Best Use of My Time

I have to remember that conflict resolution is one of the most important things to me as a parent and homeschooler.  

Way back when my oldest was homeschooling, and I was trying to figure out how to manage my time and make decisions about what to teach, I did a "begin with the end in mind" approach where I thought about what things I wanted my adult children to have.  And then planned their education with that in mind.  

To recap, it was 4 things:

1. Basic reading, written communication, and math (I've since dropped math--they seem to figure out the basics of a calculator pretty easily)
2. A sufficient sense of responsibility that allows a person to hold down a job; i.e. show up on time and do your work diligently.
3. The capacity for satisfying and emotionally healthy relationships with a spouse, children, and friends.
4. A non-superstitious relationship to Judaism and Torah (I've since changed it to a love for Torah AND mitzvos, after some missteps in parenting during the teen years)

I've mentioned that physical fighting has gone down and we are seeing a lot of verbal disagreements with raised voices.  One of the things I've always loved about homeschooling is that there is time to slow down and handle these issues.  And what I love about unschooling is it seems like that IS the job.

So now I'm reminding myself not to get swept away by my own projects and the minutiae of running a fair-sized household and not to forget that when I hear the voices raised, I have nothing better to do than to go over to them or call them over to me, help them talk through the conflict, and learn and practice the tools to resolve it.

Sometimes it's nice to acquire more tools for the toolbox

So you think you settle on an approach, and then kids change, or what worked for one kid isn't working for the next, or you change, or you understanding things differently.

Lord knows I moan about being conflicted about unschooling vs teaching until even I am sick of hearing myself.

I want to talk about sibling rivalry for a bit.  When my kids were 5 or 6 years apart, there wasn't that much sibling rivalry.  When my kids were 2.5 yr and 17 months apart, sibling rivalry became part of my daily existence.  I've waxed eloquent about the bullies2buddies methods and how useful they are.  He gives actual scripts to use, which have been very helpful.  I've even written to him with questions and he has helpfully written back.  I stand by this method and I really love it.  I combine it with playful parenting, which means that I try to take aggression as a cue that they need active and playful wrestling/roughhouse type attention.

I have found this to be more robust and more fun and efficient than what I used to do in my twenties, which was to sit the kids down and have them make eye contact and share their feelings and take turns speaking and make sure they both have a chance to talk and feel they are being heard and brainstorm for solutions. (It even is exhausting to type that up.)

And then.  

I'm in a radical unschooling group.  You think I'm unconventional? :-D I don't qualify as a radical unschooler.  These people are fully committed to unschooling not just academically, but as a way of interacting with their children in every way.  This affects bedtime, meals, discipline, and all sorts of areas.  Some of the underlying principles are abundant generosity and respecting your child as a human being.

So I'm reading with interest, and they start talking about sibling rivalry.  Here is a link (with further links on the bottom of that page).  What sparked my interest is how many of them expressed that leaving the kids to deal with things on their own was not something they would do.  A lot of unschooling (contrary to popular assumption) has pretty hands-on parental involvement, having the parent there coaching, helping, empathizing.

Since this is exactly not what bullies2buddies advocates, and since I am apparently exceedingly defensive and a glutton for punishment, I kept reading.

The truth is, even using bullies2buddies I do keep a fairly close eye (looking for these factors).  But I have heard many people speak about how they felt that they were brutalized by unequal sibling situations (my own sister included, with me being the manipulative and obnoxious older sister), so I wanted to see what advice there was.

What I got from it (though it generally astounds me how much I don't grasp in the first few readings of things) is, like the other radical unschooling principles, to approach their conflicts with a genuine desire to hear both children's needs and a strong desire to help them get their needs.

Obviously, in a sibling rivalry situation, two sets of needs are in conflict.

And I still use bullies2buddies in the sense that I don't go to them or stop them while they are fighting.  I'm usually sitting in the same room or close by, and they know they can come to me.  I still use a lot of the same scripts from bullies2buddies.

But now there is an added component.  I really try to understand what is deeply upsetting to each child (as opposed to in the past, where I was mainly focused on finding solutions.  Yes, I empathized, but I never get really worked up about lego like they do).  I hope this attempt to understand naturally gives them the sense that their needs are valued by the family.  I think it gives a different tone to the arguments.  There is a sense of "both of your emotional/practical needs are important.  What can we do?"

This played out a bit yesterday when (naturally, just about 10 minutes before I had to get ready to go to work), Jack came in screaming that he had a lego set that he couldn't build last year, but THIS year he can, but Elazar made a fidget spinner with an important piece.

Basic bullies2buddies script, I didn't get involved, I agreed with Jack that he has rights over that piece.  Jack left.

In comes Elazar, blazing in fury that Jack just took his fidget spinner and broke it.  No warning, no discussion, just grabbed and broke.
Well.  I agree with Elazar that this, too, is unfair and upsetting.

Looking at this in the framework of the radical unschooling, I perceived that both of them make perfect sense.  Both of them have claims.  Our goal is a peaceful, happy home for all members of the family.

Perhaps this is obvious.  It was not obvious to me.  It was not clear to me to view conflicts or sibling rivalry in the framework of a goal of having a peaceful, happy home for all members of the family.

As I said before, obviously not all members of the family can be peaceful and happy at all times.  By definition, if there is more than one person, then there will be conflicts.

But I don't know that it was ever so clear to me to enter conflicts with the idea that each person's peace and happiness is a priority to us.  So if there is a way to work it out and that increases your peace and happiness, that's what we are trying for.

When that is the goal, peace and happiness becomes an abundance mindset, not a scarcity mindset.  Everyone becomes more generous because there is a security that the family goal is as much peace and happiness for every individual as we can work out.

So Elazar agreed that Jack had the rights to take the piece back.  He objected to the manner in which it was done.  I asked Jack to look at Elazar and for Elazar to say how he feels while looking at Jack.  Because Jack knew that his claim of the piece was protected, he was able to look at Elazar and hear his pain and see the effect it had on Elazar that he took the piece so abruptly and without discussion.

Part of the abundance mentality is that Jack readily agreed to rebuild Elazar's fidget spinner.  And to even improve on it so that it worked.

A follow up blow-up occurred when Elazar was not satisfied with how Jack fixed it.  (I even overheard Elazar say to Jack, "Should we work this out later?" because they were in the middle of cleaning up the neighbor's playroom when this argument went on.)

Again, the goal of peace and happiness for everyone is such that Jack agreed to keep trying until he found something that satisfied Elazar.  But it was also agreed by everyone that the original piece--belonging to Jack--was not an option and if that was the only piece that would satisfy Elazar, Elazar would have to compromise.  Jack did try and Elazar did graciously accept a lesser vision of his fidget spinner (albeit one that functioned better).

fighting to completion

We went on a homeschool trip today.  It was a walk through a wildlife preserve, a marsh.  We had enough Jewish homeschoolers for two groups, littles and bigs (so exciting how our homeschool community is growing), and everyone got binoculars.

(As a sidenote, I am still not able to comfortably go on trips with my brood.  In the 20 minute, blissfully short drive home, my little ones managed to dump the entire garbage bag on the floor of the car.  All the carefully collected orange peels and squeezed oranges and spit out parts.  And wrappers...)

We were on the littles walk, and I'm not sure what happened exactly because I was looking at an egret, but Jack (6) suddenly started shrieking.  He had dirt on his face.  He and Aharon (5) were screaming at each other and crying and hitting each other.  There was a fight over a fruit roll up and someone was throwing dirt on or putting his finger on someone's eye or touching someone or taking something.  Lots of screaming.  They started chasing each other around, smacking each other, kicking each other, etc.

I eventually realized they were arguing over whose fruit roll it is, assured them that I had packed one for each of them as per their requests when I had asked them the night before what to pack, and that I had packed each child's food in a separate bag inside the large bag I was carrying.

Despite Jack being reassured that his food was safe, he was still upset at Aharon.  Or was it Aharon who was still upset at Jack.  They kept attacking each other.

Everybody stopped and turned to look.  I'm kind of used to this going on in the home, so I hadn't reacted or gotten involved (other than to reassure them that they both had a fruit roll up) but seeing everyone frozen around me, I realized how intensely they were fighting.

The ranger stepped in when they were writhing on the floor throwing gravel at each other.  She told them to stop throwing the gravel.  I don't know if she was concerned about the environment or she just wanted them to stop fighting.

I stepped over to her and said something like, "They just need another minute to finish fighting" or something like that.  I wasn't explaining myself well and I don't think I conveyed what I was thinking and I wasn't even sure exactly what I was sensing.

I've been thinking about it, trying to clarify my thoughts.  Why didn't I step in and what was I waiting for.

Basically, I've sensed a pattern in their fights.  Children who are more or less evenly matched or who live together and get into frequent disagreement have a sense of when the fight is over, and both parties tend to agree.

**Irony: I just got interrupted from writing a post on sibling rivalry because J came in and poured a bucket of water on A because A stole his kippah and jumped on him because J kicked him because A...  Forget it; I'm not qualified to write a post on sibling rivalry.  Well, I'm qualified to write a post on the phenomenon but not the solution.***

So what ends the fighting interaction?

They hit back and forth and finally one agrees that the other gets the final smack.  Sometimes the smaller one knows he is just going to get smacked harder.  So it goes like this: he smacks..then his brother smacks him slightly harder...then he feels upset so he smacks again to even it out...but his brother smacks him slightly harder...so he realizes this is just going to keep happening and he backs off.

Or Sometimes one knows he's been a bit of a jerk and agrees that the other one deserves to get in a final smack.  That's the best way for it to end, because they both feel that justice has been served.

If they don't feel complete, then you end up with the anger or hurt or frustration still simmering, and it bubbles up again, and comes up again.

That's why when they were chasing each other around, I wanted to give them a chance to work out their conflict physically.  I know that it's popular to learn to use your words.  But I've just seen that it is waaaaay more efficient for them to fight it out.  It's quicker, it addresses the feelings in a thorough and complete manner, and it resolves.

I wonder, in fact, if the bucket incident is a result of this unresolved conflict simmering between them since they couldn't fight it out completely at the wildlife refuge.  And me stepping in to stop it because I don't want water spilled all over my house also frustrated it.  If it doesn't work itself out at bedtime, I suppose there is always tomorrow.

I do find, though, overall, it is best to allow them to "fight to completion."  When I get involved, I tend to over-complicate things, I miss facts, I'm unfair, and I often exacerbate the conflict.  When they fight it out, it usually takes a few minutes, they always only use just enough force to make their point, and one or both of them back off in a way that they both agree to.  I'll try to observe more about at what point they break off fighting.  I'm sure I'll get some opportunities if they are in a conflict-ful phase.

it's not so simple

So Jack is crying.  Aharon hit him with a toy car.

I am thinking about whether or not to take away the car.  At first it seems like a simple, easy answer.  Clear rule: if you hit with something, it gets taken away.
This is to discourage hitting people with objects.  (I've mentioned before that I've discarded the blanket "no hitting" rule because, as it turns out, there is actually plenty of measured hitting as they work out their conflicts.)

Hit with object.  Object gets taken away.  Child will either a) restrain himself from hitting someone with the object next time because he wants to keep the object or b) will not have the object to hit anyone with.  Happy ending either way.

But I'm not sure that is the most effective, efficient way to handle it.  I didn't actually see how hard Aharon hit him with the car.  It's possible Aharon (age 2) hit him because Jack (age 3) was attempting to wrest it away from him.  It's possible that Aharon hit him with a hit calculated to prevent him from attempting to take it away again, but not too hard.  It's possible that Jack's cry is a manipulation attempt to get me to intervene, when in fact, it has been handled beautifully and efficiently.

I did, in fact, take away the car, saying the rule, "If you hit someone with something, it gets taken away."  Aharon did not object.

But I wonder.

another sibling rivalry technique: roughhousing

On August 27th I wrote about how my 3yo was pounding the 2yo and not stopping.  We seem to be in that "phase" now.  I spoke to 3yo about it when things were quiet, about how he felt about hitting his brother, was he aware that he was screaming for him to stop, and how he wasn't stopping.  I asked his opinion about me pulling him off of his brother when his brother was screaming and he wasn't stopping, and he thought it was a good idea.

I was doing that for the last week or so, which caused the little one to play up the victim role more, and to a lot more screams of "Mommy!"

I just remembered a technique I like to use in these cases.  It's inspired by the book Playful Parenting by Larry Cohen.  When the aggressor and victim are rolling around and the victim is screaming and the aggressor doesn't stop, I pull the victim out, briefly comfort him, and then start roughhousing the aggressor.  The more giggles I can elicit, the better.

Ten to twenty minutes of roughhousing can change the whole course of the day.

it's not all buttercups and gumdrops

It's one of those days where Jackie (age 3) is bothering and bothering Aharon (age 2).  Just torturing him and not backing off.  And Aharon is tired so he doesn't have his usual resilience. So I keep grabbing him off of Aharon and separating them.

Aharon post nap and after lots of cuddles for Jack, they are managing without me again.

Getting involved in aggression that isn't actually harming the victim

Yesterday, Jack (age 3) was spitting water in the pool at Aharon (age 2).  Aharon called me to come help him.  My first instinct was to tell Jack to stop.  Then I remembered the golden rule in bullies2buddies that bothering or teasing that doesn't physically hurt the victim doesn't necessarily need to be stopped.  Instead of focusing on the aggressor (Jack), I spoke to Aharon about his experience, his feelings, and his plans to deal with it.

"Jack spit water at you?" "Yeah.."  "You don't like that?"  "Yeah.." "What do you want to do?" Aharon heads over towards Jack to smack him, as I've discussed, but the water is too deep and he backs up into where he can stand.  He has no water wings.  Jack comes over again and Aharon pops him one.  Jack laughs and backs off, and spits water at him again.  Aharon laughs.  Jack laughs.  

As I mentioned, I've been watching how often the fighting escalates quickly, and then deescalates quickly.  I think they even seem to be getting more skilled at dancing with each other and navigating through their conflicts.  (In response to what someone said: "I can see it works for your children, but that's just them!" --to that I say: 1) Try it out for yourself and 2) Make sure to also give them lots of time, attention, and love so that their conflicts are not also imbued with a feeling that their "emotional cups" aren't full of the love and affection they need from their parents.)

Today I watched the boys in the pool again, and there was a father watching his older two children "mitchering"* the youngest.  He kept telling them to stop.  As far as parenting go, the kids were not overly bothering their sibling, the father wasn't being strident or aggressive or abusive or getting more and more irritated.  I'm not criticizing his parenting.  I hope we all can stay calm and reasonable like that.

However, I do think that the way the kids were bothering their brother could be handled by non-interference.  The "victim" surely can tolerate the small bothering his siblings were dishing out, and it's useful in life to have that skill.

***please do not think that I advocate allowing abuse.  I mentioned many times that if the aggressor does not back off of the victim in a case of blood or great hurt or extreme distress and does not demonstrate empathy, then you should separate them***

It seems to me that as a society (or perhaps my small niche of it), we want to obliterate aggressive feelings even before they escalate into actual blood and broken bones and viciousness.  But accepting that there is a distinction and learning to distinguish between the two is the difference between getting involved every few seconds, vs. relaxing at the pool while they learn important life lessons, all by themselves.

*Mutcheh: (rhyme with "butcher") bother, annoy, harass, needle, pick on. "He mutches me night and day. The man won't let me live!" When my nephew was little, I used to tickle and rough-house with him. My mother would say, "Stop mutchering him, already!!" but the instant she'd walk away he whisper to me, "Come on! Mutcher me some more!" Obviously, HE didn't consider it mutchering!  

sibling fighting observations

We had a friend sleep over with his son, who is almost 6, around Elazar's age.  I guess the boys were having some conflict, and he asked me my policy on fighting.

Yesterday, I read an article about boys roughhousing and in some of the comments, there was some discussion about how things escalate and somebody always gets hurt.

I described to my friend what I look for in an interaction:

• When there is conflict, do they try to address it verbally or do they go straight to violence? (In my experience, there is almost always a verbal attempt. Or four or five.)

• When they begin to scuffle physically, is it very hard or is it a properly weighed cuff--hard enough to sting, but not hard enough to do serious damage?

• When somebody hurts someone to the point where he cries out in real surprised pain, is there a hesitation, a slight backing off to check it out, or does the aggressor keep going to hurt more?  

Backing off momentarily indicates empathy and caring, and you can stay out of it; ignoring pain and continuing to hurt or trying to induce more pain is a sign that you should immediately wade in a grab the hitter and move him away.

I think most people don't notice this slight hesitation or understand its significance.  Most children are naturally empathetic and have this reaction.  (Notably, my sweet 3yo did not when he was 2 and sitting on his 6mo brother.)

Another thing people miss, in terms of escalation, is that although there is frequently a small intensification of back and forth smacks and punches, accompanied by screaming, it usually quickly peaks to a mutually agreed ending.  It is still somewhat of a mystery to me, but after a flurry of beating each other, one or both backs off.

• Either they both agree that justice has been served (ie the little one broke the bigger one's castle, so the big one smacks him, and the little one smacks back, and the big one smacks back, and they all agree that justice is served and they both back off, emotionally satisfied).

or

• One decides that pursuing it is not worthwhile (ie one wants a toy and tries to take it and they yank it back and forth and smack the bejeebers out of each other and one decides he's been smacked enough).  He may walk away crying, but note that it is already de-escalated without you doing anything.  In that situation, I give hugs and kisses and sympathy (only if I am approached by a crying child), but I do not interfere with the justice of the jungle.  Often, after a brief cry, the child will find some other way to interact.  

It is important to notice that what adults think is fair or just in this situation is not the same as how the children experience it.  I am astonished how often a swift delivery of justice, followed by a retaliation, followed by another cuff of justice/retaliation, is considered equitable to both parties.  I have observed this multiple times.

It is also valuable to let children who are having conflict to physically work it out.  Watch carefully and note how measured the hitting is.  It is not so hard that it will cause damage, and yet it is with enough force to sting.  There are often hesitations and pauses while they learn how much force is too much and how much is just right, and they respond and back off in reactions to exclamations of intense pain.  These are lessons in socialization and emotional intelligence.  It trains children to respond empathetically and to notice nuances in expression, and to grasp emotional subtleties.   When adults don't get involved, you will also observe that children are inclined to back off based on an internal tolerance limit.  They are also inclined to take some time to regroup, and then rejoin with a different approach.  These are things we all would like our children to find the internal fortitude to practice.  Children who rely on adults to intervene often do not have the experience of looking within for these approaches.

If you find that one child is beating another and there is crying out and you do not observe a peak and a slight backing off (but make sure you are not interfering too early--watch first and look for subtle signs of empathy in the midst of the fighting), then separate them.  

My preference is to physically move them apart but not to speak.  I haven't found that saying anything is helpful or useful.  It more likely conveys disapproval and anger that is not beneficial to the child/ren.

But it is really astonishing, if you learn to observe signs of empathy and internal de-escalation, how infrequently you will have to get involved.  I'm not saying it doesn't get loud.  I'm not saying there is no crying.  And I have punted the phrase "No hitting!" from our home.  But the spurts are brief, intense, and noisy, and frequently end with some time of agreement.  It's more Wild, Wild West than civilization.  But read up on justice in the wild west and you'll be surprised at how fair it generally was.