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]

Oh, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing about this approach which says it's good to have no boundaries.

Boundaries are crucial whether you use sanctions/rewards or not. It's just that (UP, as a shorthand) is a different approach to reach the same goal.

This is the most fundamental misunderstanding of this 'philosophy'. And if you are seeing examples of woeful, permissive UP parenting (although are you just assuming it's UP?) you are seeing just that. Woeful, permissive parenting.

So, if UP does not teach that 'no means no', does it have any bearing on the men we read about on here so often who don't understand 'no' when their partners are telling them they do not want sex? Tp paraphrase somebody else's comments earlier wrt letting their sibling play with a toy, ' It won't hurt to let me have a little fuck will it?'

There are times when an adult should be taking the lead and teaching their children that their ( the child's) wishes are not always just as valid as somebody else's. There are ways of punishing bad behaviour but still letting the child know that you love them.

"So, if UP does not teach that 'no means no',"

How did you arrive at that?

otch-no i dont know UPs in RL (or at least I dont know they are)the sense of superiority is from what I have read here, and like I keep saying-the name and the fundamental principal-that those who dont OP will have children who think their parents love is conditional.
Children KNOWING that their parents love is unconditional is the [a] crux of being a good parent...and UPers are saying if you dont do it THEIR way, you will likely fail to acheive this fundamental..

like you said UPing is a different approach to reaching the same goal....it is not the RIGHT approach or the ONLY approach thta will give success

'No' does mean 'no'.

'No' coming from the parent is always a considered 'no'.

I agree with the UP philosophy and I spend a lot of time teaching my children to respect each other when they say 'no'. They can try persuasion but they can't force what they want onto the other. It's pretty much a house rule regardless of age.(Apart from seatbelts, medicine and a few other similar occasions)

This is an interjection, rahter than addition to the debate.

HAving read this, and thought about what people have written, I can now see why the need for books.

It was very easy for me, doing a form of UP (without the name!) in a right-on enclave, where everybody else was doing it, and there was always someone on hand to chat to about various situations. It was a style of parenting that really suited me, my family, my values, and my community - so it was all very much a seamless web. Was harder, though not much, when moved, and was no longer so much the norm.

Can really see it would be helpful to have a book, and an on-line community, if you are more isolated, without that RL community (of family/friends/other parents).

Does Kohn really say you're doing something wrong if your child tantrums? I always tend to think of tantrums as just feelings which are overwhelming for the child. In fact it's a bit twee but someone I know online calls them "big feelings" rather than "tantrums" - which can help if your automatic reaction is to think "tantrum = bratty and attention seeking".

Of course if a child learns they always get what they want by tantruming then it does turn into a manipulative tool, but when they're little this isn't the case (and I don't think you have to ignore/specifically avoid "giving in" to every single tantrum, but help them see that tantrums/big feelings are irrelevant to how you react to a situation)

I think Kohn does go too far. He just seems overly concerned with the child having a relationship with the parents once they are grown up, over and above all else. I hope very much that DS will want a relationship with me when he grows up, but it might just happen that we are completely opposite personality types and don't get on. And can you imagine what kind of a nightmare MIL it would make you if all you were concerned about is your own relationship and not what your child wants?

Sayit I think that is an important point. I tend to stick to no means no, but try to avoid no as much as possible. Which doesn't mean I let DS do whatever he wants but I say things like "You can have an ice cream tomorrow" or "Okay, but please help me tidy up first" or "You can do X instead" I am quite opposed to things like "Ask nicely and then you can" though - I think this creates an automatic expectation that if they ask nicely, they are going to get what they want and they have an entitlement to it because they asked in the right way. I know that my bf struggles with this a lot because if DS says "Please" to him he feels he has to give him whatever it is. Whereas I tend to expect DS to ask nicely anyway but don't feel bad if I say no about it.

Maybe I'm not actually strictly UP, I just find it handy to have as shorthand online rather than explaining again and again how things work. If I can just say "Oh I do UP" and someone understands, or perhaps doesn't understand but goes off to google, that's easier. Of course if they don't understand then come the explanations again, but it cuts out a lot of need for that.

"UPers are saying if you dont do it THEIR way, you will likely fail to acheive this fundamental."

I am not a forum regular and certainly

I think you are reading into it. You could argue that many on this thread who are against this approach (Lequeen spings to mind) have exhibited a certain superiority.

I can't speak for others, but my reading around psychology in general has led me away from behaviourism. I am trying an approach which fits with our (because your partner needs to agree!) worldview, our lives, our children. I hope that I am lessening the onerous conditions (I don't actually believe ultimately in total, constant, 100 percent forever-and-ever unconditional love) that it's easy to place on a small child, in the hope that she'll learn for herself and become intrinsically motivated. All in the knowledge that this is all subject to the law of unintended consequences and that I am not infallible and could be wrong.

Nothing there that says 'I judge others for using Supernanny techniques', or 'I think I am better for doing it this way'. Although, clearly, I favour this approach. Favouring an approach, being quite keen to discuss its ins and outs and clear up misunderstandings can coexist with a non-judgemental mein.

There are smug and superior parents of all stripes. Some of the most vehement can be those ultra-critical of this method, going even to suggest to such parents are creating Problems for Society. Nice? Not.

"I am not a forum regular and certainly" ... "do not hang about on forums devoted to this, but I have never come across someone saying that they believe their way is superior. I've certainly come across explanations for why they favour this approach. But then I've heard exactly the same arguments from people who favour behaviourism: "I enforce xyz with abc because it achieves this or that." That's just the same!

Sorry, I had trailed off

This is nuanced stuff. Not black and white. It's full of 'hopes', 'mays' and 'coulds'. Not 'you wills'.

They never say their way is superior, but reading between the lines you can work it out!

I wouldn't agree with Alfie Kohn that you are doing something wrong if your DC has a tantrum. I would go as far as to say it is a useful experience for the DC to deal with disappointments etc. In the same way I think that sibling disagreements are another useful learning tool.
Life is never going to be smooth, with all unpleasantness ironed out, and if parents try and do that they are going to produce a DC who can't handle it in later life, when the person you want to be a friend doesn't want to know you, the man of your dreams breaks it off, you don't get selected for the job you have set your heart on etc etc etc. It helps if early on someone hasn't made sure that you don't get upset because you got the red cup and not the blue cup. (if DCs get tired and crabby they are still going to have a tantrum if you give them the blue cup after all!)
Even in childhood they are going to have to deal with disappointment e.g they don't get a party invitation or the star part in the school play and it is the parent's job to help them get over it-not come on MN and moan that every DC should invite all the class or not let them hand out invitations in school or how unfair it is that the same DCs get lead parts!!!
I don't see why they can't consider mum as a person e.g. if she is tired, she is crabby too! I don't think it does any harm to get things wrong sometimes and apologise to the DC.
UP does appear to put the DC as the centre of the universe as people bend over backwards to understand their view and ease their path to the extent that a safety rule like a plane seatbelt is allowed to be ignored because 'the little darling' doesn't feel like complying!
Parents that I know who have followed this approach tend to have self centred adult DCs-e.g. one woman with 5 DCs is divorced and spends Christmas alone-no one in my extended family would let such a thing happen.(I don't think her DCs have ever considered that she might be upset not to be invited-she is just mother).

Reading between the lines I think I've worked out that you think your way is superior

I read what working said with interest. The transition from being a UP child to being an adult must be all the tougher for entering a world where you are no longer listened to, where your opinion no longer counts, where no-one rationialises all you do.

We can keep our children out of certain circumstances that don't fit with our beliefs, but eventually, we have to let them out into the real world and we have to equip them as best we can to deal with the realities of life.

My ground rules are few and have been communicated frequently. Manners are important, as is compliance with the prevailing rules that operate, ie at school, you do as school asks you; at a friend's house, you do as the parent expects...you get the drift. Some things are negotiable; others aren't. If they're non-negotiable, you'll know about it. The rest, I'll work with where I can but if it cost me money, or impacts on my life, my word is final.

Above all else, you're a child. I'll listen to your views, but at the end of the day, you do as I say. If you're eloquent enough I may change my mind. If you can convince me I'm wrong, I'll apologise and do what you want. Otherwise, it's my way because you are a guest in my life. A very valued and loved guest. But at some point, you'll move on, make a life of your own and THEN you'll make the rules.

Seems to be working o.k. so far. We have the occasional pre-teen strops; a little cheekiness; a bit of rebellion, but on the whole, we have mutual love and respect for each other. That's the key thing that underpins everything. She knows I don't expect her to be perfect; she knows she'll screw up sometimes because I screw up sometimes. If that's conditional parenting, it suits me fine....

"Does Kohn really say you're doing something wrong if your child tantrums?"

Not imo. I had to go and look this up as I didn't remember reading the above. (and it has been a while since I read the book).

"Some thoughtful authors see tantrums as important for healthy development, while others regard them as a sign that children are frustrated with their parents' behaviour - very likely for good reason - and don't know how else to express that frustration. Perhaps each of these views captures part of the truth; perhaps tantrums aren't inevitable or especially desirable, on the one hand, but aren't necessarily an indication of bad parenting, on the other. In any case, what matters is that if and when they do occur, we respond as constructively as possible." (my highlighting).

So, as far as I can tell, AK isn't saying that you are definitely doing something wrong every time your child has a tantrum.

otch...i dont have 'a way'...

"The transition from being a UP child to being an adult must be all the tougher for entering a world where you are no longer listened to, where your opinion no longer counts, where no-one rationialises all you do."

Rubbish.

You make it seem as if the child lives in this insulated bubble and then is suddenly kicked out at 18 into the hard cold world unprepared, never having met with indifference, scorn, counter opinions. Children growing up have met and dealt with a variety of people. Nice friends, bullies, good teachers and bad, indifferent grandparents and relatives, and keen ones, weird strangers and kind.

How on earth a solid relationship with a parent who listens, seeks consensus, mentors, doesn't place too many onerous conditions and works hard to understand the deep seated reasons behind certain behaviours as the child moves towards independence is destined to f*ck them up is a concept that is beyond me.

Strawman alert: Might as well ignore them in their crib, stick em in the garden, 'cos it's a hard, tough world out there, sweetie.

Going out into the adult world fully independent is always fraught. For any child, from any background. Some certainly find it easier than others for a thousand different reasons.

UP (or rather, the non reward/sanction based upbringing) is not about pandering
UP is not about endless negotiations about the colour of t-shirts or seat belts
UP is not about 'never letting the little darlings cwy'
UP is not about abandoning boundaries
UP is not condoning bad behaviour and writing it off as
UP is not about giving a child a bewildering array of choice

It is simply not using behaviourism as a parenting tool. It is closer to how many of you would parent than you think. I don't care whether it has a name. It does, but so what. I sure you can live with it.

It's just any explanation of it lays the poster open to ridicule and accusations of smuggery. I can't speak for others, but I am anything but smug.

beejezus. Yes you do.

Women do 90% + of the world's cooking and then look up to male chefs to tell them how to do it better.
They do 90% + of the world's child care, and then read a book by Alfie Kohn to tell them how to do it properly !
Time to write books for ourselves on parenting ! Several of the classic texts in this area have been by men haven't they ? Dr. Spock and all that !

jugglingjo

My husband does about 70 percent of the childcare as I work three days a week (he does nights) He does 50 percent of the housework.

Why should the sex matter?

Besides, several of the pop-behaviourism child rearing tomes have been written by women.

And AK isn't 'telling you how to do something properly', like the above mentioned.

I fail to see your point.

I was thinking specifically of the UP parents who home ed. At least one poster on here has said that they did this and so didn't have to subscribe to the rigours of the education process.

You can call it rubbish as much as you like otchayaniye but working had this kind of upbringing and has admitted that she finds work difficult now, because it's not the way she was reared (if I read her post correctly). She wasn't made to go to school if she didn't feel like it. She wasn't made to tidy her room. She said she finds things like filing difficult because she never had to do this kind of thing as a child because of her UP upbringing.

We all have our ways of rearing our children and I don't see UP working for my child. Right now she's grumbling and saying she doesn't want a bath. She hasn't had a bath for a week. I don't force her to have them daily as she currently has no body odour issues and it's something I don't feel necessary to enforce. Tonight, however, she's having a bath. Whether she wants one or not. Because without it she'd smell. And because tomorrow she'll be just as reluctant about taking the bath as she is today.

I could no sooner UP than I could fly to the moon. Both seem inappropriate for me and my family.

But huffy, you could do UP and give her a bath. The two are not mutually exclusive. I've tried to explain this all along until my head hurts. Same with attending school.

There are non-negotiables. There are boundaries.

Anyway. Pointless me repeating myself.

Enjoy your kids and have confidence in how you rear them.

And I was raised in a UP-ish way but education was a non-negotiable and whatever the rights and wrongs of my upbringing I was a studious thing and self motivated and got into Oxford. Our house wasn't some 1970s Summerhills bedlam.

But you know what? I don't extrapolate a whole worldview from the anecdote of my experience.

You said children reared this way will face the world unprepared. Which is rubbish, sorry. A massive, humoungous extrapolation from one poster's experience, which may, or may not, refer to UP. Sounds more like permissive parenting to me. Who the hell knows what else was going on there.

interesting observation from animula (further down the thread):

"It was very easy for me, doing a form of UP (without the name!) in a right-on enclave, where everybody else was doing it, and there was always someone on hand to chat to about various situations. It was a style of parenting that really suited me, my family, my values, and my community - so it was all very much a seamless web. Was harder, though not much, when moved, and was no longer so much the norm."

We have one set of friends that do what I would (probably inaccurately) describe as UP. I am sure it works and is "the norm" where they live, but my DC and other mutual friends' DC described their DS as "odd" and couldn't get him to join in with them at all over a whole weekend. All the adults also found him to be a PITA little 'different' and, TBH, we haven't bothered to invite them again and a degree of relief has been expressed by a number of people .

It's one example and therefore not scientific, but it has vastly coloured my personal view of "by the book" UP

Ochtayanaye - I assume you mean school was non-negotiable? It's quite possible to be HE and be studious and self-motivated. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive either.

How on earth a solid relationship with a parent who listens, seeks consensus, mentors, doesn't place too many onerous conditions and works hard to understand the deep seated reasons behind certain behaviours as the child moves towards independence is destined to fck them up is a concept that is beyond me.*

I wouldn't call this UP-I would call it common sense, normal parenting.
I think that even if the parent is interpreting UP wrongly (which many do) ,it doesn't matter that much as they will experience real life at school, with friends and grandparents etc. It could be detrimental if the parent has total control and never lets them out of their 'UP bubble'.

There is a lot to be said for being able to obey safety rules, and not think they are open to negotiation. My DS may well be dead if he hadn't followed instructions to the letter when the dinghy he was sailing in capsized. I was very proud of him-he kept calm and did as he was told.
I know someone who wouldn't take care of their DCs in dangerous situations, they left it to the 'sense' of the DCs-it resulted in very insecure DCs who kept close to the parent! Very scary stuff being a 6 yr old and not being able to rely on a parent holding your hand and knowing they will keep you safe.

I would love to see Alfie Kohn's DCs and see the 'proof of the pudding' as it were, I find that some 'experts' have some strange DCs!