DS is spiralling out of control - Page 2

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by Delacroix

I do believe in the discipline aspect of GENTLE DISCIPLINE. I'm not entirely sure what discipline means in the context of CL; it seems that the concept of discipline runs counter to the philosophy of CL. That's fine of course, I'm not judging that...I'm just expressing some confusion. This is the gentle discipline board, and yet it seems like any mention of discipline is upsetting to some. I hope you can appreciate that this might be a little confusing.

I think what is confusing is that some people equate discipline with PUNISHMENT. It sounds like you are of this mindset. ??

Even the name of this board could further confuse that issue--giving the impression that this a place to discuss "gentle punishment."

But, I don't think many here (and I'm guessing Peggy O'Mara--based on what I've heard her say on the matter) think that is the case.

I think many of us are coming from a place where discipline means TEACH.

I guess it could be mean gentle teaching...that'd work.

Anyway, so when you're advocating punitive measures (like time-out and taking away cherished items), people here are going to challenge that. And ask what that's teaching the child. And ask how that's gentle or furthing the bond of attachment. Or if that's meeting the child's needs. Etc.

And I *do* think that if people are posting suggestions they ought to be able to defend them as logical or ethical or whatever.

There is lots and lots of support out there for treating children badly. Where it's not questioned and people are applauded for doing it. There are many people who read this forum who are learning a new way or have never even encountered this way--for their sake, I think it's vital to flush out the merits of this way and point out the pitfalls of the "old way." I certainly don't think it's personal! It's just discussing ideas.

[WuWei]

Discipline at its root is teaching, not punishing. Imposing pain upon our children through the act of punishing is not gentle in any way that I can conceive.

There is a huge difference between having personal boundaries and imposing consequences. The act of calculating that which someone cherishes and withdrawing it is not gentle in any way that I can conceive, nor is it setting a personal boundary. I believe strongly in honoring my own boundaries, I do not expect others to "make me feel good" by imposing actions upon them by my power, either physically or emotionally. That violates their boundaries. And it does not model self-discipline, nor teach them a more gentle way.

You will find by reading in this forum, that the common goal is away from punishments and inflicting pain upon our children in a shared effort to learn gentle ways of interacting with our children. I hope that you hang around and read. We are all learning more and more alternatives to punishments, which is what most of us learned modelled in our childhoods.

Choosing to disregard your own uncomfortable feelings is merely one way to cope with a situation. Imposing that others need to disregard their own feelings is invalidating of their emotional experience, based upon my own childhood experience of the same.





Pat

[Delacroix]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom

Anyway, so when you're advocating punitive measures (like time-out and taking away cherished items), people here are going to challenge that. And ask what that's teaching the child. And ask how that's gentle or furthing the bond of attachment. Or if that's meeting the child's needs. Etc.

And I *do* think that if people are posting suggestions they ought to be able to defend them as logical or ethical or whatever.

There is lots and lots of support out there for treating children badly. Where it's not questioned and people are applauded for doing it. There are many people who read this forum who are learning a new way or have never even encountered this way--for their sake, I think it's vital to flush out the merits of this way and point out the pitfalls of the "old way." I certainly don't think it's personal! It's just discussing ideas.

Understood regarding discussion. I do not recall any questions directed towards me, only commentary regarding my remarks. This is fine with me, I'm not soliciting questions, although I do not object to answering any.

Discussion appeals to me. Negative exchanges lacking in mutual respect do not. I do not, for example, feel the need to defend my perspective. Explaining it is another story.

I do believe in consequences, as do others here, if I am not mistaken. I believe I saw a natural consequences thread. If I am mistaken, then I'm on the wrong board, and I apologize for the intrusion and will refrain from posting here again. I would not post my thoughts on the CL thread, as I feel that would be very rude and disrespectful.

I do believe that discipline is teaching. I do believe that consequences are an extremely valuable aspect of teaching, as they are real world based. In life, there are positive and negative consequences to our choices. My goal is to teach my children in a way that will prepare them to successfully navigate their way in the world in which they will live. It is fine if you do not like that approach of course, I would just request that you recognize that this is my choice. I put it out there for others to evaluate, so of course I expect you to come to your own conclusions regarding my perspectives. If you dislike them, I certainly do not expect you to embrace them.

For me, there is no contradiction between being gentle with my children and being the authoritative parent that I am. (Please distinguish between authoritative and authoritarian!!! I am the former, and not the latter.) I appreciate your opinion that these two stances are contradictory, but I do not share it.

[Delacroix]

Originally Posted by scubamama

Discipline at its root is teaching, not punishing. Imposing pain upon our children through the act of punishing is not gentle in any way that I can conceive.

There is a huge difference between having personal boundaries and imposing consequences. The act of calculating that which someone cherishes and withdrawing it is not gentle in any way that I can conceive, nor is it setting a personal boundary. I believe strongly in honoring my own boundaries, I do not expect others to "make me feel good" by imposing actions upon them by my power, either physically or emotionally. That violates their boundaries. And it does not model self-discipline, nor teach them a more gentle way.

You will find by reading in this forum, that the common goal is away from punishments and inflicting pain upon our children in a shared effort to learn gentle ways of interacting with our children. I hope that you hang around and read. We are all learning more and more alternatives to punishments, which is what most of us learned modelled in our childhoods.

Choosing to disregard your own uncomfortable feelings is merely one way to cope with a situation. Imposing that others need to disregard their own feelings is invalidating of their emotional experience, based upon my own childhood experience of the same.





Pat

Pat, there is, in my mind, a difference between tolerating the emotions of upset and anger and invalidating them. To me, validation does not mean that I must do everything I can to prevent the negative feelings. My children are free to express their feelings without the expectation that my decisions are always going to be based on those feelings. And I do not believe that the only means by which I can validate those feelings is to base all of my decisions on them.

We have a large family journal, in which members are free to write whatever they want to express. (Respectfully.) Many times issues are worked out in the journal before they ever get to me. OR, I am able to use the journal to resolve an issue before it ever gets to the consequences phase.

I certainly don't seek to cause negative emotions in my children, and when I feel it's necessary to take a course of action that I know will upset them, I don't enjoy it. (That's a major understatement.)

I do it because I believe that I am choosing the courses of action best suited to teaching my children. I recognize that you clearly disagree with my assessment regarding appropriate teaching methods, and I respect that. Maybe it's possible for you to respect my right to disagree, even if you do not respect my opinion. I hope so. I'd like that.

I want to clarify that when I impose consequences on my children, it does not 'make me feel good'. It's hard. As my mother always told me, 'the right thing is usually the hardest thing to do'. Now that they are older, my children are usually, but not always, involved in the discussion surrounding appropriate consequences. I'd say that, now, they suggest appropriate consequences more often than I do. My children are involved in establishing the rules of the household and the division of labor. Many of the rules we have are rules that they REQUESTED, to establish and protect their own boundaries. (I have four girls who can clash, IYKWIM.)

The boundaries that I seek to establish are usually surrounding the way family members will treat one another or conduct themselves in the household. (Respecting each other's things, doing chores, fighting with siblings and so forth.) Sometimes the boundaries are my personal boundaries, but this is not always, or even usually, the case.

As my girls have grown older and have developed their reasoning capacities and their ability to empathize, there are fewer situations that call for consequences. My oldest daughter hasn't required much in this respect for over a year now. I hope that this is the same for all of my girls as they grow up.

So that's how it is in our house. I don't mean to tell you how to run yours; this is just a glimpse of a different perspective.

[InDaPhunk]

Originally Posted by Summertime Mommy

DS just turned 6, and his personality has almost completely changed. He is mean to his sisters, he does not listen to anything I say, and has violent outbursts over any minor setback. I really don't know what to do about it. My whole family says "Oh, he needs a good spanking." But I know that is not the proper path. He has always had temper tantrums, but now they have escalated. I have read tons of discipline books and tryed every method I know of but nothing is working and I have resorted to time outs for lack of a better alternative. Today was an especially trying day, but it made me realize that something needs to be done. Here is what happened:
Koeby came how from school and things were okay until he asked his sister to play with him and she refused (not uncommon) he then broke down and started crying hysterically, so I offered to play with him instead. He picked out a board game and we started playing it, but when my game piece passed his, he got mad, started crying and threw all the game pieces on the ground. I told him that I was not going to play with him if he continued to act that way, and of course he did, so I stopped playing the game, which made him freak out and run to his room,. I went to try and talk to him, but he did not want to talk to me so I said well come talk to me when you want to. He finally decided to come out of his room and when he did he saw his sister eating some banana bread and asked if he could have some, I told him I would like for him to talk to me first, and he got angry again and threw the books he had in his hands at me. I told him he needed to go back to his room and then I went in there and we talked for a while and he was better. Fast forward to after dinner and I was letting them slide around the kitchen floor with wet hand towels, (to have fun get the floor clean) and he decided to start swinging the wet towel over his head. I told him 3 times to stop and he never did, finally I told him that he couldn't play in the kitchen anymore, but before I knew it, he was right back there anyway and swinging the towel around, which in turn, broke a martini glass sitting on the kitchen counter. This was just a few minutes ago. I sent him to his room again, because I was so angry I couldn't even think straight. I just don't know what to do. Writing this out, I see that I am sending him to his room way too much, but natural consequenses haven't been working and his behavior seems to get progressively worse. He is even being mean to the cat and his baby sister, not hurting them, but harassing them unmercilously. I am at a loss. Please help!!!

, Mama. Is it possible that DS is bored or understimulated, maybe lacking some structure? Whenever I was understimulated as a child I tended to act out to entertain myself. It was almost like I couldn't help myself. Sounds dumb, I know, but in retrospect I can see that I needed a lot more to do. Whenever I had plenty of physical activity this happened far less (and still does ). Your son sounds like he feels "all over the place" if that makes any sense. It also sounds like he might need expectations for behavior spelled out for him and spelled out often, like before each activity. That way things are clear from the beginning and he has less responsibility for determing his own behavior. Does that even make any sense? The issue doesn't sound like one of discipline or consequences or anything like that, more like something internal from DS. I'm not sure that talking things out is the way to go because it might make him feel too much like the ball is in his court, and his court doesn't seem to be working out too well, kwim?

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by Delacroix

I do believe in consequences, as do others here, if I am not mistaken. I believe I saw a natural consequences thread.
......
I do believe that discipline is teaching. I do believe that consequences are an extremely valuable aspect of teaching, as they are real world based. In life, there are positive and negative consequences to our choices.

Natural consequences are not things that the parent *does* to teach children. They are things that happen *naturally*--without any intervention.

That recent thread re. Nat'l Consequences was an interesting one--flushing out nat'l. consequences and logical consequences (consequences orchestrated by the parent which are "logically" related to the issue at hand).

Logical consequences (as far as I can tell) are still punishments. And I don't believe they teach children the things that we think they teach them (like responsibility, manners, punctuality, obedience, etc.). I think they more often teach distrust, dishonesty, resentment, anger, etc. YMMV

[Delacroix]

In the case of a child who is 'spinning out of control', I'd be willing to go beyond logical consequences. That's just me.

Under the 'alternatives to punishment' sticky I found:

# Use natural consequences.
# Use logical consequences.

Again , I'm not trying to persuade anybody. Just saying what works for me.

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by Delacroix

I do believe in the discipline aspect of GENTLE DISCIPLINE. I'm not entirely sure what discipline means in the context of CL; it seems that the concept of discipline runs counter to the philosophy of CL. That's fine of course, I'm not judging that...I'm just expressing some confusion. This is the gentle discipline board, and yet it seems like any mention of discipline is upsetting to some. I hope you can appreciate that this might be a little confusing.

I'm not CL (I stive for mutually agreeable solutions, but I'm not opposed to coersion in certain situations), I'm all for discipline, but I am quite opposed to using behaviorism on a child. I think using punishments/rewards completely undermines their attatchment to their parents, and their innate sociality. Behaviorism doesn't teach them to do the right thing for the right reasons. They don't LEARN from behaviorism, the way that we hope they will learn about life, and how their actions affect others.
The very BEST that you can hope for with behaviorism, is that dc will stop doing what you want them to stop because they don't want to get punished. And that they will eventually (weeks, months, years???) figure out what the REAL reason is for stopping the actions.
It doesn't work with the way they are wired to learn about what is socially acceptable and what's not. It doesn't TEACH them to be a part of a social group, a family. It teaches them that everything is about THEM. So, perhaps, it is teaching a bit of self centeredness in there too.
"If you hit the dog, you get a time out." - so dc refrains from hitting the dog, because HE doesn't like what will happen to HIM.
"The dog doesn't like to be hit. If you want her to move, just say MOVE!" - dc refrains from hitting the dog, and tells her to MOVE. He does that because he knows that the dog doesn't like to be hit, and he knows a better way to get what he was trying to accomplish in the first place.
Both will take some repeating. But I have to imagine that the latter will mean more to dc in more situations.

I will say that I think kids want parents to be in charge. In a position of authority. But I also think that parental authority is just there. It is something that kids know, and experience. It doesn't need to be forced.
I did a lot of thinking about this, and I think that it comes down to this- a child does not want a parent to LOOK TO THE CHILD FOR GUIDANCE.
So, children don't want the responsibility of making their own decisions (what do you want to eat, what color cup, etc) UNLESS they make those decisions of their own volition. (I try not to OFFER choices, but I respect ds's desires if he expresses a preference. The fact that he has a say, is always there, but unspoken. So he doesn't feel the pressure of NEEDING to make a decision.)

I also don't quite understand how a child who is out of control, and who desires to be in control of himself, will be benefitted by being punished. If he's out of control, how is dangling some threat in front of him going to help him get back in control?
If it is true that an out of control child doesn't want to feel that way (which I agree with), then there will be a way to HELP him gain control of his feeling, and there will be a way to HELP him find an acceptable way of expressing those feelings.

[Magella]

I think Delacroix's position is common, and I think it arises from the attitude that "children do well if they WANT to" which implies that one need only find the right motivation and children will do well. And if they aren't doing well, you keep imposing rewards and punishments until they want to do well. I don't think this is a conscious assumption, necessarily, but it is a pervasive one. It's not a particularly compassionate attitude, and it doesn't consider the full humanity of a child, IMHO.

I think many, if not most, mothers here at MDC have more of a "children do well if they CAN" attitude, which implies that if children have the skills and resources to do well, they will. Thinking skills, emotional skills, language skills, emotional resources and the resource of physical health, etc. all play a huge role in children's behavior. And the teaching of these skills cannot be done by simply imposing rewards and punishments. Rewards and punishments might work to modify behavior, but they don't teach skills and are just as likely to further frustrate and discourage a child who is already having difficulty (and thus are just as likely to not work). Taking the time to address the skills, feelings and needs of a child can teach a child a lot of very important skills and in no way undermines the authority of the parents. And it's much more compassionate.

Just my POV.

[irinam]

I come late to this thread. Many wonderfull replies, I do not have much to add.

One analogy comes to mind (don't remember who used it on this board and I am of course paraphrasing)

If somebody was drowning and panicking and obviously out of control we would not stand there and say "So and so, you need to get a hold of yourself because you are about to loose your priviledge to swim. I am not pulling you out untill you calm down".

We would extend out hand, or life saving device and comfort the person who "lost" it.

THEN, when everybody comes down the "victim" would be the first one to try and come up with ideas to avoid experiencing similar situation.

[LynnS6]

Originally Posted by Summertime Mommy

I told him 3 times to stop and he never did, finally I told him that he couldn't play in the kitchen anymore, but before I knew it, he was right back there anyway and swinging the towel around, which in turn, broke a martini glass sitting on the kitchen counter.

In a safety situation like this, I would go over to him, put my hand on his shoulder (the one that's swinging) and say -- "please stop. when you swing your towel like that it can hit people or break things. are you done sliding or do you want to put your towel back on the floor and slide some more?"

Telling a child 3 times is too many times, in my book. It teaches a child to ignore you the first 2 times you say anything. Second, go over and telling him why, with your hand his shoulder gets his attention, and teaches him the consequences in a loving manner. Third, it gives him a positive option of something to do, which is always easier than stopping something that is fun.

I find that if I focus on what I want my kids to do, and not what I want them to stop doing, life is much easier.

A few more suggestions - make sure he's fed every 2 hours. I think going to be earlier is a great idea. Does he get any one-on-one time with you or dh? Sounds like he needs it.

Also, you might want to look at the books "The Highly Sensitive Child" and "The Out of Sync Child" -- it sounds like when he gets overwhelmed, he has a hard time calming his system down.

[georgia]

I also liked a lot of Kids, Parents and Power Struggles which deals with "emotion coaching." Helping children deal effectively with strong emotions...always an important skill that I'm still learning

[Delacroix]

Originally Posted by sledg

I think Delacroix's position is common, and I think it arises from the attitude that "children do well if they WANT to" which implies that one need only find the right motivation and children will do well. And if they aren't doing well, you keep imposing rewards and punishments until they want to do well. I don't think this is a conscious assumption, necessarily, but it is a pervasive one. It's not a particularly compassionate attitude, and it doesn't consider the full humanity of a child, IMHO.

I think many, if not most, mothers here at MDC have more of a "children do well if they CAN" attitude, which implies that if children have the skills and resources to do well, they will. Thinking skills, emotional skills, language skills, emotional resources and the resource of physical health, etc. all play a huge role in children's behavior. And the teaching of these skills cannot be done by simply imposing rewards and punishments. Rewards and punishments might work to modify behavior, but they don't teach skills and are just as likely to further frustrate and discourage a child who is already having difficulty (and thus are just as likely to not work). Taking the time to address the skills, feelings and needs of a child can teach a child a lot of very important skills and in no way undermines the authority of the parents. And it's much more compassionate.

Just my POV.

Bear in mind that I have never said that discipline alone is sufficient to raise a child, nor have I said that I believe that rewards and consequences alone teach skills or that these alone address emotional awareness and self-control. I'm addressing one small aspect of parenting, not the whole enchilada.

I didn't mean to cause such a commotion. I mistook your approaches as being more in line with my own than they obviously are; it seems unlikely that I would offer my perspective here in the future, as it seems more disruptive than helpful.

I am an authoritative parent. This is my choice based on what I believe to be best for my children, just as your parenting styles reflect what you believe to be best for your children. Authoritative parenting, which came naturally to me before I ever had a name for it, is not the authoritarian parenting so often addressed in this thread. I can understand that for many of you it is not a desirable choice, and I respect that. It is NOT however, the authoritarian upbringing that I experienced on one side of my family. I had a very 'new age' father and a redneck mother. (They were divorced when I was very young, no great surprise!) I'm sure that the two extremes I experienced had a lot to do with my choice for a 'middle ground'.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/special...t/authpar.html

Authoritative parenting, according to Lawrence Steinberg, is the reasonable balance of three major aspects of parents' behavior toward their children-nurturance, discipline and respect.

Parental Responsiveness (love, warmth, nurturance): Parental responsiveness is the extent to which parents respond to the child's needs in an accepting, supportive manner.

Parental Demandingness (discipline, control) Demandingness is the extent to which a parent expects and demands responsible behavior from children.

Granting Psychological Autonomy (Respect) This somewhat complicated sounding concept is increasingly being recognized by scholars to be equally as important as responsiveness and demandingness, particularly as children reach adolescence. This concept helps to clarify parental control, by distinguishing between behavioral and psychological control.

[WuWei]

Quoted from the link

Parents who are responsive but not at all demanding are permissive.

Parents who are equally responsive and demanding are authoritative.

Parents who are demanding but not very responsive are autocratic.

Parents who are neither demanding nor responsive are unengaged.

There is another paradigm that this control matrix doesn't address. It is one of engagement as a responsive, non-demanding resource to little people with authentic psychological autonomy, not "granted psychological autonomy".



Pat

[DevaMajka]

Someone suggested to me, a long time ago, to ask once. After that, you need to find another way to get your point across. I tend to ask twice, in different ways. I figure that one way might not get across, but another might.
So ask once or twice, then go to the child and find another way to get your point across. Sometimes touching them helps. Sometimes trying to really see things from their pov helps. In a safety situation where someone was being harmed, I'd physically stop the child until we could talk about other, more acceptable ways of expressing the impulse.

[Delacroix]

Originally Posted by scubamama

Quoted from the link

There is another paradigm that this control matrix doesn't address. It is one of engagement as a responsive, non-demanding resource to little people with authentic psychological autonomy, not "granted psychological autonomy".



Pat

As anticipated.