Violence amongst children when GD is used ... Your thoughts? - Page 2

[mamazee]

Violence is a natural human trait. We have to learn how to deal with our anger and violent tendencies. It is my opinion that ignoring violence in the world doesn't help children learn to deal with their own natural violent feelings or the violence around them. And there is violence around them even if they never see a single TV show or movie. (I'm thinking of the first time my older daughter saw a child get spanked and asked me why "that mommy" was hitting "her sweetie." "Mommies don't hit their sweeties! Why would she do that?"

I don't buy weapon toys, but I don't stop pretend weapon play. I do let the kids watch kids TV, though they watch very little (they have little interest in TV), and play some video games (little interest there as well), and while there is no serious violence I'm guessing there is probably some cartoonish violence in some of it? They haven't become violent with each other or others so I don't think it's hurting them.

I don't think GD means that we shelter our children from any view or knowledge of violence, only that we are not violent with our children. If one of my kids were to hit another child, I would absolutely address it, but the older one seems very gentle. The younger one is gentle too but it young enough that she hasn't learned to control her impulses as well. They seem to get along well together and not fight but that might be due to a large age difference.

I don't see any conflict between martial arts and GD either, though my kids aren't in martial arts.

I think the difference we have is that you see children as naturally gentle and who get filled with violence, where I see all people, including children, as having a natural amount of violent feelings, and I feel they need to not feel shamed over those natural feelings, and they also need to learn how to deal with those natural feelings and control any impulses they might have. In my view, to ignore violence would be to ignore part of their nature.

There is an article about gun play here at MDC. I think it's called something like "Bang Bang You're Dead." I'll have to look around for it and put a link here.

[mamazee]

Apparently Mothering doesn't have that article up anymore. :

[rachelsmama]

Originally Posted by mamazee 

I think the difference we have is that you see children as naturally gentle and who get filled with violence, where I see all people, including children, as having a natural amount of violent feelings, and I feel they need to not feel shamed over those natural feelings, and they also need to learn how to deal with those natural feelings and control any impulses they might have. In my view, to ignore violence would be to ignore part of their nature.

 

  And you expressed it very eloquently!

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by mamazee 


I think the difference we have is that you see children as naturally gentle and who get filled with violence, where I see all people, including children, as having a natural amount of violent feelings, and I feel they need to not feel shamed over those natural feelings, and they also need to learn how to deal with those natural feelings and control any impulses they might have. In my view, to ignore violence would be to ignore part of their nature.

Nicely put.  

I think that this is the fundamental difference between the two lines of thought. This is the key to understanding other points of view, though you might not agree the premise.

Bolded italics are mine.  I think this is an important point, and possibly the reason so many AP parents do not see the dichotomy between their non-violent parenting policies and the behavior they tolerate in their children.

[pickle18]

Originally Posted by mamazee 

I think the difference we have is that you see children as naturally gentle and who get filled with violence, where I see all people, including children, as having a natural amount of violent feelings, and I feel they need to not feel shamed over those natural feelings, and they also need to learn how to deal with those natural feelings and control any impulses they might have. In my view, to ignore violence would be to ignore part of their nature.
 

I love the way this is stated.  I think this is also in line with GD - listening to/recognizing kids' feelings, repeating them back to them, helping them label them, guiding them to a better way of dealing with them, etc.  I also agree wholeheartedly with what others have said about violent outbursts being a direct result of inability to process strong emotions any other way.  

Reflecting on my own childhood, I remember playing all kinds of violent or scary games that would probably disturb me to see DS play, but it was vitally important to me as a child to process all the fear-based messages about the world, and things I had heard (about kidnappings, murders, etc.).  Kids absorb so much, even if you limit access to the worst of it - they'll still catch a bit of news, or overhear adults talking - or even learn things about "stranger danger" in school.  Incorporating these things into play was a major way of processing it and "owning" the threat.  Sort of like the story that Stephen King started writing scary tales to get over his fears, because his mother told him if he could make it up in his head, it didn't really exist.

To me, pacifism is all about equipping people with the ability to make other choices when they WANT to wring someone's neck - but it starts with meeting people where they are, with acknowledging they really want to wring somebody's neck!  So I agree with SweetSilver - that part, about not shaming, is crucial.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Interesting thread!  I think there's a lot here - Martial arts (fighting or not? I say not), whether children should be able to choose if they want to play a fighting game (yes, they should), whether violence play is because of exposure or if it is children working out either natural tendencies, rough housing - it good or bad?                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

I'm guessing, OP, your DC has not taken any age specific martial arts. My DC did and it was not at all focused on violence, fighting, or self-defense. It was age appropriate and more about balance, focus, fitness and etc. I'm sure programs vary but I don't think lumping them all together is the way to go.                  

I do agree with you 100% that children should have a say in what they want to play and I suppose I would pay even closer attention to this if there was violent play going on - though I like to think that I always helped kids respect this idea regardless of the type of play.                                                        

Does anyone remember reading some of the philosophical theories on fairy tales? There was a movement in my town about 10 years ago to sanitize fairy tales for kids. Gone were the kids pushing the bad witch into the fire and etc. Then I read this great article that talked about how kids have those fears and thoughts and they need avenues to express them and ways to understand that they are not freaks for thinking these things.  

So, here I suppose I'm realizing that my DC has been exposed to violence since an early age by way of fairy tales. I really am OK with that and feel like that was something good for her - something that she needed. She enjoys her bow and arrow and has played occasional fighting games. I just think it's childhood fantasy...and serves a purpose the way lots of other pretend play does.    
                                               

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Originally Posted by ilovemygirl 

 My child is having a very hard time finding playmates that can sustain interest in any kind of play that doesn't include violence. We have had to leave places and even end friendships over this. For example, we had an occasion where a child just would not stop shooting and throwing things at my child. It was clearly upsetting my kid. My child made it very known this was bothersome and when the child wouldn't stop was starting to get scary. The parent actually told us to toughen up our kid and that we should think about teaching our child how to be less sensitive. When I'm living in a world where a child is considered weird for NOT wanting to shoot someone or be shot at, I begin to question why we are putting so much value into violent play. 

This doesn't sound like the type of violent pretend play that I have seen - it sounds more like toddler impulse control. I think there is a world of difference between "pretend play" and a child acting out aggressively. How old was this child?  As far as that parent's reaction...well, that is pretty crappy, IMO. 

[skycheattraffic]

Just to add to the martial arts thing, the big rule that Sensei ALWAYS had for the kids was that karate stayed at the dojo. He reminded them every week that when they leave the dojo, they represent not only themselves but also their parents and their sensei to the outside world. It was ok to practice form and kata at home peacefully but never ok to use on another person. There is something very liberating about channeling all your frustration into a well executed technique. It's high intensity movement combined with balance and control. Sparring was always about control. You could make light contact with the torso but had to stop an inch away from the headgear or receive a penalty. Btw what people seem to forget is that besides the punches and kicks, karate (as well as other MA) teach a ton of blocks. With training, your reflexes sharpen and if you work hard you will be able to PREVENT being hit. Just my own experience.

[The4OfUs]

Originally Posted by skycheattraffic 

Just to add to the martial arts thing, the big rule that Sensei ALWAYS had for the kids was that karate stayed at the dojo. He reminded them every week that when they leave the dojo, they represent not only themselves but also their parents and their sensei to the outside world. It was ok to practice form and kata at home peacefully but never ok to use on another person. 

This was our experience, too - my kids went to a "Junior" class from 4-7 years old, and every week they were reminded that karate is NOT about kicking and punching your siblings/friends/classmates, AT.ALL, and in fact that was disrespectful to the concept of karate entirely.  They had a pledge they recited every class, with a similar message and pledge about respecting themselves and others.

[phathui5]

It has been my experience that "kids hitting, pushing, roughhousing" is a normal phase during childhood. With hitting, or any other rough play where someone is upset by it we redirect them, using time out if they can't stop themselves after receiving verbal redirection. If they're roughhousing but they're enjoying wrestling/playing, we let them do what they want.

[ilovemygirl]

Originally Posted by phathui5 

It has been my experience that "kids hitting, pushing, roughhousing" is a normal phase during childhood. With hitting, or any other rough play where someone is upset by it we redirect them, using time out if they can't stop themselves after receiving verbal redirection.

I wonder what kind of message this sends to the child who was hit without provocation. Not to be dramatic but ... If you were sitting at your desk at work and a coworker just walked over and punched you in the face and your boss handled it by saying to the other person they should go sit and reflect on it a minute and told you this is a normal part of work that isn't fair but you should accept anyway - how would you feel?

In GD and hopefully just in life, we respect our children as intelligent, precious and individual people. The argument has been made by everyone in this thread that children are capable of maturely handling and processing even the most violent and disturbing images in media. So why wouldn't they also be capable of having mature feelings about being physically harmed in the way an adult does? I would dismiss someone as a lunatic for telling me that being harmed is a normal part of being around people and I should just accept it.

I guess I just really don't understand this line of thinking. If someone attacked me while I was out for a walk or shopping or something, they would be arrested for assault. Regardless of if I was terribly harmed or not. Regardless of if they were angry about something or having a bad day. That doesn't justify an action like that. Other than self defense, we live in a society where it is completely socially unacceptable to hurt other people. Why should we wait to teach our kids that until adulthood? I just cannot fathom why we have such a different set of standards for children.

[mamazee]

We're talking about toddlers, aren't we? The answer is: Because they lack impulse control. It seems unfair to me to expect a toddler to behave like an adult in an office. We all teach our kids to control impulses, but it doesn't happen instantly. They shouldn't be treated like adults who should know how to control their impulses if they are still learning.

[Nightwish]

It seems that there are three very different kinds of situations here:

1. toddlers deliberately hitting other kids

2. roughhousing, where both parties enjoy kicking and hitting but not (in my experience) with the intent of harming the other

3. what some consider *violent* sports (martial arts, hockey etc.)

I think all are normal, but only the first one in unacceptable. I can't imagine not roughhousing with my kids.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Originally Posted by ilovemygirl 

The argument has been made by everyone in this thread that children are capable of maturely handling and processing even the most violent and disturbing images in media. 

Am I misunderstanding this or taking this out of context? I know I certainly have not read anything of the sort on this thread. I do think that a case can be made that fairy tale type violence can be an important and valuable way for some kids to process their thoughts and feelings but I do not think ANYONE thinks children should be exposed to violence in the media without adult support (if at all and certainly measured carefully to the child's age and temperament).  

How old is your child? 

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Also, I'm not sure if Pathiu5 was talking about redirecting after a round of pretend fighting became undesirable for one child and a parent having to redirect to help them move past that kind of play of if that is her general approach to young children hitting. I can say that in general I think you will find that parents addressing hitting children to be complicated for a lot of parents. We want to be firm but understanding. We want to model compassion and sometimes figuring a way to be somewhat "outraged" if our children hit is a as complicated as it gets, IMO. This is a tough thing and one that I think maybe you don't "get" till you've been there. 

But I really can't stress enough that I think pretend fighting is very different from how we approach a young child hitting out of frustration or even "play" in a less developed way.  

I predict a day in your future where your daughter and your twins are joyfully running outside playing a game that is active and deeply engaging to them that you are fondly watching...until you realize that they are doing a form of pretend fighting. At which point your will probably realize is perfectly innocent and not damaging or the result of poor parenting. 

[rachelsmama]

Originally Posted by ilovemygirl 

I wonder what kind of message this sends to the child who was hit without provocation. Not to be dramatic but ... If you were sitting at your desk at work and a coworker just walked over and punched you in the face and your boss handled it by saying to the other person they should go sit and reflect on it a minute and told you this is a normal part of work that isn't fair but you should accept anyway - how would you feel?

In GD and hopefully just in life, we respect our children as intelligent, precious and individual people. The argument has been made by everyone in this thread that children are capable of maturely handling and processing even the most violent and disturbing images in media. So why wouldn't they also be capable of having mature feelings about being physically harmed in the way an adult does? I would dismiss someone as a lunatic for telling me that being harmed is a normal part of being around people and I should just accept it.

I guess I just really don't understand this line of thinking. If someone attacked me while I was out for a walk or shopping or something, they would be arrested for assault. Regardless of if I was terribly harmed or not. Regardless of if they were angry about something or having a bad day. That doesn't justify an action like that. Other than self defense, we live in a society where it is completely socially unacceptable to hurt other people. Why should we wait to teach our kids that until adulthood? I just cannot fathom why we have such a different set of standards for children.

I don't think anybody here suggested the kid getting hit should have their feelings dismissed.  I've met parents who dismissed the feelings of the kids their kid hit, but while they claimed to practice GD, those particular parents didn't practice any discipline.  The way it's normally handled among my GD friends is to separate the kids and diffuse the situation, but also make sure that the child who was hit is apologised to, and validated, so something like "I"m sorry my child hit you.  My child shouldn't have done that.  Would you like a hug?" or if the other child is remorseful, the apology would be direct. 

There are jobs where getting hit is an unfortunate reality.  Nurses who care for people with dementia get hit sometimes. Daycare workers get hit sometimes.  Staff at rehab clinics get hit sometimes.  If a kid hits me, I don't like it, and I make that clear, but I don't hold it against them.  Why don't I hold it against them?  Because I'm mature enough to understand that they are struggling with self control.  And the emotionally mature kids I know seem to also understand that.  Knowing when to forgive and move on is a valuable skill.

[pickle18]

Originally Posted by mamazee 

We're talking about toddlers, aren't we? The answer is: Because they lack impulse control. It seems unfair to me to expect a toddler to behave like an adult in an office. We all teach our kids to control impulses, but it doesn't happen instantly. They shouldn't be treated like adults who should know how to control their impulses if they are still learning.

I agree with the above wholeheartedly - and would only add that small children are also still learning to take others' viewpoints into account.  They literally cannot understand how that would make the other party feel - they only understand their own feelings.  They can't put themselves in the other kid's shoes.  Impulse control, empathy and logical reasoning all take time (and parenting) to develop.

Originally Posted by rachelsmama 

I don't think anybody here suggested the kid getting hit should have their feelings dismissed.  I've met parents who dismissed the feelings of the kids their kid hit, but while they claimed to practice GD, those particular parents didn't practice any discipline.  The way it's normally handled among my GD friends is to separate the kids and diffuse the situation, but also make sure that the child who was hit is apologised to, and validated, so something like "I"m sorry my child hit you.  My child shouldn't have done that.  Would you like a hug?" or if the other child is remorseful, the apology would be direct. 

Again, I absolutely agree.  I haven't seen a dismissal advocated - I think there is a world of difference between acknowledging that kids hit (as many posters have done) and saying, "...so just expect it and deal with it."  It has been said before on this thread, too, that you may not SEE the discipline - that to avoid shaming, to allow for calm reflection, etc. it may largely take place in private at a later time.  I think everyone has agreed that if an adult tells your kid to just "toughen up" (as you mentioned in an example) - that is unacceptable, and decidedly not GD.

Because here is where I think GD is coming from - it's coming from a place of recognizing emotions and helping kids find better means of expressing them.  Helping them understand WHY they hit, label those feelings, pave a better path for the future, etc.  There are two kids involved, after all - the emotions of the kid who hit another are as valid and deserve as much understanding as the emotions of the kid who was the victim.  The kid who was injured needs to feel like an adult is handling the situation and trying to improve it - like the wrong is acknowledged (as you said, someone in an adult scenario would be arrested - kids at least need a parent apology).  The kid who hit another needs his emotions understood - he needs help finding a better outlet, or a work around so that he doesn't get to the hitting point in the first place - he needs the root cause addressed.

I think the parallel to adults only takes you so far because kids are learning, and this is how we teach them - through trial and error and getting better at understanding and dealing with their emotions.  That's why a similar offense in adults might have harsher societal consequences - because by the time you are an adult, you're supposed to have figured this out better.

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by ilovemygirl 

I wonder what kind of message this sends to the child who was hit without provocation. Not to be dramatic but ... If you were sitting at your desk at work and a coworker just walked over and punched you in the face and your boss handled it by saying to the other person they should go sit and reflect on it a minute and told you this is a normal part of work that isn't fair but you should accept anyway - how would you feel?

I don't think it's fair to compare toddlers who are still learning to adults who (should have) learned how to act a long time ago. And I guess I am curious how you want other parents to react. What is the "punishment" or "discipline" that would signify to you that the parents are making a big enough deal out of it?

Originally Posted by ilovemygirl 

In GD and hopefully just in life, we respect our children as intelligent, precious and individual people. The argument has been made by everyone in this thread that children are capable of maturely handling and processing even the most violent and disturbing images in media. So why wouldn't they also be capable of having mature feelings about being physically harmed in the way an adult does? I would dismiss someone as a lunatic for telling me that being harmed is a normal part of being around people and I should just accept it.

I think only one poster said that children can maturely handle violent media. I'd say the majority here don't agree and many of us very actively limit or even eliminate violent/disturbing media from our children's environment.

Originally Posted by ilovemygirl 

I guess I just really don't understand this line of thinking. If someone attacked me while I was out for a walk or shopping or something, they would be arrested for assault. Regardless of if I was terribly harmed or not. Regardless of if they were angry about something or having a bad day. That doesn't justify an action like that. Other than self defense, we live in a society where it is completely socially unacceptable to hurt other people. Why should we wait to teach our kids that until adulthood? I just cannot fathom why we have such a different set of standards for children.

So do you want children to get arrested for assault if they hit someone for stealing their blocks? I guess I just don't understand where your line of thinking leads. I don't think that anyone is saying it's acceptable for children to deliberately hurt each other. But we aren't in the habit of arresting 3 year olds.

You can & should teach your children that it's not OK for anyone to hurt them. This is definitely a lesson better learned now than in adulthood. But we can also teach our children this in a way that is more compassionate & non-judgemental. DS has a friend who sometimes bites him... literally out of nowhere, no provocation or obvious reason. He asks me why Jane bites him, and I have explained to him that some little kids are still learning how to be gentle... same way I would explain if he asked why a new puppy bites him. I do also tell him that it's not OK for anyone to hurt him, and if someone is hurting him or scaring him that he should call for me or come get me right away and I will help him. But I don't tell him Jane is a bad kid or should be arrested or anything!

[ilovemygirl]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy 


I don't think it's fair to compare toddlers who are still learning to adults who (should have) learned how to act a long time ago. And I guess I am curious how you want other parents to react. What is the "punishment" or "discipline" that would signify to you that the parents are making a big enough deal out of it?

So do you want children to get arrested for assault if they hit someone for stealing their blocks? 
 

I'm not comparing toddlers. I realized it wasn't in my original post so I wrote a second post where I made very clear that I am talking about older children. And yes, I feel a school age child who has reached the age of reason (which is seven) should be capable of knowing it's wrong to harm another and never doing so. Barring a medical issue or impairment this should not just be known by the child but I believe it should be expected of them. My frustration is coming from finding this not to be the case. In real life, I know many people who justify this kind of behavior away the same you would with a one year old, i.e. they are still learning and can't help themselves. I don't find this acceptable.

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by ilovemygirl 

I'm not comparing toddlers. I realized it wasn't in my original post so I wrote a second post where I made very clear that I am talking about older children. And yes, I feel a school age child who has reached the age of reason (which is seven) should be capable of knowing it's wrong to harm another and never doing so. Barring a medical issue or impairment this should not just be known by the child but I believe it should be expected of them. My frustration is coming from finding this not to be the case. In real life, I know many people who justify this kind of behavior away the same you would with a one year old, i.e. they are still learning and can't help themselves. I don't find this acceptable.

Sorry for misunderstanding the age issue. I think that if a 7-year-old is routinely hitting others, there very well may be some kind of emotional or medical issue going on, or home life issues... From my (admittedly limited!) experience, most kids are able to stay in control most of the time once they reach school age. And you wouldn't always know whether a child has any special needs. I definitely don't go around telling people IRL that DS has special needs & only a few of my very closest friends have any idea what's going on with him.

However, after re-reading your second post, I think what you're referring to is not so much outright acts of violence, but rather, violent play? Am I correct here? There is a spectrum of "violence" I guess, from outright hitting out of anger etc., to rough play/gun play/etc., to peaceful play. It sounds like you are more comfortable staying on the peaceful end of the spectrum (and I don't blame you!) but there is a fine line regarding when play becomes too rough and different parents have different thresholds here. My personal threshold is when someone is saying, "NO" or "STOP" or is clearly in pain/distress.. then the other child needs to stop, no matter how violent or peaceful his actions may have been. So hugging can be just as inappropriate as hitting in my view. I have a friend who's less focused on the other kid's reaction and more focused on the play themes themselves -- she's not comfortable with any violent play themes, even if the "victim" is enjoying it too. I have another friend who doesn't care what the kids play, and doesn't always notice or jump in quickly if someone is getting hurt or scared. It's not so much that she doesn't care if her kid is hurting someone but it seems more like she has just given up or feels helpless. With her, I find I just have to supervise the kids' play more than I normally would, and help DS assert himself (or speak for him). If the kid keeps shooting at him or scaring him, I just tell her, "Jane, that's hurting DS, you need to stop." And make sure she stops, physically remove my kid to safety if necessary (if the other mom doesn't remove her kid). I will be honest that sometimes I am not up for that level of play supervision/intervention so we do tend to get together less with that family. I would also say that although her mom seems to consider herself GD, what I witness of her discipline is a little harsher than I am comfortable with and I wouldn't exactly classify it as fully GD. Most of the GD parents I know do have a much lower tolerance for any violence.

I think people on this thread are agreeing with you more than you realize, it's just that there are so many issues (toddlers vs. 7yo's, hitting vs. fun roughhousing) that the conversation is getting confused.