hitting another child, apologize to that child _for him_ (let's not rehash that infamous manners discussion...), and talk about how the child feels hurt now, maybe even has a booboo. Showing him how to recognize and respect other people's boundaries (the other child in this example) is not imposing one on him.

I mean, yes, teaching DS to hit only us and in a playful way is a limit. It is not a limit around him. It's a limit that most other people have. It is teaching him that most people like to have their desire not to be hit respected, and here are the exceptions.

---

Look, every person on this planet experiences some sort of boundary to their existence. Even Paris Hilton. I mean, like, we can't just jump in the air and fly over all the traffic, or decide never to waste time sleeping again. Why give kids the idea that actual boudaries to living are anywhere other than exactly where they are? It seems like lying to me. Why not just talk about what actually can and can't happen in life and why? How other people like this or dislike that, and we treat them in a way they like? And that there are no absolutes?

And how can anyone not know what limits they have? I mean, parents can lie to their children about the limits by overstating them or by understating them. Either way drives kids wacko. Neither is fair to them. But they know what limits they do have, no?

---

I said before that it's folly to think I can impose an invisible fence around another person and inforce what goes on inside. (Something like that, I don't feel like looking back...) I'd love it of someone could show me just how that could work. How far does it go? When DC resents the artificial communication (and they always know deep down), do you also "set a boundary" about the backlash? If DC starts sneaking in an attempt to experience life as it really is - or to escape - will you "set more limits" to stop that?

Where do you really start being honest about what life is like? When you fess up about Santa? Teenage years? 21? Is there a conversation like, "Well son, now that you're old enough to buy liquor, I should tell you that it doesn't really matter if you wear the same shirt 2 days in a row?"

OT: Didn't Seinfeld do a routine about calling up his mom to tell her that he was running with scissors and swimming right after eating?

---

I'm really not trying to be snarky, just hyperbolic to try to illustrate why I see thinking about drawing boundaries around a kid so strange. It's a difficult distinction to make, and exaggerating helps define it a little, I hope.

BTW, Dechen, great post!


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Too many people use boundary as a code word for punishment.
Amen...that is why I think I don't care for it when people say "children need boundries" because I have found that when most people say that, if you delve a bit deeper into what they mean, they are saying "children need to be controlled and punished and need to be shown who's boss".

I agree with what aira said. I believe teaching our children (and most importantly, modeling for them) to respect the boundries we have for ourselves (mama does not like to be hit) and teaching them to set boundries for themselves and the behaviors which are acceptable or not acceptable to them far outweighs imposing boundries for them.

I don't think anyone here is saying their little Johnny can haul off and smack little Joey across the face with no discussion or without getting off their butt and preventing little Joey from getting a black eye. However, in presenting the discussion, I would rather say something to my child like "Joey does not like to be hit. I expect you to respect Joey's right/preference (whatever) not to be hit"....presenting it as joey's boundry he has set for himself, that I as the parent and someone who can probably communicate that more effectively than Joey, may have to assist my child in a bit of impulse control.

I don't think it helps at all to enforce arbitrary boundries just to show a kid who's boss. They already know who clothes and feeds and houses them, and however consensually you strive to live (which we do) that unspoken knowledge in itself, tells them "who's boss" (though I don't look at myself as a boss just using an example).

So yes, I agree that everyone needs personal boundries they set for themselves and how they expect to be treated. My aim is to gently teach and encourage our daughter to respect the boundries of others and to form her own boundries that she can communicate to others gently and effectively.


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

I agree with what I read so far. I would so much like that to work for my family but sometimes it does not work. For example, my 3 yo and my 5 yo decided to start running on the sidewalk (not in the street but not safe anyway) last night when we were going home after dinner at a friends' house. How do I enforce this boundary? They KNOW this is not safe. If you talk to them on a one-on-one basis they will say that it is bad to run in the street. They do not do that with their pre-K teacher or the babysitter. But with me, they look at one another they laugh and they run off... I don't know...


----------



## mamatoliam (Oct 31, 2005)

This is a bit off topic but in regards to the hitting and toy taking, maybe you could try (possibly you have already) saying what your ds can do, instead of can't. Like for example 'You have to have gentle hands' or 'If you would like a turn with x toy, why don't you see if you can trade turns for y toy'. I also work on having my ds play with a toy along with another child. Of course you need willing mom's to do this, which luckily I do in my ap group. Could I also suggest finding an ap play group as I find it is much easier to use gd when you are not under pressure from non gd moms. Also as many of the tactics I want to teach my son involve cooperation from the other child and parent this is easier when we have the same gd goals in mind. I also see many gd strategies in action and have learned many things that have helped me in my own parenting journey, as I also have from the wise women here.

Leah


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
And Akira, I really don't get what you mean when you say you can't set boundries for your son or anyone else.

Yeah, I think its easy to get that from her first post. But after some clarification, it seems like she's saying that she can't place boundaries for/on her son. She can only inform him of (and possibly enforce) OTHER people's boundaries.
She's not saying she won't respect other people's boundaries (or insist that her ds do so). She's just saying she's not going to tell her son what his personal boundaries are.
Is that right aira? I hope so- cuz I like that a lot!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
When children don't know what limits they have, they sure can grow up feeling insecure.

Yeah that. That's what I was trying to say when I said that kids don't need boundaries to feel secure. They need to know what the real/natural boundaries *are* to feel secure. But they don't need to have arbitrary boundaries imposed.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Amen...that is why I think I don't care for it when people say "children need boundries" because I have found that when most people say that, if you delve a bit deeper into what they mean, they are saying "children need to be controlled and punished and need to be shown who's boss".
(...snip...)
I don't think it helps at all to enforce arbitrary boundries just to show a kid who's boss. They already know who clothes and feeds and houses them, and however consensually you strive to live (which we do) that unspoken knowledge in itself, tells them "who's boss" (though I don't look at myself as a boss just using an example).

I agree wholeheartedly, and thought it was worth highlighting what you wrote


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

To the op- your son is still hitting. I'm not sure what you've tried, but let me tell you some of the things I might try.
First, maybe you could change your phrasing, if it's not that effective for you. Saying "hitting hurts" isn't really true from the child's pov. It doesn't hurt THEM when they hit. kwim? Plus, sometimes it doesn't even hurt me when ds hits me. I just don't want him to hit me. I've found that what works best here is to tell my ds that "I don't like to be hit." or "Brooke (our dog) doesn't like to be hit."
Also, have you tried giving him other ways of expressing what he's trying to express? If he's trying to interact with you, and is just getting a bit excited, saying "gentle touches" probably helps. But if he's angry, try to give him some other ways of telling you he's angry. Tell him what he can say, give him the sign for angry, or give him some other gesture he can use. If he's frustrated, and trying to communicate something to you, and you're just not getting it, tell him that you are trying to figure it out, and you need a minute, and have him try other ways to tell you. See what I'm saying? Tell him what to do instead of hitting, that is directly relevant to WHY he was hitting. Honor the original impulse. kwim?
Oh yeah, and empathize


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
To the op- your son is still hitting. I'm not sure what you've tried, but let me tell you some of the things I might try.
First, maybe you could change your phrasing, if it's not that effective for you. Saying "hitting hurts" isn't really true from the child's pov. It doesn't hurt THEM when they hit. kwim?

I agree with this. I've noticed another problem with telling my dd "Hitting hurts." Here's what happens: Ds knocks over dd's block tower, destroys baby's bed, screws up puzzle, whatever little toddlers can do to make big sisters mad. Dd is mad, hauls off and hits ds. I tell dd "Hitting hurts Luther!" Dd gives me a look like, "No sh!t!?! Why do you think I hit him? I wanted to hurt him!"

So maybe your child is more civilized, but I've found that to be a problem, because I want to send the message that it's unacceptable. Also, I think just because he's still hitting doesn't meet it's not working. It might just be taking a little longer for him to learn it and incorporate new replacement behaviors.

And, nextcommercial, I agree that your kind of time-out can be very beneficial, but my ped was referring to the on-the-step until the timer goes off thinking about what you did wrong kind of time out. Like Captain Crunchy said, he was substituting "boundary" for "punishment".


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

_"Joey does not like to be hit. I expect you to respect Joey's right/preference (whatever) not to be hit"....presenting it as joey's boundry he has set for himself, that I as the parent and someone who can probably communicate that more effectively than Joey, may have to assist my child in a bit of impulse control._

I agree with this approach, but unfortunately it doesn't always work with all kids at all times. And that doesn't always mean that the parent is doing something wrong. I agree that people impose boundaries often "just because" and it's controlling. But some kids do need more than verbal guidance, and I don't think that is crossing the line into some sort of controlling tactic.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Oh I agree hazelnut, which is why I said sometimes we as parents have to assist our children with their impulse control. Obviously if the above example didn't help my child to stop hitting someone, I would have to realize that the impulse control is not there yet (not that they are being *bad*) and remove my child temporarily from the object of temptation (i.e. hitting the other child)... not as a punitive measure, but as a way of helping the *victim* (so to speak) enforce their boundry not to be hit. There would be no further "consequence" or punishment, as I don't believe in punishments --- now perhaps my child would take it as a punishment that I can't allow them to wail on Joey, but it is the only way to keep Joey safe if he is not consenting to being hit...


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Natensarah, why not talk to both DC about both prespectives? Maybe DD wouldn't want to hurt DS so much if she heard from you that she has every right to be angry about having her stuff destroyed, and you vocalized that to him for her. Why would you ever just speak for one child's boundary and not the other? Sounds like it's setting her up.

I mean, is it that you think her "offense" is worse, and you only deal with the escalation of the problem?

Of course she'd be pi$$ed if her feelings were steamrolled like that.

I don't get it.


----------



## annarosa (Aug 30, 2004)

yes - they need boundaries
one thing I wanted to say was that I think the boundaries we set need to be ACTION rather than just VERBAL, especially with little ones
they understand more direct action - ie. you removing a toy to give back to another child much more than just an explanation or a request for them to give back the toy


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

In reality, I think that we are all probably closer together in our thinking than it seems just by looking at these posts. Semantics can be tough.

Personally, I do think that children need boundries to feel secure and to know and learn the rules of the world so to speak. I think this hitting example is a poor one. The idea of not setting boundries about hitting, that it is up to the other child/person to set their boundry about being hit is confusing. I don't think there are many people out there who would say "heck, yes, feel free to hit me. That's not a personal boundry of mine." Why not explain to your child that people in general don't like to be hit, and that's why hitting isn't allowed. Otherwise, how confusing must it be for a child at the playground to know which child has which boundries set for themselves. "Well, I hit Joey, and evidentally, that goes against his boundry. Hmmm, I wonder if that little girl over there is okay with being hit. Let me go find out." Are we really being fair to our child not to explain to them that hitting for hitting sake simply isn't okay? Should we expect them as a toddler or preschooler to be able to know what other people's boundries are? I frankly just think that this is poor semantics. We don't want our children to hit (at least I hope we don't) why not simply explain that hitting is wrong/not nice/etc. We shouldn't be responsible for explaining other people's boundries -- we can't be expected to know everyone's boundries.

My kids do have boundries. We have rules and routines. They have bedtimes, though this is negotiable depending on the situation. We have mealtime rules as a family. We have rules that apply to how we treat others. We have guidelines for how the household is kept running smoothly and how everyone is to help. I have no problem with exceptions to the rules, but as a parent, I feel it is my responsibility go guide my children in their upbringing. We practice gd and don't assign random punnishments. What we do is teach our children the things that they need to know to grow up to be productive members of society. Sometimes this requires rules and boundries. My children feel secure knowing what is expected of them and knowing that we are helping them to find their way.

On another note. For anyone who has taken teaching or psychology classes, I'm sure you remember this little study.

An experiment was done with children on a playground. There was a large fenced in playground that the children were allowed to explore. They could explore every inch of the playground and children would roam every inch from one edge of the fence to the other feeling totally secure.

Then the fence was removed with the idea that the children would perhaps explore further to see what was beyond the boundry that had been set for them. But what happened was that the children all stayed in a large mass in the center of the playground. They seemed anxious and wary. They now had no idea how far they could explore nor what was expected of them. Rather than feeling freedom to explore and seeing what was beyond the past boundry, they were afraid to even go as far as the fence had been in the first place. Their limits had been removed, but they rather than being comfortable with that, they were uncomfortable not knowing their boundries. Once the fence was replaced, the children would explore clear up to the fence again.

Just something to think about.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

What we do is teach our children the things that they need to know to grow up to be productive members of society.
Well, that is where we differ greatly then. Don't get me wrong, I do hope my child will grow up to be a "productive member of society" (whatever that means) but it is not my goal while I am teaching her things or emparting my *cough* wisdom *cough* lol to her... it will though, in my estimation, be a byproduct of all the things I do hope to show her -- love, empathy, respect for self and others, self discipline, happiness, and how to live life attempting to meet the needs of everyone involved, including herself.

I know the study you are referring to and from a sociological standpoint (my area of study) it speaks to me more of herd mentality than proving that children so desperately need boundries. It can't be an accurate study because do we know how these children were raised? Were they of different income brackets, ages, races, most importantly, was there a wide area of parenting style represented? I wager to say if one of the children went running off in one direction, most would have followed. I would be curious to see if they did the same study with an *actor* child told to run off happily, who would have followed.

Yes, I don't think it is disputable that there are boundries everywhere. Where the conflict arises with me, is the fact that I reject having to rigidly enforce what I percieve to be arbitrary boundries (set bedtime, making a child sit with family for meals whether they like it or not etc) to *teach* them we all have boundries. The examples you gave in your family sound more like rules to me than boundries. Potato, Po tah to I guess.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jish*
Are we really being fair to our child not to explain to them that hitting for hitting sake simply isn't okay? Should we expect them as a toddler or preschooler to be able to know what other people's boundries are? I frankly just think that this is poor semantics.

Um, well, where to begin...

As for the first sentence, I'm assuming you're addressing it to me (since I spoke more explicitly about that), but don't understand how that came from me, or anyone espousing a similar POV. I most certainly talk to DS about hitting - and stated such - but I thought that using that example (though I didn't start it) was an excellent way to illustrate that not everyone sees "boundaries" in the same way.

If DS started trying to see who liked hitting and who didn't, I'd be the first to suggest the he talk to them about it instead. Of course he can't know what other people like - who can? But wouldn't modelling talking to people about these thing be a useful skill to pass along? That's how we get cooperation and mutual trust. Communication. I do it with my kid every day. Together, we do it with lots of people. Don't really understand why all these examples seem to be working on the idea that we can't talk.

Though if you want to get into some really funky conversation, we could discuss the martial understanding that develops from reading other people's energy and silently determining their intention and willingness to engage, but for now, let's stick to the topic at hand, if no one minds?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jish*
We don't want our children to hit (at least I hope we don't) why not simply explain that hitting is wrong/not nice/etc. We shouldn't be responsible for explaining other people's boundries -- we can't be expected to know everyone's boundries.

Because frankly, I would never speak to DS so rudely. Passing that kind of value judgement on him for manifesting either his anger or sheer curiousity (using your hypothetical), has no place in respectful parenting.

I can't be expected to know everyone's boundaries, but I can start conversations with almost anyone to find out, and we can go from there. That's what I model to DS. So I'm not responsible for explaining everyone's boundaries, but just between him and me, I certainly _offer DS the information_ he needs that it's fairly commonplace that people don't like being hit, or that people eating in a restaraunt don't like to hear us talking loudly. It wouldn't be fair for me leave him hanging, trying to understand, without helping him with what I know. But again, there are no absolutes, and it's equally unfair to him for me to lead him to believe that there are.

I'm working under a different paradigm than I often see even here, in which I fundamentally trust that my son, if given an honest view of the world, will grow into the human he is here to be. He will suffer and struggle to achieve his best if I try to mould him into my idea of what that is.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I'm working under a different paradigm than I often see even here, in which I fundamentally trust that my son, if given an honest view of the world, will grow into the human he is here to be.
























I completely agree. I will also add that (imo) the first and best way to teach children empathy, compassion, and respect is to not only model it towards others but towards _them_.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

CC, another excellent post!


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I will also add that (imo) the first and best way to teach children empathy, compassion, and respect is to not only model it towards others but towards *them*.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Natensarah, why not talk to both DC about both prespectives? Maybe DD wouldn't want to hurt DS so much if she heard from you that she has every right to be angry about having her stuff destroyed, and you vocalized that to him for her. Why would you ever just speak for one child's boundary and not the other? Sounds like it's setting her up.

I mean, is it that you think her "offense" is worse, and you only deal with the escalation of the problem?

Of course she'd be pi$$ed if her feelings were steamrolled like that.

I don't get it.









Here's what I said:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
So maybe your child is more civilized, but I've found that to be a problem, because I want to send the message that it's unacceptable.

I'm not sure how you got from that that I was "steamrolling" her feelings. I think you can validate feelings and at the same time offer acceptable alternatives, and, yes, send the message that hitting is unacceptable. Because it's not, in my house.

And I think that you have a lot more leeway in a playgroup setting where it's unlikely that the children spend more than an hour together, and they're not really going to hurt each other. Maybe information would be enough, but it's not between my siblings.

I do trust that my children will EVENTUALLY make the right choice every time. I'm not afraid that if I don't crack down my dd will turn into some sort of tower shooter, or that she's a bad child because she hits her brother. But that doesn't mean I'm going to let them hurt each other, that would be unfair of me. No one's going to get their needs met around here at the sacrifice of someone else's security and safety. I'm not going to allow it.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Unfortunately, I'm running out the door, but I'll post later tonight in this space - just to keep the response right after your post...


----------



## elsasmommy (Mar 24, 2005)

r


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Here's some questions: If your toddler is hitting your baby, do you expect your baby to set her own boundaries? If your child beats the daylights out of their friend and the friend doesn't stop them, is that okay because the friend hasn't set the boundaries to stop the hitting? How about your kid killing their hamster? Is the hamster supposed to set boundaries?

What about sexual abuse? Is a kid supposed to set their own boundaries against it and if they don't, is it okay that they are molested because it's their choice not to set boundaries? Is it okay to do bad things to the mentally disabled because they don't set the "right" boundaries for themselves? If someone tells you to beat them up, should you do it if you feel like it because their and your boundaries allow it?

Saying that people should only impose their own boundaries around themselves sounds a lot like a world in which you can do whatever you like to other people, as long as they are vulnerable and you can get away with it.
That has to be one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on MDC. It leads me to believe you didn't even read any of the responses or merely skimmed them at best.

Not one person, at ANY time said that children don't need assistance and guidance in enforcing the boundries they have set for themselves or help with respecting the boundries other people have set for themselves.

Saying that we would feel it is our child's fault for being sexually molested is crossing the line. That is just cruel and mean spirited and while you thought you were making a really clever point, you were actually showing your ignorance. Besides, someone molesting our child would CLEARLY be the molester's fault because I don't know of many children who liked being raped (none actually) and would consider that a boundry they would *allow* someone to cross (if the child even had any concept of what rape was at such a tender age)...Furthermore, if the child doesn't protest, (out of fear or not knowing what to do or threats or whatever) the person who is ya know, raping them should know that is not a *boundry* you cross.

Wow I am just appalled and disgusted that someone would spew their disdain of other people's chosen way of parenting through the EXTREMELY thin veil of "innocent" questions.


----------



## elsasmommy (Mar 24, 2005)

It's "disdain", not "distain".


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Don't feed the ******.









Natensarah, I think I'll edit my above post tomorrow AM instead of tonight. I just can't think about anything normal after reading the above farce.


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jish
We don't want our children to hit (at least I hope we don't) why not simply explain that hitting is wrong/not nice/etc. We shouldn't be responsible for explaining other people's boundries -- we can't be expected to know everyone's boundries.

Because frankly, I would never speak to DS so rudely. Passing that kind of value judgement on him for manifesting either his anger or sheer curiousity (using your hypothetical), has no place in respectful parenting.
Hmmmm... I must say that is the first time I have every been accused of speaking "so rudely" to my children. Funny that it comes from someone who has never met me or heard me speak to my children.

However, I don't see how it's rude to say to my child "Roo, please don't hit X. People don't like to be hit and it hurts them." I don't find that wildly different than saying "Please don't hit Joey, Joey doesn't like to be hit." I'm also not sure how I'm passing a value judgement on him for expressing anger, frustration, curiosity. I'm simply explaining that hitting isn't nice and that people don't like it. I didn't tell him he was a bad child or that he was naughty. No value judgement at all. I'm not sure where you get that idea from. Clearly you don't know me.

Quote:

but it is not my goal while I am teaching her things or emparting my *cough* wisdom *cough* lol to her... it will though, in my estimation, be a byproduct of all the things I do hope to show her -- love, empathy, respect for self and others, self discipline, happiness, and how to live life attempting to meet the needs of everyone involved, including herself.
Ahhhh, so this is what I'm supposed to be doing. Please... do you seriously think that those of us who set boundries (which frankly aren't always that different from rules) are not doing those exact same things. I spend the vast majority of my day teaching my children the very same things you espouse to be doing. But I guess since my children have a bedtime and are taught that hitting is fundamentally wrong, none of that matters. Jeesh.







:

BTW, correcting someone's spelling or grammar is a no no.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jish*
why not simply explain that hitting is wrong/not nice/etc.

Well, I haven't met you, but you did ask me directly why not say this. So I said why. There is nowhere that I accused you of anything.

I goin' to bed now, this is getting way too weird for my tired brain.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *elsasmommy*
It's "disdain", not "distain".

wow. yup, you did it...turned it around...your posts make much more sense now...thank goodness you chose to correct someone's typo. i never would have seen the light and the wisdom of your words.

pft.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I don't see it as setting boundaries around DS to stop him from hitting another child, apologize to that child _for him_ (let's not rehash that infamous manners discussion...), and talk about how the child feels hurt now, maybe even has a booboo. Showing him how to recognize and respect other people's boundaries (the other child in this example) is not imposing one on him.

I mean, yes, teaching DS to hit only us and in a playful way is a limit. It is not a limit around him. It's a limit that most other people have. It is teaching him that most people like to have their desire not to be hit respected, and here are the exceptions.

But how is it not a limit around him? If he wants to hit someone, and the person doesn't want to be hit, then the other person's right not to be hit outweighs your ds's desire to hit him. So other people's rights are limits and boudaries around the rest of us. I also think that there is a difference between a right and a preference. The right not to be hit nonconsensually is a right. Wanting to hit someone is a preference. So the right should override the preference. But wanting other people to be nice to you is also a preference, while freedom of association is a right. So I don't think it's as simple as everyone setting boundaries around himself that other people can't cross, because not all boundaries are equal and often conflict with one another.

Quote:

_Look, every person on this planet experiences some sort of boundary to their existence. Even Paris Hilton. I mean, like, we can't just jump in the air and fly over all the traffic, or decide never to waste time sleeping again. Why give kids the idea that actual boudaries to living are anywhere other than exactly where they are? It seems like lying to me. Why not just talk about what actually can and can't happen in life and why? How other people like this or dislike that, and we treat them in a way they like? And that there are no absolutes?_
Because I believe that there are absolutes--there is absolute morality and there are also absolute universal rights that are more than just treating people in a way that they like.

Quote:

_And how can anyone not know what limits they have? I mean, parents can lie to their children about the limits by overstating them or by understating them. Either way drives kids wacko. Neither is fair to them. But they know what limits they do have, no?_
But I think you're conflating natural limits with moral and social limits. Not being able to fly is a natural limit. Not being able to hit someone just because you're mad at him is a moral limit. Not being able to drive through red lights is a social limit. It isn't lying to explain this, and if you believe in an absolute natural order, the limit of not hitting people nonconsensually is as real as the limit of not being able to fly.

Quote:

_I said before that it's folly to think I can impose an invisible fence around another person and inforce what goes on inside. (Something like that, I don't feel like looking back...) I'd love it of someone could show me just how that could work. How far does it go? When DC resents the artificial communication (and they always know deep down), do you also "set a boundary" about the backlash? If DC starts sneaking in an attempt to experience life as it really is - or to escape - will you "set more limits" to stop that?_

_Where do you really start being honest about what life is like? When you fess up about Santa? Teenage years? 21? Is there a conversation like, "Well son, now that you're old enough to buy liquor, I should tell you that it doesn't really matter if you wear the same shirt 2 days in a row?"_

_OT: Didn't Seinfeld do a routine about calling up his mom to tell her that he was running with scissors and swimming right after eating?_
But if we believe in absolute standards, it isn't lying. You might believe it isn't true, but lying suggests that we are saying something we know to be untrue. And I don't think of teaching boundaries and limits as teaching what life is like, but what it should be. To stick with the hitting example, I don't think it's lying to say, "There are people who hit other people and get away with it. But their actions are wrong. It is morally wrong to hit someone who doesn't want to be hit, no matter what." It would be lying to say "no one ever hits anyone else," but I don't think that is what anyone is advocating.

And with wearing the same shirt 2 days in a row, or running with scissors, it isn't lying, but warning. It is true that a shirt worn 2 days in a row will most likely be sweaty and stinky. It is true that there is danger associated with running with a sharp object in your hand. How is this lying?


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Yeah, I also agree that there are some limits which are people's personal boundaries, but there are others which are necessarily boundaries around the children. Returning to my example yesterday, the limit of no running in the street, which I seem not to have been able to enforce properly, that is a limit around the children. Not around the cars!








I do not want to enter a discussion, here, I just would like to point out that - at least for me - the boundaries that I have to build around the kids are much more difficult to impose. In fact, if it is a boundary around me, well, it is not easy for a 3 yo and a 5 yo to make me do things I do not want to do (including being hit). But, making them do what I ask, that's different, and it does not always work. How do you go about enforcing this second kind of boundaries?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

It's "disdain", not "distain".
So hey, I'm not that asian kid who passed out at the spelling bee and got back up to spell the word correctly.

I can live with that.

What I am wondering, is can you live with the fact that you came across as someone with limited understanding of the English language, nevermind child development, comprehension to retain what you have just read in the previous posts, and ability to reasonable process that information to get somewhat of an idea what anyone was describing?

I'll take my misspellings anyday









On to a different, more valid topic though --

Jish said:

Quote:

Ahhhh, so this is what I'm supposed to be doing. Please... do you seriously think that those of us who set boundries (which frankly aren't always that different from rules) are not doing those exact same things. I spend the vast majority of my day teaching my children the very same things you espouse to be doing. But I guess since my children have a bedtime and are taught that hitting is fundamentally wrong, none of that matters. Jeesh

Please try to look past your own upsetment and read my post. I never suggested you don't teach your children things, I am sure you do. You however, said yourself you teach them these things with the *goal* that they be productive people in society. I was just mentioning that we are coming from different perspectives. I see productivity as a probable byproduct of my goals as a parent, but certainy is not my goal or motivation when I am interacting with my daughter.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Brigianna, it seems you are approaching this from a very punative paradigm.

How will I explain the concept of "get away with it" to my child who doesn't know about punishment, and hopefully will continue to be internally driven when making his choices?

I'm not confused about moral/social and natural limits. Do you think I am because I used examples of each? I'm all for giving kids an honest account of all sorts of limits. I think I did a fair job explaining that.

I get the impression (but certianly might be wrong) that you may be framing this in a religious context. If that is the case, I just won't follow you to your points about morality. FTR, my statement about there being no absolutes was a bit tongue-in-cheek, seeing as the statement itself is an absolute. However, I do believe that there are absolute princples regarding the nature of the universe, creation, life, call it what you will. But when it comes to folks being folks, we can't make blanket statements or assumptions.

I mean, 100 years ago it was an absolute that pigs couldn't fly. But now you just have to buy one a ticket on Delta, and he's going to 30,000 feet. It's relative. It's all gonna be relative in the end, even if it's doesn't appear so in our lifetimes.

Indulge me while I keep that overused, strained hitting analogy in play... If my son ever (God forbid!) finds himself in a life-threatening situation with a crazy knife wielding idiot hell-bent on stabbing him, and he sees an opening to knock the nut out, disarm him and stay safe... That's the option I will be rooting for.

I will not lie to DS by telling him that it's never OK to hit b/c there's some absolute morality that makes it "wrong" in someone else's opinion. Or that he will surely face punishment in the afterlife for hitting, or anything silly like that. I will not inhibit him in any way from freely using his judgement based on an honest apprisal on his situation.

Well, I'm being recruited to play trains right now, so I'll check back in later...


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Indulge me while I keep that overused, strained hitting analogy in play... If my son ever (God forbid!) finds himself in a life-threatening situation with a crazy knife wielding idiot hell-bent on stabbing him, and he sees an opening to knock the nut out, disarm him and stay safe... That's the option I will be rooting for.
That is a good point aira, and one I was going to bring up as well. That is my issue with teaching "WE DON'T _____ " or "Doing such and such is WRONG".

Children, especially small children are very much creatures of black and white logic. I don't want to teach my children that hitting for example, in every circumstance is wrong. There may be a situation where they have to hit for self defense for example. I won't teach them it is rude to scream, but rather, say "I don't like to be screamed at, Johhny doesn't like to be screamed at" (whatever) because there may be a situation where they will be able to, or have to scream. I don't want to frame my explanation of things with the statements of "except when, if this happens, well if this situation arises, it's okay."

I would rather explain things to my daughter in the context of the situation at hand. I honestly don't feel that by saying "Johnny doesn't like to be hit" she is going to think, gee whiz, well, Suzy might, and haul off and hit Suzy. I don't think my child is hell bent on hurting people as some posters seem to present in their examples. I may explain something like "most people don't like to be hit" in that instance, but I am not going to place value judgements on my daughter. I will not say to her "Hitting is BAD and WRONG!!!" ....because as you pointed out Aira, not in the context of martial arts, or in self defense, or even in the game tag, where though it be gently, you are hitting someone to *tag* them.

Furthermore, telling a 2 year old toddler that it hurts you emotionally when they hit you etc, is way manipulative to me. Yeah, if they physically hurt you, feel free to say, *ouch!* that hurts when you hit, I don't like to be hit!* ....but the manipulation of forcing your values on someone else and exploiting their need to be approved of by you by disapproving of their actions in the form of emotional manipulation, is not okay with me.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Brigianna said:

Quote:

Because I believe that there are absolutes--there is absolute morality
Ouch! Are you serious? Absolute morality according to you? To what you believe in? Not everyone subscribes to that. Ther is only absolute morality to YOU, but the minute you encounter someone who believes otherwise, there is no absolute morality.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gaialice*
Yeah, I also agree that there are some limits which are people's personal boundaries, but there are others which are necessarily boundaries around the children. Returning to my example yesterday, the limit of no running in the street, which I seem not to have been able to enforce properly, that is a limit around the children. Not around the cars!








I do not want to enter a discussion, here, I just would like to point out that - at least for me - the boundaries that I have to build around the kids are much more difficult to impose. In fact, if it is a boundary around me, well, it is not easy for a 3 yo and a 5 yo to make me do things I do not want to do (including being hit). But, making them do what I ask, that's different, and it does not always work. How do you go about enforcing this second kind of boundaries?

FWIW, I have learned that I cannot _make_ anyone do what I ask-not even my kids. It is not possible to control another person. And while I probably actually can find some ways to _make_ my kids do some things right now, there will come a time when I can't _make_ them do anything. And making them do something, well that creates a disconnection (however brief it may be) and the more we disconnect the less my kids will value and respect what I have to say and offer. The more we disconnect, the less cooperation there is between us, and the more struggle there is. This I have experienced already, though my kids are still quite young and I admittedly cannot predict what the future will hold regardless of how I parent from here on out.

So I am learning to focus not on making my kids do things, but on communicating with them so that they have the information they need when it comes to relationships with others and to making decisions. When it comes to danger, of course I will physically step in and prevent something dangerous from happening. I will block one child's hands from hitting another, I will grab a child about to walk into the street. If a child tries to hit me, I'll move or block the hit while saying "I do not want to be hit." In the example you gave of your kids running on the sidewalk but not actually in the street, I've btdt. I didn't feel safe with my kids' running on the sidewalk, not at all. So what I said (to my 4 and 6 year old-the two year old still goes in the backpack) was this "When you run on the sidewalk I feel scared, because I'm afraid you might accidentally run or fall into the street and get hurt by a car. I need to know that we're all going to be safe traveling on the sidewalk, so I want you to _walk_." And repeated, and repeated. Did some running, watched them run a little (asking them to "walk, please") and realized it's probably not as dangerous as I'm afraid it is, and within a few days it actually wasn't a problem anymore-they weren't running. I could have said (and actually, I may have said this and realized it was foolish, I can't remember) "if you keep running, we won't walk anymore" but I realized that this was not something I wanted to do-we like to walk, it's good for our bodies and our spirits, it's enjoyable time together, and to just stop walking wouldn't teach them how to be safe walking down the road.

I've now lost my train of thought, and these kinds of threads scare me anyway








so I'm going to stop. I do not at all pretend to understand completely what captain crunchy and aira are saying, but I do think that (as much as I understand it) it makes sense. I don't think it's all that odd, and I don't think they mean that they let their kids run all over doing whatever they please at the expense of the people around them.

Kids want to get along, kids want to be helpful, kids want to connect, kids want to do well. All they need is clear, honest information and loving support. Not that it's always easy.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CC*
there may be a situation where they will be able to, or have to scream. I don't want to frame my explanation of things with the statements of "except when, if this happens, well if this situation arises, it's okay."

I know, I spend considerable time and effort training first my reflexes, and then refining my judgement so that I may hopefully interact appropriately in my environment. I spend a lot of effort undoing all the abolute programming I got as a little one.

It inhibits the development of judgement to tell kids that these are rules and this is the exception. I find that it cerebralizes the whole process. When facing a situation, we often spend precious time going through our checklist about if X is good? bad? is this the rule or the exception? Would I be bad for taking care of myself by X? Is that selfish of me, to stand up for myself?

It's crippling. And all this stuff can be sorted out in an instant if we are able to relax and feel, listen to the silence, hear our intuition instead of the parental programming that shouts over it.

I owe my son not interfering with his own inner knowing. His connection with God. That belongs to him, and will serve him better than anything I can impose on him. That's his real safety and protection.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I owe my son not interfering with his own inner knowing. His connection with God. That belongs to him, and will serve him better than anything I can impose on him. That's his real safety and protection.















aira...

...but now someone is going to say, what if it is the voice of the devil telling your son to kill someone and he thinks it is God??
















Great post too sledg


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm really confused as to why some people think some people are saying that they wouldn't intervene on behalf of another individual that their dc was hitting. That was explained way back. Am I missing something? Is it me?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Indulge me while I keep that overused, strained hitting analogy in play... If my son ever (God forbid!) finds himself in a life-threatening situation with a crazy knife wielding idiot hell-bent on stabbing him, and he sees an opening to knock the nut out, disarm him and stay safe... That's the option I will be rooting for.

Yeah, that's the same type of reason I don't tell ds he'll get hurt if he plays with scissors. There's a pretty good chance he won't! I don't even tell him its dangerous (it just seems an extreme word). I tell him it's unsafe to play with scissors, and try to explain that he *could* get hurt.
I don't tell him "We don't hit" because if *he* is hitting, then "we don't hit" isn't true anymore. I guess you could say "hitting people is wrong- if they don't want to be hit, if its not in self defense," and its true. But "Brooke doesn't want to be hit" is much easier to understand, imo. And my ds doesn't take that to mean that our other dog *might* like to be hit.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Sledg, as always, I love your posts!









I can never say things as clearly as you!


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

CC, of course someone will go there. I'll just









Some people just want to take things impossibly far out of context. :yawning:


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Brigianna, it seems you are approaching this from a very punative paradigm.

How will I explain the concept of "get away with it" to my child who doesn't know about punishment, and hopefully will continue to be internally driven when making his choices?

I'm not very good at explaining myself, especially on this forum. So I'll try to clarify as best I can--I was trying to convey the opposite of a punitive paradigm. I want to teach my kids to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because of some consequence. And natural or logical consequences are still consequences and, if that is motivating someone, that is still an external rather than an internal motivation. This is where I tend to have a problem with natural/logical consequences and also with non-violent communication. While I think there are some good things there, it is still a subjective external motivation. So with the children hitting example, I think that to say "your cousin doesn't like to be hit" or "it makes me sad when you hit the baby" are not sufficient reasons why he shouldn't hit. Because, really, what obligation is he under to do what someone else likes, or to keep me from being sad? I'm not being critical or judgemental, but I don't think, regarding internal vs. external motivation, that "I feel sad when you do this" is all that different from "if you do that again I'm putting you in time-out." They are both trying to motivate the child through external consequences rather than an internal knowledge that something is wrong. So my only point about "getting away with it" is that people will often do wrong things without any negative consequences, whether artificially imposed (getting punished) or natural (making someone sad), but that it is still wrong.

Quote:

_I'm not confused about moral/social and natural limits. Do you think I am because I used examples of each? I'm all for giving kids an honest account of all sorts of limits. I think I did a fair job explaining that._
I didn't mean that you were confused but that I thought you were conflating them. People can figure out for themselves that they can't fly and have to sleep. And people can figure out moral and social boundaries, too, but they often need more help. That's why I thought your analogy was a bit of a non sequitor.

Quote:

_I get the impression (but certianly might be wrong) that you may be framing this in a religious context. If that is the case, I just won't follow you to your points about morality_.
Well, yes, but I don't think you need a religious context to recognize universal natural rights.

Quote:

_FTR, my statement about there being no absolutes was a bit tongue-in-cheek, seeing as the statement itself is an absolute. However, I do believe that there are absolute princples regarding the nature of the universe, creation, life, call it what you will. But when it comes to folks being folks, we can't make blanket statements or assumptions._
Of course, every person is an individual. But every person still has inalienable natural rights and a place in the natural order (or that's how I see it anyway). How they choose to exercise those rights and live within that framework is up to them as individuals.

Quote:

_I mean, 100 years ago it was an absolute that pigs couldn't fly. But now you just have to buy one a ticket on Delta, and he's going to 30,000 feet. It's relative. It's all gonna be relative in the end, even if it's doesn't appear so in our lifetimes._
Yes, but again there is the distinction between natural and moral boundaries--circumstances and human innovation can alter natural limits but moral limits are constant. It was wrong to assault people 3000 yrs ago and it's wrong to assault people today.

Quote:

_Indulge me while I keep that overused, strained hitting analogy in play... If my son ever (God forbid!) finds himself in a life-threatening situation with a crazy knife wielding idiot hell-bent on stabbing him, and he sees an opening to knock the nut out, disarm him and stay safe... That's the option I will be rooting for._

_I will not lie to DS by telling him that it's never OK to hit b/c there's some absolute morality that makes it "wrong" in someone else's opinion. Or that he will surely face punishment in the afterlife for hitting, or anything silly like that. I will not inhibit him in any way from freely using his judgement based on an honest apprisal on his situation._
We can always come up with exceptions and extenuating circumstances for anything. But that doesn't make the general principle that it's wrong to hit people against their will false. I don't think you can say that a principle isn't valid just because there might be some situation where another principle (like self-preservation) might take precedence.

Quote:

_I know, I spend considerable time and effort training first my reflexes, and then refining my judgement so that I may hopefully interact appropriately in my environment. I spend a lot of effort undoing all the abolute programming I got as a little one._

_It inhibits the development of judgement to tell kids that these are rules and this is the exception. I find that it cerebralizes the whole process. When facing a situation, we often spend precious time going through our checklist about if X is good? bad? is this the rule or the exception? Would I be bad for taking care of myself by X? Is that selfish of me, to stand up for myself?_

_It's crippling. And all this stuff can be sorted out in an instant if we are able to relax and feel, listen to the silence, hear our intuition instead of the parental programming that shouts over it._

_I owe my son not interfering with his own inner knowing. His connection with God. That belongs to him, and will serve him better than anything I can impose on him. That's his real safety and protection_.
On this we'll just have to agree to disagree. Intuition is great and has very useful elements but it isn't everything. Personally I'm glad I was taught and chose to learn self-control over instinct. I have a lot of really bad instincts.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Well, my son doesn't seem to know that he can't fly, or that he can't avoid sleep!







Just don't think the distiction is such an important one. Like I said, let's represent all "limits" for just what they are.

---

Quote:

I don't think you can say that a principle isn't valid just because there might be some situation where another principle (like self-preservation) might take precedence.
If there is an exception then it just isn't _principle_.

Quote:

On this we'll just have to agree to disagree. Intuition is great and has very useful elements but it isn't everything. Personally I'm glad I was taught and chose to learn self-control over instinct. I have a lot of really bad instincts.
Then we are not talking about the same things.

---

I don't really feel like going for another round of the same, so I'll just refer back to the previous posts in the thread...


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
That is a good point aira, and one I was going to bring up as well. That is my issue with teaching "WE DON'T _____ " or "Doing such and such is WRONG".

Children, especially small children are very much creatures of black and white logic. I don't want to teach my children that hitting for example, in every circumstance is wrong. There may be a situation where they have to hit for self defense for example. I won't teach them it is rude to scream, but rather, say "I don't like to be screamed at, Johhny doesn't like to be screamed at" (whatever) because there may be a situation where they will be able to, or have to scream. I don't want to frame my explanation of things with the statements of "except when, if this happens, well if this situation arises, it's okay."

I would rather explain things to my daughter in the context of the situation at hand. I honestly don't feel that by saying "Johnny doesn't like to be hit" she is going to think, gee whiz, well, Suzy might, and haul off and hit Suzy. I don't think my child is hell bent on hurting people as some posters seem to present in their examples. I may explain something like "most people don't like to be hit" in that instance, but I am not going to place value judgements on my daughter. I will not say to her "Hitting is BAD and WRONG!!!" ....because as you pointed out Aira, not in the context of martial arts, or in self defense, or even in the game tag, where though it be gently, you are hitting someone to *tag* them.

Of course anything can be parsed and asked "well what about this case? What about that? What if you were stranded on a desert island?" etc. When I was in Sunday school one of the things the class did to amuse ourselves was try to come up with hypothetical circumstances to try to get the teachers to say that a rule wouldn't apply in that case. We came up with some pretty creative examples. But I belive we were misguided--just because there is some circumstance where one principle takes precedence over another does not make the other principle false or invalid. Which is why I was trying to explain that there are degrees of boundary, like the distinction between a right and a preference.

Quote:

_Furthermore, telling a 2 year old toddler that it hurts you emotionally when they hit you etc, is way manipulative to me. Yeah, if they physically hurt you, feel free to say, *ouch!* that hurts when you hit, I don't like to be hit!* ....but the manipulation of forcing your values on someone else and exploiting their need to be approved of by you by disapproving of their actions in the form of emotional manipulation, is not okay with me._
I agree, or at least that it *can* be manipulative. Which is why I think it's better to say "it's wrong to..." than "I feel sad when you..." At least in moral contexts. I have no problem asking my kids to do things based purely on my feelings and preferences, but I want them to know the difference between those things and moral issues.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I don't agree that it's _principle_.

What is it if not principle? Desire?

Quote:

_Then we are not talking about the same things._
Probably not. I confess I'm a little confused by what you're talking about.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

All I'm saying about that one is that if something doesn't hold up in all cases, it can't be a fundamental or an absolute.

It could be many other things, but then it's situational.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
All I'm saying about that one is that if something doesn't hold up in all cases, it can't be a fundamental or an absolute.

It could be many other things, but then it's situational.

But can't a principle be valid in all cases but sometimes be overridden by another principle? In the self-defense example--non-violence is a principle. Self-preservation is also a principle. In certain rare cases they come into conflict with one another, and people disagree about which should take precedence over the other. Hard-line pacifists would say that non-violence takes precedence over self-preservation. Most other people would not see it that way. But that doesn't mean they aren't both valid principles.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
But can't a principle be valid in all cases but sometimes be overridden by another principle? In the self-defense example--non-violence is a principle. Self-preservation is also a principle. In certain rare cases they come into conflict with one another, and people disagree about which should take precedence over the other. Hard-line pacifists would say that non-violence takes precedence over self-preservation. Most other people would not see it that way. But that doesn't mean they aren't both valid principles.

I agree. And I agree that the thing that we are trying to do is teach our children OUR moral code. So I think you can talk about morality within your own family as an absolute, and when your children are ready for it, maybe that will be the time to discuss how different people have different moral codes. In fact, we do that a little bit already.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

I would like to request that we keep the discussion about the topic at hand and refrain from getting personal. The goal of the forum is to support each other and learn about gentle discipline, not criticize each other.

If you need clarification or have any comments for me, please feel free to PM me before posting again to the thread.

Let's keep this thread about boundaries. Thanks


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quickly, regarding extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation. Going with the ubiquitous hitting example: I don't think that saying "hitting is wrong, we don't it" is any better at producing intrinsic motivation than is saying "I don't like it when you hit me." Personally, my goal in saying "I don't like it when you hit me, because I need for my body to be respected" is to give information (I say "please touch me gently" in order to communicate how I expect/need/want to be treated-giving infomation about my personal boundaries, I guess). I don't think saying "hitting is wrong" provides enough information: my kids have asked me "_why_ is it wrong?"

I think that my children don't like to hit people, that they don't take pleasure in hitting, they do know (on some level) that it's not effective in terms of getting their needs met. I can see plain as day that my kids don't feel good about hitting someone. I think that the reason they hit is that in any given moment they don't have the impulse control or words/skills to respond in a different, more effective way. So really the most effective means of helping my children learn to not hit is to give them information about how others feel about being hit and to help them learn to calm themselves and to help them learn to communicate more effectively.

I am learning that my children are _already_ intrinsically motivated to be responsible, contributing, caring members of our family and society. They enjoy living in harmony with others, they do not enjoy conflict and struggle (though it can't be avoided), they enjoy a loving and gentle relationship, they enjoy contributing and accomplishing, they enjoy learning-all this is already there. They simply need the maturity and skills to act on the motivation that is already there. Do they also enjoy getting their own needs met and having things the way they want them? Yes, like all of us-and, as for most of us adults, it feels better to them when they are getting their needs/wants met in harmony with those around them, rather than at the expense of those around them. I think there's probably a better way to say this, but I don't know how.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

: slegd


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Quickly, regarding extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation. Going with the ubiquitous hitting example: I don't think that saying "hitting is wrong, we don't it" is any better at producing intrinsic motivation than is saying "I don't like it when you hit me." Personally, my goal in saying "I don't like it when you hit me, because I need for my body to be respected" is to give information (I say "please touch me gently" in order to communicate how I expect/need/want to be treated-giving infomation about my personal boundaries, I guess). I don't think saying "hitting is wrong" provides enough information: my kids have asked me "why is it wrong?"

I think that my children don't like to hit people, that they don't take pleasure in hitting, they do know (on some level) that it's not effective in terms of getting their needs met. I can see plain as day that my kids don't feel good about hitting someone. I think that the reason they hit is that in any given moment they don't have the impulse control or words/skills to respond in a different, more effective way. So really the most effective means of helping my children learn to not hit is to give them information about how others feel about being hit and to help them learn to calm themselves and to help them learn to communicate more effectively.

I am learning that my children are already intrinsically motivated to be responsible, contributing, caring members of our family and society. They enjoy living in harmony with others, they do not enjoy conflict and struggle (though it can't be avoided), they enjoy a loving and gentle relationship, they enjoy contributing and accomplishing, they enjoy learning-all this is already there. They simply need the maturity and skills to act on the motivation that is already there. Do they also enjoy getting their own needs met and having things the way they want them? Yes, like all of us-and, as for most of us adults, it feels better to them when they are getting their needs/wants met in harmony with those around them, rather than at the expense of those around them. I think there's probably a better way to say this, but I don't know how.
Once again sledg, awesome post! I totally agree


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
FWIW, I have learned that I cannot _make_ anyone do what I ask-not even my kids. It is not possible to control another person. And while I probably actually can find some ways to _make_ my kids do some things right now, there will come a time when I can't _make_ them do anything. And making them do something, well that creates a disconnection (however brief it may be) and the more we disconnect the less my kids will value and respect what I have to say and offer. The more we disconnect, the less cooperation there is between us, and the more struggle there is. This I have experienced already, though my kids are still quite young and I admittedly cannot predict what the future will hold regardless of how I parent from here on out.

So I am learning to focus not on making my kids do things, but on communicating with them so that they have the information they need when it comes to relationships with others and to making decisions. When it comes to danger, of course I will physically step in and prevent something dangerous from happening. I will block one child's hands from hitting another, I will grab a child about to walk into the street. If a child tries to hit me, I'll move or block the hit while saying "I do not want to be hit." In the example you gave of your kids running on the sidewalk but not actually in the street, I've btdt. I didn't feel safe with my kids' running on the sidewalk, not at all. So what I said (to my 4 and 6 year old-the two year old still goes in the backpack) was this "When you run on the sidewalk I feel scared, because I'm afraid you might accidentally run or fall into the street and get hurt by a car. I need to know that we're all going to be safe traveling on the sidewalk, so I want you to _walk_." And repeated, and repeated. Did some running, watched them run a little (asking them to "walk, please") and realized it's probably not as dangerous as I'm afraid it is, and within a few days it actually wasn't a problem anymore-they weren't running. I could have said (and actually, I may have said this and realized it was foolish, I can't remember) "if you keep running, we won't walk anymore" but I realized that this was not something I wanted to do-we like to walk, it's good for our bodies and our spirits, it's enjoyable time together, and to just stop walking wouldn't teach them how to be safe walking down the road.

Sorry I could not answer earlier, Sledge. I totally agree with everything you say. How I wish it worked...and it does, with my younger. But for some reason, the eldest gets deeply disconnected - at times - and she then becomes really hard to get a hold of (physically as well as more deeply) for really long stretches of time. The worst comes when her sister decides to imitate her. Then, they cross boundaries with an ease they would never otherwise have had. I know I need to keep the eldest's cup full, but it ain't easy.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gaialice*
I know I need to keep the eldest's cup full, but it ain't easy.

I hear ya. I get that. With some kids it really ain't easy at all.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
I think that my children don't like to hit people, that they don't take pleasure in hitting, they do know (on some level) that it's not effective in terms of getting their needs met. I can see plain as day that my kids don't feel good about hitting someone. I think that the reason they hit is that in any given moment they don't have the impulse control or words/skills to respond in a different, more effective way. So really the most effective means of helping my children learn to not hit is to give them information about how others feel about being hit and to help them learn to calm themselves and to help them learn to communicate more effectively.

I am learning that my children are _already_ intrinsically motivated to be responsible, contributing, caring members of our family and society. They enjoy living in harmony with others, they do not enjoy conflict and struggle (though it can't be avoided), they enjoy a loving and gentle relationship, they enjoy contributing and accomplishing, they enjoy learning-all this is already there. They simply need the maturity and skills to act on the motivation that is already there. Do they also enjoy getting their own needs met and having things the way they want them? Yes, like all of us-and, as for most of us adults, it feels better to them when they are getting their needs/wants met in harmony with those around them, rather than at the expense of those around them. I think there's probably a better way to say this, but I don't know how.

Okay, I'm going to play the devil's advocate a little bit here. Sledg, I always really love your posts, and I also love your viewpoint of assuming positive intent.

However, I personally believe that dynamics can arise in families where children are hitting for more reasons than the ones you have listed. And I think that needs arise in children that we cannot meet, or sometimes even help them meet. There are a lot of things that children have to do for themselves. And I think that it can help protect children from hitting each other if their parents make a very strong stand against violence.

I don't know if I'm describing this very well, so I'm going to try and give an example.

There are often threads here about children who are in a hitting phase, that are frequently hitting their siblings or what have you. I agree, somewhat, that these children probably don't like hitting. But I also believe that part of the reason children don't like hitting is because it is not socially acceptable, and they are socially sanctioned for it (in many different ways), and children are hard-wired to learn what is socially acceptable. AND, I believe that some children resort to hitting more frequently because it works for them, because it gets their needs met, so to speak. If parents are sending an unclear message about hitting, like the pp's friend who ignores her child's violence, the child may rely on it more as a first resort. Because it works, especially with younger children.

And here's my most controversial statement. I can remember being a child and hitting my siblings, and I did like it. In a way. It was easy to not think about their pain. It was easy to mock them when they cried. I don't think I was an evil child, I see children do this all the time. But I think part of growing up is trying that out, being mean and seeing what happens. Seeing how it feels when you hurt someone else, and when children are young, I don't think it feels that bad (for the perpetrator).


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

I see what you're saying, Sarah. I agree that there are many reasons why children hit, but I really think that with the exception of those times when a child is experimenting to see what happens (which is not unheard of) that a child who is hitting is experiencing an urge that is natural and the result of (yep, I'm gonna say it) an unmet need (and quite likely a lack of impulse control or other skill).

Quote:

AND, I believe that some children resort to hitting more frequently because it works for them, because it gets their needs met, so to speak.
Yes. So if the child's needs are met in another way, the child won't have to resort to hitting.

Quote:

If parents are sending an unclear message about hitting, like the pp's friend who ignores her child's violence, the child may rely on it more as a first resort. Because it works, especially with younger children.
Yes, and no. Yes an ambiguous response doesn't help a child learn to refrain from hitting. But really, if the child is using hitting as a way to get their needs met then is the answer to take a stronger stand against hitting, or to ensure that the child's needs are met? IME, the hitting doesn't stop until the need is met. And of course, skills have to be learned as well.

I agree that it is probably true that part of the reason kids don't really enjoy hitting is that it's socially unacceptable. I also think a big part of the reason kids don't like to hit is that being social creatures, they like to connect with others-and hitting promotes disconnections, not connection.

I can remember "liking" hitting my siblings, because it was a release-my needs weren't being met, I wasn't being listened to, and because it is a human urge I lashed out. And there was, honestly, some satisfaction in that-but not much, because it never really solved any problem and because I did love my sister it did feel bad also. I'm inclined to think that if we had learned better problem-solving and communication skills, with less focus on "hitting is wrong" and more focus on empathy and listening and meeting needs, we would have relied more on those skills/strategies and less on hitting.

Quote:

And I think that needs arise in children that we cannot meet, or sometimes even help them meet.
I think in this case it's not our strong declaration that hitting is wrong that is going to best protect anyone, it's the development of empathy and the information we as parents give our kids and the communication, problem-solving, and coping skills we help kids learn that are the best protection against violence.

And I'm thinking that I guess I don't understand exactly what's meant here by parents not taking a strong stand against hitting (except for the mentions of parents not responding or responding unclearly). Is it a stronger stance to say "never hit, hitting is wrong" than to say "he didn't like being hit, it hurt his body, let me help you solve this without hitting"? I think that in my every day interactions, when I focus on how that other person felt and focus on teaching my child alternative ways of handling a situation I _am_ taking a pretty strong stand against using violence (even if I don't say "hitting is wrong"), and am pretty strongly promoting solving things in a more peaceful way-in no small part by dealing with my child peacefully myself. KWIM? I'm not saying my way (er, the way I aspire to) is better, just that maybe don't be so quick to write it off as not strongly showing a child that violence isn't the way.

Time to go.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Great post sledg...again
















I agree with this statement a lot:

Quote:

think that in my every day interactions, when I focus on how that other person felt and focus on teaching my child alternative ways of handling a situation I am taking a pretty strong stand against using violence (even if I don't say "hitting is wrong"), and am pretty strongly promoting solving things in a more peaceful way-in no small part by dealing with my child peacefully myself. KWIM? I'm not saying my way (er, the way I aspire to) is better, just that maybe don't be so quick to write it off as not strongly showing a child that violence isn't the way.

Time to go

I will go further to say I don't think most people like or respond well to value judgements on their actions. I mean, something someone does may be *wrong* to you, even to them, but it doesn't help the situation (imo) by telling them THAT WAS WRONG!!! I just feel that it doesn't accomplish much, with children or adults.

Suppose I had a friend over to my home who for instance, smacked her child in front of me. I don't allow that in my home, I feel personally it is wrong to hit children, but in my approach I will be seeking a gentle, effective, peaceful way to make my stance known. I think it would be more effective and gentle to say to said friend, "I realize you are frustrated friend, but I don't allow hitting in my home. Let me make you a cup of coffee and let's all cool off for a moment, sound good?" (or something similar, just using an example). I don't think it would do anyone any good to say "THAT WAS WRONG FRIEND! WE DON'T HIT!" To me, that sets up an immediate adversarial situation where said friend feels on the defense and like I am making a judgement of her (which I would be).

So, some people may not see the difference between "I don't like to be hit, I like to be touched gently" while demonstrating a gentle touch -- or saying "hitting is wrong", but I see a big difference in how a child may percieve said statement.

It is not my aim to shame my child in any way, and it is just my humble opinion that telling my child they are wrong or hitting is bad or other value judgements, is shaming to them, even if it is a *soft* shaming. Now, before the responses come, I am not suggesting that my child won't ever do anything that I *percieve* as wrong in the context of this discussion, however, I just don't see how pointing out her failings gets me closer to helping her become the person she is meant to be. I would rather focus on treating her how I like to be treated when I have said or done something "wrong". I would rather help the offended party communicate -- (Are you okay Suzei? etc) "Suzy does not like being hit, she seems upset." I *may* even go as far as saying that depending on the situation -- but I wouldn't make a blanket statement about something being "wrong and bad"...especially morally, because as we all know, that is subjective.


----------



## Ayala Eilon (Apr 8, 2006)

I agree about action rather than words. But, boundaries are also understanding your child's limits and respecting them. I would not put a child in a setting that brings his aggression out. He isn't ready. It isn't fair. I learned this approach from Aldort's book, Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves. I learned that instead of insisting on a setting that doesn't work and struggling to fit the child to it, I can be kind to the child and to myself by listening and noticing what does and doesn't work.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I will go further to say I don't think most people like or respond well to value judgements on their actions. I mean, something someone does may be *wrong* to you, even to them, but it doesn't help the situation (imo) by telling them THAT WAS WRONG!!! I just feel that it doesn't accomplish much, with children or adults.

Suppose I had a friend over to my home who for instance, smacked her child in front of me. I don't allow that in my home, I feel personally it is wrong to hit children, but in my approach I will be seeking a gentle, effective, peaceful way to make my stance known. I think it would be more effective and gentle to say to said friend, "I realize you are frustrated friend, but I don't allow hitting in my home. Let me make you a cup of coffee and let's all cool off for a moment, sound good?" (or something similar, just using an example). I don't think it would do anyone any good to say "THAT WAS WRONG FRIEND! WE DON'T HIT!" To me, that sets up an immediate adversarial situation where said friend feels on the defense and like I am making a judgement of her (which I would be).

So, some people may not see the difference between "I don't like to be hit, I like to be touched gently" while demonstrating a gentle touch -- or saying "hitting is wrong", but I see a big difference in how a child may percieve said statement.

It is not my aim to shame my child in any way, and it is just my humble opinion that telling my child they are wrong or hitting is bad or other value judgements, is shaming to them, even if it is a *soft* shaming. Now, before the responses come, I am not suggesting that my child won't ever do anything that I *percieve* as wrong in the context of this discussion, however, I just don't see how pointing out her failings gets me closer to helping her become the person she is meant to be. I would rather focus on treating her how I like to be treated when I have said or done something "wrong". I would rather help the offended party communicate -- (Are you okay Suzei? etc) "Suzy does not like being hit, she seems upset." I *may* even go as far as saying that depending on the situation -- but I wouldn't make a blanket statement about something being "wrong and bad"...especially morally, because as we all know, that is subjective.

I wouldn't advocate saying it in a punitive or shaming way, just as a statement of fact. I wouldn't say "it's wrong to hit people; people have a right not to be hit" any differently than I would say "the grass is green." To me they are both neutral true statements.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I was little, maybe 5 or 6, I used to recreationally torture my younger cousin. I would pull him away from the adults.... I wasn't trying to get any needs met, it was just fun. Today of course I'm embarrassed at the memory of what a demon-child I was. Fortunately my cousin is a very forgiving man who doesn't hold my demon-child self against the adult I am now. But I certainly didn't have that good motivation. I do today, but that's because of a conscious choice on my part.

I would disagree here -- what if the adults had been paying enough attention so that you couldn't have done this? What if an adult had been 'filling your cup' by playing with the two of you together?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
A 3 yr old isn't immoral when he hits his playmate any more than he's immoral when he mis-remembers the alphabet. But he needs to learn and be taught.

This is waaay waay beyond the scope of this thread, and we still haven't helped the poor OP -- but, this gets to the notion of 'original sin'. I would argue against that -- no a 3 year old isn't immoral, but it's because s/he doesn't have the impulse control, not because s/he needs extrinsic rules to not hurt people.

I can't believe that a 3 year old really wants to hurt someone. It's that s/he can't think of anything better to do, can't take another person's perspective and realize BEFORE the action what the consequences are, and they can't control their impulses. None of that is moral for me. All of that is developmental, and it's part of my job as a parent to help give my child other strategies (using words, and HOW to use them), and to keep them out oif situations where their lack of impulse control is going to be a problem.

So, if we're crossing the street, my 23 month old needs to hold my hand - because she doesn't have the impulse control to stop if there's a car coming. If we're at the park, she's free to run.

Similarly with hitting, with little ability to control impulses and no ability to take another's perspective, I'm going to rely more on action, not explanation to keep my child from hitting. I will explain too, but it's short and sweet and most likely AFTER I've dealt with the behavior "be gentle. I don't like to be hit."

When a child is little and hits repeatedly, then it's my job to set a boundary first by preventing her from hitting if I can (saying "be gentle"/stopping the hand), and second by separating her from the victim if prevention doesn't work. Until she develops reliable impulse control (and my 23 month old ain't got it!), I need to do those two things. I won't do a time out at this age because she won''t 'get it'. But I will sit her on the couch to remove her from her brother or walk away if she's hitting me. I will remind her to be gentle. I will shadow her and sit next to her while she plays so I can catch that hand when it's going back and teach her that hitting is not allowed. I will step out with her in a group situation that's become too much for her.

Finally, I think it pays to remember that kiids don't reason like we do either. This I think is where setting boundaries *only* verbally fails - and it's how gd gets a bad rap. My one year old insisted on try to put large lids on small pots and vice versa because she honestly couldn't tell by looking that they didn't fit. At age 3, our son played hide and seek by covering his head with his blanket. When our son learned that the busses stop running at 1 am and start again at 5 am, he thought that the bus drivers ALL worked until 1 am, slept for 4 hours and started again at 5 am. Our explanations of shift work made no sense to him.

So for that reason, I don't expect them to understand that 'MiKayala doesn't like to be hit." and use that as intrinsic motivation not to hit. Not before about 4 or 5 at least. That doesn't mean I won't say that, so as to try to teach it, but it's not my major way of setting that boundary. Instead, I model the behavior I want, and help direct them to appropriate behavior.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I will go further to say I don't think most people like or respond well to value judgements on their actions. I mean, something someone does may be *wrong* to you, even to them, but it doesn't help the situation (imo) by telling them THAT WAS WRONG!!! I just feel that it doesn't accomplish much, with children or adults.

Suppose I had a friend over to my home who for instance, smacked her child in front of me. I don't allow that in my home, I feel personally it is wrong to hit children, but in my approach I will be seeking a gentle, effective, peaceful way to make my stance known. I think it would be more effective and gentle to say to said friend, "I realize you are frustrated friend, but I don't allow hitting in my home. Let me make you a cup of coffee and let's all cool off for a moment, sound good?" (or something similar, just using an example). I don't think it would do anyone any good to say "THAT WAS WRONG FRIEND! WE DON'T HIT!" To me, that sets up an immediate adversarial situation where said friend feels on the defense and like I am making a judgement of her (which I would be).

So, some people may not see the difference between "I don't like to be hit, I like to be touched gently" while demonstrating a gentle touch -- or saying "hitting is wrong", *but I see a big difference in how a child may percieve said statement.*

It is not my aim to shame my child in any way, and it is just my humble opinion that telling my child they are wrong or hitting is bad or other value judgements, is shaming to them, even if it is a *soft* shaming. Now, before the responses come, I am not suggesting that my child won't ever do anything that I *percieve* as wrong in the context of this discussion, however, I just don't see how pointing out her failings gets me closer to helping her become the person she is meant to be. I would rather focus on treating her how I like to be treated when I have said or done something "wrong". I would rather help the offended party communicate -- (Are you okay Suzei? etc) "Suzy does not like being hit, she seems upset." I *may* even go as far as saying that depending on the situation -- but I wouldn't make a blanket statement about something being "wrong and bad"...especially morally, because as we all know, that is subjective.

I completely agree with this. When I say "hitting is wrong" or "hitting is unacceptable" there's a very, very good chance that what my child is actually going to hear is "you are wrong" or "you are unacceptable." Children tend to take things very personally, as a judgment of themselves not just a judgment of their actions. So we may not think we're shaming them, but often we are-and unnecessarily, because there are so many other ways to communicate effectively about hitting (and many, many other things in life). And when a child perceives our comment that "hitting is unacceptable" as "I am unacceptable" it shuts the door on empathy and communication and learning. Children, especially very young children, just are not all that able to separate their actions from who they are.

In fact, I know many adults who bristle at being told that something they've done is wrong, who take judgments (however softly we think we're saying it) as personal attacks. And if this is true of so many adults (so, so many adults) then I think it's almost inevitable that a young child will feel the same way-even if they can't articulate it or don't quite undestand what that bad feeling they now have is.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ayala Eilon*
boundaries are also understanding your child's limits and respecting them. I would not put a child in a setting that brings his aggression out. He isn't ready. It isn't fair. I learned this approach from Aldort's book, Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves. I learned that instead of insisting on a setting that doesn't work and struggling to fit the child to it, I can be kind to the child and to myself by listening and noticing what does and doesn't work.

This is a very good point.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I don't believe children are born knowing morality any more than they're born knowing algebra. They have to be taught. That doesn't mean they're born evil or immoral, just ignorant.

Children may not be born knowing their parents or their cultures moral code, but they _are_ (IMHO) born with the innate capacity (note: I said capacity, not fully developed ability) for compassion, empathy, gentleness, and just all-around goodness. I think that all we really have to do is water those seeds of "goodness" in them. When you have a lawn, you can pull weeds like crazy and they'll likely keep coming back unless you water and feed that lawn so that it grows so think and lush that there's much less room for weeds to grow. I think the same goes for people. When you water the seeds of compassion and kindness, etc., there is much less room for the seeds of anger and violence to grow and take hold. I don't have a point to make about this that directly speaks to the issue of boundaries, but the prevailing view of children as somehow, in their ignorance of our moral code, innately drawn to violence/other undesirable behavior is sad. I just don't perceive children this way. Children want to do "well" and when they are able to, they will.

Just my POV. Carry on.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
When I say "hitting is wrong" or "hitting is unacceptable" there's a very, very good chance that what my child is actually going to hear is "you are wrong" or "you are unacceptable." ..... Children, especially very young children, just are not all that able to separate their actions from who they are.

I think this is exactly right. I've heard so many mainstream parents try to emphasize: "YOU are a good person but your BEHAVIOR is bad." That just doesn't work, psychologically, for a child. And probably not for many adults. Its wishful thinking to believe people can separate who they are from what they do.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I can see that kids might not be able to separate themselves from their actions, but you don't have to yell (as all caps implies) that it's wrong and so on. I've heard my son repeat quite gently on the playground to others who have hit that "We don't hit" and I don't think he was repeating any shaming. I like the socialist collective "we" because I feel like it takes the heat off of him a little bit. I've tried the gentler "Susie doesn't like to be hit" and so on and it can feel strangely disrespectful to Susie and somewhat incongruent with the offense just commited against her if I don't take a firmer stance against said aggressive action. I suppose when I have time to explain how we touch and so on, then maybe that is just as firm. But often times I feel like I need to briefer than that because he stops listening if I'm going on about gentle hands. I think there are ways that condemning of the action could be perceived more personally, but I don't see that in the common "That's not OK, we don't hit" statements, assuming they're not said with anger. It's not the most subjective thing to me, in most situations I think it's wrong.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
Children may not be born knowing their parents or their cultures moral code, but they _are_ (IMHO) born with the innate capacity (note: I said capacity, not fully developed ability) for compassion, empathy, gentleness, and just all-around goodness. I think that all we really have to do is water those seeds of "goodness" in them. When you have a lawn, you can pull weeds like crazy and they'll likely keep coming back unless you water and feed that lawn so that it grows so think and lush that there's much less room for weeds to grow. I think the same goes for people. When you water the seeds of compassion and kindness, etc., there is much less room for the seeds of anger and violence to grow and take hold. I don't have a point to make about this that directly speaks to the issue of boundaries, but the prevailing view of children as somehow, in their ignorance of our moral code, innately drawn to violence/other undesirable behavior is sad. I just don't perceive children this way. Children want to do "well" and when they are able to, they will.

Okay, well in keeping with this analogy, which I really like, you do still have to pull the weeds. I agree, the more you do for the grass, the less room there is for weeds. But occasionally one might crop up, and require attention.

I wanted to return to a point you made earlier:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
And I'm thinking that I guess I don't understand exactly what's meant here by parents not taking a strong stand against hitting (except for the mentions of parents not responding or responding unclearly). Is it a stronger stance to say "never hit, hitting is wrong" than to say "he didn't like being hit, it hurt his body, let me help you solve this without hitting"? I think that in my every day interactions, when I focus on how that other person felt and focus on teaching my child alternative ways of handling a situation I am taking a pretty strong stand against using violence (even if I don't say "hitting is wrong"), and am pretty strongly promoting solving things in a more peaceful way-in no small part by dealing with my child peacefully myself. KWIM? I'm not saying my way (er, the way I aspire to) is better, just that maybe don't be so quick to write it off as not strongly showing a child that violence isn't the way.

I think there may be a stronger stance made with the former statement, though tone of voice and body language would influence both. And the more that I have thought about this, the more I've realized that I DO think it's okay to make very strong statements to your children on a few key issues.

For example, we live on a very busy street, and when my dd got mobile and learned to open the door herself, I had a VERY serious talk with her about what could happen if she went out in the street. Honestly, I scared the dickens out of her. One of her first two-word sentences was "Car smash!" which she said in parking lots. And, she has never, never once bolted into traffic or taken her hand away from me in a parking lot.

Now, this might seem shocking, some might say it's cruel to instill fear in my child. However, I feel that 99% of her world is safe. Most of the time she is free to roam, experiment, climb, try, and do what she wants. And she has a healthy respect for traffic and cars.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you are paying attention to your child's needs and filling their cups, and when they occasionally lose it and haul off and hit their sibling, and your response to this is, "Stop! We don't hit! I know you're frustrated, but hitting is unacceptable. Let's move this toy up to the table instead, where the baby can't reach it," you're sending the message that you feel very seriously about hitting and that you feel it is a very grave offense. Will they feel that THEY are unacceptable? Maybe briefly, but I kind of doubt it.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
I completely agree with this. When I say "hitting is wrong" or "hitting is unacceptable" there's a very, very good chance that what my child is actually going to hear is "you are wrong" or "you are unacceptable." Children tend to take things very personally, as a judgment of themselves not just a judgment of their actions. So we may not think we're shaming them, but often we are-and unnecessarily, because there are so many other ways to communicate effectively about hitting (and many, many other things in life). And when a child perceives our comment that "hitting is unacceptable" as "I am unacceptable" it shuts the door on empathy and communication and learning. Children, especially very young children, just are not all that able to separate their actions from who they are.

In fact, I know many adults who bristle at being told that something they've done is wrong, who take judgments (however softly we think we're saying it) as personal attacks. And if this is true of so many adults (so, so many adults) then I think it's almost inevitable that a young child will feel the same way-even if they can't articulate it or don't quite undestand what that bad feeling they now have is.

In some cases I think this is true, but I think it depends on how it's presented. There's a big difference between yelling "Hitting is WRONG!" in an aggressive tone and saying "it's wrong to hit people; people have a right not to be hit" in a calm, kind, matter-of-fact way. I think tone matters even more than words for the 3-and-under set.

Quote:

_Children may not be born knowing their parents or their cultures moral code, but they are (IMHO) born with the innate capacity (note: I said capacity, not fully developed ability) for compassion, empathy, gentleness, and just all-around goodness. I think that all we really have to do is water those seeds of "goodness" in them. When you have a lawn, you can pull weeds like crazy and they'll likely keep coming back unless you water and feed that lawn so that it grows so think and lush that there's much less room for weeds to grow. I think the same goes for people. When you water the seeds of compassion and kindness, etc., there is much less room for the seeds of anger and violence to grow and take hold. I don't have a point to make about this that directly speaks to the issue of boundaries, but the prevailing view of children as somehow, in their ignorance of our moral code, innately drawn to violence/other undesirable behavior is sad. I just don't perceive children this way. Children want to do "well" and when they are able to, they will._

_Just my POV. Carry on._
Yes, I agree that they are born with the capacity but not the fully-formed ability for compassion, empathy, etc. Just as they have the capacity but not the fully-formed ability for things like reading and math. But I think they're also born with the capacity for selfishness, anger, arrogance, etc. And our job as parents is to nurture the capacity for the virtues and not nurture the capacity for the vices, while still allowing them as much freedom to make their own choices as possible.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I think I agree with this, but could you explain what "filling their cups" means?

Well, that term gets tossed around here occasionally, I guess it's making sure they're getting enough love and attention, feeling like they have a place in their family, value, etc.


----------



## sphinxie (Feb 28, 2006)

I'm just lurking on the GD board because it's something I'm thinking about and processing now for myself--still quite a ways from being a mom.

So I just wanted to add my little contribution. The original question was about whether kids become insecure without boundaries. I think of it this way: When you're carrying a kid, you want to hold the kid firmly. (Without unnecessary constriction.) If one has a very loose grip, the kid might keep falling down. Or even if one barely keeps the kid from falling, the kid has a sense of physical insecurity. While they sometimes need independence, in that moment of holding the kid is depending on you to hold him or her effectively.

So boundaries are similar. Sometimes it works to be loose and floppy; but there are times when appropriate firmness is needed.


----------



## illinoismommy (Apr 14, 2006)

We *definitely* need to set boundaries. I don't let me son run rampant just because we have chosen gentle discipline.







I guide and direct him in a respectful manner, but he knows I mean what I say.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I think I agree with this, but could you explain what "filling their cups" means?

That's a phrase from "Playful Parenting" where Larry Cohen talks about the need for everyone to "fill up" on love/attention, etc. When chidlren misbehave, often their "cup" of love and attention is in need of filling, and yet what punishment does is deplete it even more. So, he talks about the need to keep a child's "cup" full, so that they have more resiliance. I've lent my copy of the book out, and so can't check the quote exactly, but that's the idea.

I maintain that a child who's got enough love and attention will not want to hurt others. And a 3-4 year old at least, will be able to resist the urge. A 2 year old, no, but a 3 year old should.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

You keep stating that you were a demon-child as if it's a fact.

Why is that?

I seriously doubt that anyone here remotely believes that there is a such thing as "demon-children".


----------



## Synchro246 (Aug 8, 2005)

I'm jumping in here not having read all pages in this thread.

I do believe that children need the kind of gentle guidance about likely boundies that other kids have. In all likelyhood the child who was hit or had his/her toy taken away wasn't comfortable or happy with that, you were helping to protect their boundries. I also belive that setting boundries helps protect our children from danger. I think when gentle guidance doesn't work something more than being told may be necessisary- this of course depends on the child.

I also believe that boundries should be used sparingly. I only set boundries that are important to me and that I am willing to consistantly enforce. I think it's silly to set a boundry that doesn't really matter and have your kid disrespect the boundry just because he or she can. ( I was recently angered by someone who said I don't set boundries, when I DO and she sets boundries that are unreasonable and has a child who walks all over her- I wanted to say Dr. Phil style "how's that working out for you?")


----------



## AutumnMama (Jan 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sphinxie*
I'm just lurking on the GD board because it's something I'm thinking about and processing now for myself--still quite a ways from being a mom.

So I just wanted to add my little contribution. The original question was about whether kids become insecure without boundaries. I think of it this way: When you're carrying a kid, you want to hold the kid firmly. (Without unnecessary constriction.) If one has a very loose grip, the kid might keep falling down. Or even if one barely keeps the kid from falling, the kid has a sense of physical insecurity. While they sometimes need independence, in that moment of holding the kid is depending on you to hold him or her effectively.

So boundaries are similar. Sometimes it works to be loose and floppy; but there are times when appropriate firmness is needed.

I really like that analogy; I've never heard it before.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I wouldn't call them demon-children, but I do believe many children have a desire to hurt others, and they need to be taught why this is wrong and unacceptable.

I'd hazard the guess that most of us here think that there is always a reason for children having the desire to hurt others. No one said the desire doesn't exsist - just that there is always a reason, other than that it's just a natural tendancy.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I wouldn't call them demon-children, but I do believe many children have a desire to hurt others, and they need to be taught why this is wrong and unacceptable.

But you actually did call them demon children - at least when talking about yourself. Why would you describe yourself with any less compassion than you would others?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I'd hazard the guess that most of us here think that there is always a reason for children having the desire to hurt others. No one said the desire doesn't exsist - just that there is always a reason, other than that it's just a natural tendancy.

Sure, there's a reason, but not necessarily a justification. Reasons might be: it's fun, it's a power trip, child is angry at the other person, child is frustrated at the other person, child is frustrated at life, etc. It isn't always an unmet need or a lack of impulse control. Sometimes it is, and we as parents should look for that, and we should always be compassionate and respectful. I just think we *also* need to teach them that hurting others is wrong, because they aren't born knowing that and not everyone just picks it up without being taught.

And I'm not sure what you mean by natural tendancy, but I do think that the desire to hurt someone else, especially in anger or frustration, is a natural and innate desire. Again, that doesn't mean children are wrong or immoral for doing this--they don't know any better. But I do think we need to teach them that this isn't acceptable and other ways to express themselves.

Quote:

_But you actually did call them demon children - at least when talking about yourself. Why would you describe yourself with any less compassion than you would others?_
I'm not sure. I wasn't really a demon-child, but I did have a dark side. I still do have a dark side, but it's tempered by my sense of morality and self-control. I only brought it up as an example of how a child might want to hurt others for reasons other than unmet needs or lack of impulse control. I would never call anyone else a demon-child though.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I have a friend (well, we don't really hang out anymore, mostly due to this issue). Anyway, her 7 yr. old son has an Aspergers diagnosis, and behaves really sadistically with other children, especially girls.

When my daughter was a baby he said, "I like her now, but soon she will be a girl, and I will hate her." And he was true to his word. After she hit about age 1, his every interaction with her was about trying to cause her harm. He threw ice at her, bonked her on the head with a newspaper, tried to kick her while she was in my arms.

He is very aggressive with other children, both girls and boys. He tortured a little girl at Witch Camp all weekend last summer, coming back to hurt her again while she was already crying. He threw a rock at a boy's head, hit another with a stick, just constant violence at every turn.

And my friend sets NO limits. When he gets sent home from school for harming others, she takes him to the Children's Museum. He hates when other people have her attention, and physically drags her off from conversations - and she lets him!!

He responds well to time outs, as I found out when he traumatized my daughter all day while we were camping, and I pulled my friend aside to say "You HAVE to give him a time out. Otherwise he is ruining the whole trip." She protested, saying he wouldn't understand, that because he is AS he doesn't understand that just because he can't kick the baby by the car doesn't mean he can't hit her next to the tree.

But she gave him a time-out at the next infraction, and it was the last problem we had with him that evening.

I don't know why that kid hits. She doesn't know why that kid hits. Nobody knows why. It is a big, hard to unfold issue.

If that was my kid I would be doing everything I could to get to the root of it. But in the moment, when he gets sent home from school for harming others, he would go to his room, not the Children's Museum.

I think that would do him a lot of good. This kid is going to extremes searching for some sort of limit, and he is not finding it. I worry for his future.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Yikes. First of all Aspergers doesn't cause people to be violent. Some people with the more severe forms would have a little more problem with impulse control, but it doesn't force people to act violently. So I would say your friend's son's problem is most likely something else.

I would worry for that kid's future too, and the future of those around him. Violent impulses don't just go away if we don't try to control them.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Yeah it's a really hard situation. I mean, the kid seems like he has Asperger's to me (I am really really not an expert). He is brilliant, talks all the time, has a mind for science and numbers and tells wild stories about string theory (something to do with physics), even making commercials up where the string theory pleads its case.

But the violence... yeah. My understanding is the same as yours Brigianna re Aspergers and violence. And for my friend the Aspergers diagnosis is the explanation, the excuse in my mind, for why it's not his responsibility and she cannot change it. And he is REALLY violent.

I worry that he is sociopathic. It's so strange... I feel like he will either be an engineer or end up on the news for some really horrific crime.

I also feel like she is seriously failing him by allowing this to occur, and minimizing it.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

My completely amateur understanding of AS is that it is a constant state of unbearable frustration, without any relief in sight.

If that is so, I'd imagine that kids would all cope with that reality in myriad ways, not excluding violence.

I'm very sorry for that family.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Can you say more aira, about the constant state of unbearable frustration?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

She has been very AP with him his whole life. She nursed til he was 5, I think they still co-sleep, she has been very loving and gentle.

He had some trauma because she and his father split when he was very young, and they had shared custody. He never wanted to leave her, and was basically pulled off her screaming almost daily for several years, coz the father had his "rights" and all.

I don't know if that is the source of his anger? She says he was always a different child, high needs, needed to be held literally all the time, very picky eater as a young toddler (like didn't really eat solids in any quantity til almost 2).

I don't know. But seeing this kid in action, I really feel like if he had some firm limits, things would be better for people around him. And thus better for him. He has no friends, nobody likes him. People have deserted them both because of his behaviour. Hell, I was one of them really. I couldn't deal with his constant attempts to attack my daughter, and felt very personally hurt by her repeatedly allowing that to happen and acting like it wasn't a big deal.

It's a really hard situation. But it has influenced my parenting decisions. My kid needs to know that she is loved and respected, AND she must demonstrate respect for those around her.


----------



## MommyofPunkiePie (Mar 24, 2005)

Wow, Mamas! What a wealth of information to glean over!

To the OP, what I have gathered from this thread is that children need to be aware of boundaries that other people have and be gently taught how to respect them. A parent can suggest boundaries to establish for the child, but it is ultimately up to the child what his/her boundaries are. It sounds as if you are doing what is right for you and your child, and this is how I tend to do things.
I did notice the word *mainstream* and I think that that is where the problem lies. I, too, have mainstream friends, and their whole philosophy on parenting greatly differs from mine. I can choose to try and gently infuse my beliefs into their systems, or I can choose to drop them. I just met a Mama with a four month old, and she said that *already* her son starts to cry when she leaves the room, and that she has to nip it in the bud before he becomes a brat. OMG! Now, I didn't say anything to her then, the subject got changed quickly, but I now know that is an area where I can maybe shed some Continuum Concept light into her eyes, IYKWIM.

And for the other Mamas, I will ask these because I am new to GD and I *think* these would be possible, but I am not so bold to come out and state them as factual.
1. What happens if a parent responds appropriately to the very first hitting incident? Is it possible to not react and therefore curb the impulse to hit in the child? Can that very first response be enough to overcome impulse control? Or is this wishful thinking on my part?








2. How do you feel about giving appropriate items for hitting as substitutions (i.e. pillow, bopper, punching bag) to hitting people, animals, etc.? Coupled with a script such as "I know it's frustrating to want that toy that Joey has, and it makes you feel like you want to hit him to get it. Joey doesn't like to be hit, but here is a [insert acceptable object] and you can hit this all you want." Is this a good strategy? It's not teaching that hitting is wrong, but that there is something more appropriate to hit instead *if* the impulse to hit is *so* strong.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommyofPunkiePie*
I just met a Mama with a four month old, and she said that *already* her son starts to cry when she leaves the room, and that she has to nip it in the bud before he becomes a brat. OMG! Now, I didn't say anything to her then, the subject got changed quickly, but I now know that is an area where I can maybe shed some Continuum Concept light into her eyes, IYKWIM.









What does she plan to do to the baby? How on earth can you teach a child not to cry when you leave the room?

Quote:

_1. What happens if a parent responds appropriately to the very first hitting incident? Is it possible to not react and therefore curb the impulse to hit in the child? Can that very first response be enough to overcome impulse control? Or is this wishful thinking on my part?_








I'm sure it could work for some, but for my kids it took a while. I am a firm believer in repetition as a learning method. I think if you respond *the exact same way every single time* it will in most cases eventually take. What I did was get down on their level, take the hitter by both hands, and calmly but firmly say "Please don't hit [whomever]. It's wrong to hit people." No need to say or do any more than that, or say "I already told you..." or anything like that. Then again I started early, maybe 6-7 months (which I gather most here wouldn't agree with), so of course it took a while. And it still isn't perfect, but I think I was able to teach my kids more impulse control at "unusually" young ages. But for most kids I think teaching impulse control after only one incident is probably wishful thinking. Not that you shouldn't try.









Quote:

_2. How do you feel about giving appropriate items for hitting as substitutions (i.e. pillow, bopper, punching bag) to hitting people, animals, etc.? Coupled with a script such as "I know it's frustrating to want that toy that Joey has, and it makes you feel like you want to hit him to get it. Joey doesn't like to be hit, but here is a [insert acceptable object] and you can hit this all you want." Is this a good strategy? It's not teaching that hitting is wrong, but that there is something more appropriate to hit instead *if* the impulse to hit is *so* strong_.
This is fine. I wouldn't try to teach that hitting is wrong, but that hitting *people* is wrong. Some people believe in teaching kids not to have any aggression at all, and I'm sure that works for some, but for most kids I think that's unrealistic. I think that's unrealistic for most adults.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Warning: complete and utter opinion. Is worth what you paid for it.

I think the impulse to violence is a natural part of human nature. Not only defensive behavior, but punishing behavior too. Now, I'm religious and an odd sort of optimist (Buddhist) which means that I don't think our true ultimate nature is violent.

This doesn't change the "fact" that humans (and other primates) have natural (karmic?) impulses towards violence. Some people have those impulses more than others.

Odd fact (real fact, not my opinion): baboons that take out their stress by being violent towards other baboons have less stress hormones. Food for thought. I am not NOT NOT advocating violence. I abhor violence. But I don't think we can wish it away. Violence serves a purpose. I think there are better ways to serve the same purposes, but I don't agree that violence is odd or an aberration. I use the word violence very generously, here. Toddlers hitting falls under that umbrella.

For kids that don't have strong physical, dominant, or aggressive tendencies, a parent may well be able to nip aggressive behavior in the bud. For other kids, it takes time, prevention, and maturity. Some people struggle with aggressive tendencies their whole lives.

I say this as a mama who has gently raised a spirited, intense, and physical child who at 2.5 LIKES to hit. I've been there with all the techniques I hear advocated on MDC. I have the "Been there, said gentle touches t-shirt." x100. And yet I have a kid who can be breathtakingly compassionate and thoguhtful in one moment, and frustrated and hitting in another. She isn't mentally ill, and she hasn't been mistreated. She's simply a passionate person with a natural tendency to take them out aggressively. I trust that with time and continued guidance she'll grow past this, and find better ways.

For me, it all boils down to different people needing different things. Some children do well with a light touch. Others need more involvement. This doesn't make for better or worse parenting. The best parent is one who compassionately and accurately devises his/her childrens needs.


----------



## Synchro246 (Aug 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dechen*

Odd fact (real fact, not my opinion): baboons that take out their stress by being violent towards other baboons have less stress hormones. Food for thought. I am not NOT NOT advocating violence. I abhor violence. But I don't think we can wish it away. Violence serves a purpose. I think there are better ways to serve the same purposes, but I don't agree that violence is odd or an aberration. I use the word violence very generously, here. Toddlers hitting falls under that umbrella.


FWIW the binobo chimps (we're closer to these genetically than baboons) have sex- lots and lots of primate sex- to reduce stress. They do it with chimps of the same and opposite sex and they often do it before they enter a stressful situation together, as if to solidify bonds. Even the very young do it.
Thankfully (I guess) kids don't do that. It would be embarassing and weird to redirect.

I agree that violence is natural and not abberant. Teaching our kids self control by repeating our selves and our standards is a good way to teach social mannars.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Synchro246*
FWIW the binobo chimps (we're closer to these genetically than baboons) have sex- lots and lots of primate sex- to reduce stress. They do it with chimps of the same and opposite sex and they often do it before they enter a stressful situation together, as if to solidify bonds. Even the very young do it.
Thankfully (I guess) kids don't do that. It would be embarassing and weird to redirect.

I agree that violence is natural and not abberant. Teaching our kids self control by repeating our selves and our standards is a good way to teach social mannars.

Bonobos are fascinating, aren't they? So are chimps. /hijack


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Off topic slightly - but in a kind of "case study" of a single group of chimps (I believe they were baboons or bonobos) when the dominant males (who were the ones doing the aggressive behavior - "posturing," making threats of violence, demanding the best of the group's food, the choice of their females, etc) ate a bunch of tainted food and died (only the aggressive dominant ones at the food because they thought it was a treat and claimed it all for themselves) the whole culture of the group changed. Once the aggressive dominant males were dead, the group became very peaceful, sharing equally, resolving things peacefully (well, usually with sex). The violence disappeared.

To me this indicates less of a biological basis for violence and more of a cultural one. Violence isn't in their genes any more than it is in ours. Although a young child will naturally slap something that is irritating or hurting or annoying him, in a kind of "go away" gesture, to seek out a target or deliberately kick or hit is, in my opinion, a learned behavior.


----------



## katallen (Jan 4, 2005)

I agree with BellinghamCrunchie, that violence is a learned behavior. My dd wasn't around other children until she was almost two and she didn't start any of the violent behaviors like biting and hitting until she started daycare and went around other kids. She also doesn't do a lot of it at school and rarely tries it at home because it is not something that is acceptable and her teacher's and I have made that clear in our reactions. I don't think it is a necessary or natural stage, I think that violence in children is influenced by exposure, personality, and the response they get.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Bumping.

Pat


----------



## robynlyn80 (Jun 18, 2006)

Well I haven't read everything, and I see this is a pretty old discussion.

I think about boundaries when I work with teens who clearly have NO boundaries. They are permitted to do whatever they want. No on ei s watching out for them. No one checks up on them. They come and go as they please. Their parents know they smoke pot and don't even comment on it.

So in THAT regard, looking at that extreme, I firmly believe children need boundaries. Children need to be kept safe by people that are older than them. Partying until 4 am when you are 15 cannot be safe. Smoking pot, not safe. Kids who don't have boundaries get the message that their parents don't care enough about them to get off their lazy asses and enforce some rules in the home.

Kids need a model for acceptable and appropriate behavior, based on the society that we live in. Boundaries do not necessarily mean punishment, time out, etc etc. Boundaries are way more abstract than that.

So yes, I believe kids need boundaries. But I think my definition of boundaries is different than others.


----------



## sphinxie (Feb 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommyofPunkiePie* 
2. How do you feel about giving appropriate items for hitting as substitutions (i.e. pillow, bopper, punching bag) to hitting people, animals, etc.?

FWIW I heard that a study was done that found that therapy like the above, where anger is taken out on a substitute object, increased overall anger rather than decreased it. Of course this was with adults.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
Off topic slightly - but in a kind of "case study" of a single group of chimps (I believe they were baboons or bonobos) when the dominant males (who were the ones doing the aggressive behavior - "posturing," making threats of violence, demanding the best of the group's food, the choice of their females, etc) ate a bunch of tainted food and died (only the aggressive dominant ones at the food because they thought it was a treat and claimed it all for themselves) the whole culture of the group changed. Once the aggressive dominant males were dead, the group became very peaceful, sharing equally, resolving things peacefully (well, usually with sex). The violence disappeared.

To me this indicates less of a biological basis for violence and more of a cultural one. Violence isn't in their genes any more than it is in ours.

Welllll... violence isn't in the genes of the survivors, but it may have been in the genes of the alpha chimps. The pattern goes in this way: the aggressive male gets all the sex, whether because he's scaring away the other males or the females are choosing him for practical purposes or both or whatever other reasons. Thus over time the group slowly breeds to be more aggressive, especially the males. However the non-aggressive males still manage to mate now and then, so that contributes towards genetic variety.

To me it indicates that there's the influence of both genetics and culture going on. Either way we are predisposed to a lot of things, not just one trait at a time.


----------



## harrietsmama (Dec 10, 2001)

aira said:


> I look at it this way: boundaries are things that a person sets around himself or herself -
> 
> I agree with this quite a bit, I am still figuring out how to help my kids own their own space etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Gosh, I'm surprised that people think violence is always learned. I think it is a completely natural, primal human response, just like the impulse towards "mine," and conversely, the impulse towards love and attachment. I am 100% sure I am not the only parent whose toddler started hitting at some point without ever having seen it modeled (even by other kids).


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
Gosh, I'm surprised that people think violence is always learned. I think it is a completely natural, primal human response, just like the impulse towards "mine," and conversely, the impulse towards love and attachment. I am 100% sure I am not the only parent whose toddler started hitting at some point without ever having seen it modeled (even by other kids).

I believe the concept of "mine" comes from a focus on lack. I don't believe that violence is innate to humans, but there is a long history that has embraced this belief. It doesn't fit with my beliefs of unity and abundance in the Universe, however.

Pat


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
I am 100% sure I am not the only parent whose toddler started hitting at some point without ever having seen it modeled (even by other kids).









No modeling of hitting anywhere in our boy's life (not even TV, and at the stage it happened he was with me 24/7 so no daycare influence), but he went through about a 4-month hitting stage just before he turned 2. I'd like to think that my gentle (but firm) response, validation of emotions, and redirection to other outlets made it shorter than it would have been othewise, but who knows? We'll see what happens with DD in the coming months, if she does the same or similar. She's WAY more feisty than DS was at this age, so I'll be interested to see what happens.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I believe that hitting, like any behavior, is a message about underlying needs which are unmet. I believe that by labeling and judging them as "violence" or "unacceptable" *creates* the adversarial relationship. Instead, methods of redirecting, as a partner working to meet the underlying needs, toward mutually agreeable solutions, eliminates the need to label and judge the behavior.

Pat


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I think toddlers hit because they don't understand their emotions and how to communicate them, and hitting seems like the only way to communicate their feelings at that point. I don't think it's because they are violent or that they will become violent adults if something isn't done about it.


----------



## l_olive (Jan 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Bumping.

Pat

Pat, may I ask why you often bump very old (and usually very contentious) threads?

What are you hoping we'll get out of having the same argument a second time?

I'm not snarking, I'm truly wondering why you do this.

--Olive


----------



## harrietsmama (Dec 10, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I believe that hitting, like any behavior, is a message about underlying needs which are unmet. I believe that by labeling and judging them as "violence" or "unacceptable" *creates* the adversarial relationship. Instead, methods of redirecting, as a partner working to meet the underlying needs, toward mutually agreeable solutions, eliminates the need to label and judge the behavior.

Pat

This makes so much sense, if only I could muster up the patience to never yell at my children or get really angry. I've been doing tons of work on myself in hopes to be a better parent every day. I know it works better when I can redirect with a hug and create a moment where Crispin can talk to me about what is happening for him. I would love to homeschool and that was my original intent, but I just can't handle the 24/7 thing up here in a tiny rural very religious area where I can't find any crunchy mama friends! I had a mama group in my previous area that was very full and busy and there were always other kids to do stuff with. I also miss being close to the DIA, DSC, Cranbrook, the zoo.... All these things helped me create some structure and fun without locking them to a classroom. I do like the teachers I have encountered thus far, they are meeting Harriet's very advanced reading not only with appropriate material, but offering her books above her level if she's interested, and she's given many opportunities to do independent projects, like studying elephants which she did from many directions for at least 2 months last year. She gets to have girl friends she sees every day and really enjoys school. Sigh. We'll see how Crispin does, he may do fabulous, or it may be too much for him. We'll see. At home they play outside for hours, making all kinds of stories together. It's so fun to watch and listen. They get along better when they have some time apart. so far it's working ok, no matter how much of an unschooler heart I have.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *l_olive* 
Pat, may I ask why you often bump very old (and usually very contentious) threads?

What are you hoping we'll get out of having the same argument a second time?

I'm not snarking, I'm truly wondering why you do this.

--Olive

I see the same questions and assumptions posted again (usually by folks new to the forum), and the older thread has dissected and discussed the nuances and seems informative to the goal of Gentle Discipline. Actually, I do consciously avoid the "very contentious" ones. This one seemed quite mild and civil, ime.

Pat


----------



## edamommy (Apr 6, 2004)

so am I understanding that these incidents keep happening, even after your gentle warnings?

I would make a point to revisit the incident after the playdate is over. I realize he's only 2, but I do remember when my son was 2 he really "got it" when we discussed incidents after the fact as well as the "reminder" during the fact. He may not "respond" but he'll hear you.

Also, after saying "please don't hit, it hurts..." maybe add something like... "if you want so-and-so's attention you can just wave (or say his name, or whatever". Give him an alternative to just NOT doing the action. The same w/ taking toys. let him knowhe needs to give it back right then but maybe add "and maybe if you give it back to him then YOU can have a turn too"... so that he understands that the "payback" for making the pc decision is a positive one.


----------



## elizawill (Feb 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I believe that hitting, like any behavior, is a message about underlying needs which are unmet. I believe that by labeling and judging them as "violence" or "unacceptable" *creates* the adversarial relationship. Instead, methods of redirecting, as a partner working to meet the underlying needs, toward mutually agreeable solutions, eliminates the need to label and judge the behavior.

Pat

i don't agree. i don't think there's always an underlying need. sometimes young toddlers hit just for the sake of hitting.....especially older babies. i've been smacked many times in the face and it wasn't violent, but it sure was entertaining to the hitter. they weren't modeled this by anyone....and they weren't hitting me because they lacked in having their needs met....it was just something new they had discovered & were trying it out. it's so funny to see mom's face when i hit it & hear her yelp


----------



## harrietsmama (Dec 10, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *edamommy* 
"please don't hit, it hurts..." maybe add something like... "if you want so-and-so's attention you can just wave (or say his name, or whatever". Give him an alternative to just NOT doing the action.

This is an important point that I think some folks miss, or it's easy to forget if you're flustered in the moment by what your angel is doing


----------



## Polly3 (Sep 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *elizawill* 
i don't agree. i don't think there's always an underlying need. sometimes young toddlers hit just for the sake of hitting.....especially older babies. i've been smacked many times in the face and it wasn't violent, but it sure was entertaining to the hitter. they weren't modeled this by anyone....and they weren't hitting me because they lacked in having their needs met....it was just something new they had discovered & were trying it out. it's so funny to see mom's face when i hit it & hear her yelp









yep.

I've been smacked and bitten by dd for her entertainment purposes too. She had never seen this modeled either..not until recently. Heck she's been biting and hitting a long time before she ever saw it modeled anywhere. She used to think it was hilarious when Mommy yelped. She's also done the biting and hitting in anger. For us, at least, it has helped for me to say "we don't hit" or "we don't bite" So far, that seems to have clicked for her. When she is upset, she will sometimes throw things or scream or lie down on the floor and put her face in her hands but those expressions of frustration and anger are ok by me. She is free to express herself as long as she isn't physically hurting anyone.

Is violence innate? Well, anger and frustration sure as hell are part of the package. So, what do you do with it if you're a baby or a toddler? Anger and its ilk are definitely innate and violence the way I see it, is one of the first and fairly common reactions to that extremely uncomfortable emotion.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *elizawill* 
i don't agree. i don't think there's always an underlying need. sometimes young toddlers hit just for the sake of hitting.....especially older babies. i've been smacked many times in the face and it wasn't violent, but it sure was entertaining to the hitter. they weren't modeled this by anyone....and they weren't hitting me because they lacked in having their needs met....it was just something new they had discovered & were trying it out. it's so funny to see mom's face when i hit it & hear her yelp










Wait! Did you meet my son?!?!







I just posted about this in Toddlers (my son hitting).

It's so frustrating!!

And...to answer the OP...I do believe that children need boundaries. Gentle, loving boundaries - yes, but boundaries nonetheless.


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

how else can you teach someone to think inside the box, you need to put them inside a box. </sarcasm>


----------



## mommy2AandZ (Feb 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eloise24* 
Having boundaries doesn't mean you aren't GD. If you don't allow your child to run in the street, you are setting a boundary. If you don't want your child smashing the china on the floor, it's a boundary. If you don't give your child boundaries, you are telling them that they can do anything they want, and they probably will feel insecure, that you don't love them enough to keep them from harm.

So yes, you can have boundaries and still GD. Just enforce the boundaries with gentleness and love.









completely agree!! Children need some boundaries, they need to be kept safe, keep others safe, ect. Within appropriate boundaries....... and gd kids will thrive. Remember there are a lot of things you can say yes to, not everything is a no.


----------

