or are UP parents really nuts?

[FunnysInTheGarden]

I mean talk about making all your lives difficult....

Am ready BTW for the UP parents cries of dissent [cgrin]

you are saying that if the child interrprets as conditional- so it is.

That isnt so- you do not reward a child with giving them love and you do not punish a child by withdrawing love. You teach your child the difference between love (and other rewards) and attention- otherwise you grow emotionally retarded children!

I am happy to explain to my kids 'why' until the cows come home and OF COURSE parents model the behaviour they want their kids to have and OF COURSE it is about teaching social values....rewards and punishmnets is not a damaging tool to aid those lessons.

I feel insensed because you claim that UPers take alot of abuse for being sh*t parents, but I find the very label 'Unconditional Parenting' insulting to the rest of uswhat Ups think the rest of us at at risk of doing to our kids i think shows a complete lack of understanding of how to parent at all..growing kids thta know that their parents love is unconditional is paramount...people have been doing this since time began. Then this daft bloke comes along and writes a book thta says if you reward and punishyou are at real risk of your kids not knowing this.....crikey, how did people manage without him?

Not rewarding or punishing is fine- if that is what you choose to do, but to label it 'Unconditional' and suggest thta our kids might think we dont love them unconditionally if we dont follow the same mantra??

Its patronising and superior

I am quite interested in how you UP with more than one DC? Especially if they both want entirely different things and it is impossible to please them all. I can think of senarios where pleasing one will cause the other to have a tantrum and if you try and opt out with a compromise they are both upset!!

I also think it is much easier with one DC when you have more time and they are more likely (statistically as 1st born)to be a people pleaser than to have a second one who is often a rebel who only has to see a rule to break it!

When you have the second either the first is the sensible sort who has a 'better nature' to be appealed to or you have to ignore the baby a lot.

Colditz Unless I'm very much mistaken, your solution to the handwashing problem is a technique that would be favoured by some UPers. Turning it into a game is certainly suggested in HTTSYKWL, which I realise isn't quite the same as AK's philosophy but I read the two books together and think a lot of the stuff is complimentary.

I don't think Kohn says the only way forward is to endlessly discuss and rationalise, though maybe he does, I did read it in a sleepless fog when ds2 was not sleeping more than an hour at a time .

In my head, UP is just not using rewards and punishments and to avoid dong this, I use a lot of the suff reccommended in 'How to talk...'. That's probably not 'proper' UP but that's what it is in my head.

Others on the thread (Maryz?)have said that UP is the same as 'other' parenting because you are still trying to get the child to follow your 'rules' and I would agree with that but would hope that if you give children as much choice as possible over things that are negiotable, they will be more willing to accept the things that are not. Also, if they are used to making choices from a young age, maybe they will be better equipped to make good choices later on when they are moving into adulthood and faced with all sorts of dilemmas etc from their peers?

I wasnt really enlightened on that link is it a vary calm gentle form of parenting?

I UP, it works perfectly well with two DDs, my eldest is an intense dramatic type, the second is more chilled out.

The usual conflict in our house is that DD2 wants to go out, DD1 doesn't. So, DD1 starts to kick off, I make a loud and silly noise to distract (she's 5 and it still works) and ask if we can talk about it. They know that we'll come up with a solution one way or another so will both come for a chat. I ask them both what they want to do and DD1 and I will come up with suggestions as to how we can do everything that everyone wants to do. Sometimes, DD2 will be happy if I go and play with her in the garden while DD1 stays indoors, sometimes I'll suggest a place to go that DD1 especially enjoys and she'll happily come out. Sometimes DD2 just wants to go for a walk (DD1 hates just going for a walk) so I'll take DD2 out when DP gets home from work.

There is always a way, it just sometimes takes us a while to figure it out. We don't talk about compromise (which basically means that no one gets what they want, but they both get something similar to what they want), we find ways that mean they can both have what they really want.

exoticfruits DD1 is emphatically not the sort of sensible child you are talking about, she's more the kind of child who has 2 hour long screaming fits about not getting what she wants. She used to do this a lot, but since we started using UP techniques she has learned that she can rely on us to do our very best to help her to get what she wants.

Msbuggy, I have to say, that all sounds ridiculous. You are basically allowing yourself to be controlled by the whims of your children.

we find ways that mean they can both have what they really want.

Have you ever tried simply saying "no".

Sorry bejeezus, I am a failure (sob). The only way I'm going to truly Shut Up is if I Hide this thread (can't quite make myself do it, yet).
Re Natural Consequences, Alfie Kohn also dislikes it (pg 66 of his book), in the midst of his opening arguments about why "Punishment" & rewards are all bad:

Another version of what might be called Punishment Lite is known as "natural consequences," which invites parents to discipline by inaction -- that is, by refusing to help. If a child is late for dinner, we're supposed to let her go hungry. If she leaves her raincoat at school, we're supposed to let her get wet... But...The 'natural consequences' approach is really a form of punishment

And at that point he has already at great length said that all punishment (and all rewards, and all praise, and almost all coercion) are very bad.

Am off to the Library, thank goodness.

Time-out is very bad, but removing them from a situation and explaining why is good Others may disagree, but for me the difference is that with time-out the child is alone but in the latter you go with them and there is no particular time limit. There is talking, maybe comforting, rather then them sitting alone and then giving a, quite possibly insincere, apology.

Why say no to something that isn't going to hurt anyone and doesn't cause me any problems? For the sake of it? Because I can't be bothered to think of a solution?

My understanding of up is similar to lecce's. No rewards and no punishment. I don't "practise" it, in the sense of adhering to any particular guidelines, but broadly speaking, this does reflect my own parenting style.

I am not convinced that kids who are punished will believe that their parents love them conditionally. My worry about using rewards and punishments is rather that I believe they interfere with intrinsic motivation. I don't want dd to do the right thing because she wants a reward, but rather, because she knows it is the right thing. I don't want her to avoid wrongdoing because she fears punishment. I want her to do it because she has her own moral compass that tells her how to behave.

I make no claims that this is the only way to raise kids effectively. Merely that it makes more sense to me, and in my experience, it works!

Yes, it isn't that drawn out IRL. It is much more natural than my clunky writing makes it sound!

Do you find there are difficulties in reception and Y1, with the conflicting styles of behaviour and expectations? Or are they able to switch between home and school easily?

It sounds to me mrsbuggywinkle that DD1 gets her way and you and DD2 fit in with her!!! Maybe you are too close to see it.

Because your children are learning that they always get what they want. That is not a good training for real life situations or relationships when they get older, because in real life, you dont always get what you want, nor does everyone sit down and discuss how to keep you happy.

For example. Lets say I (as the adult) decide that we are going to the park for the day for a picnic. I have a child who says no, because they want to go to the zoo, I have another who wants to go to a theme park.

It is impossible to please them all. How would you deal with this?

She deals with it because DD2 is laid back (needs to be with bossy sister) and gives in to the one who makes the most noise.

Which is 24 minutes of wasted time.

What I would like to know is what do the UP devotees do when they need to leave the house quickly and the child refuses to go/be strapped in the car seat etc?

If you don't have 30 minutes to discuss the issue with a 3 yo?