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]

What happened to the OP?

I read the Alfie Kohn book when ds was small. It made a lot of sense to me, particularly as I was raised in quite a controlling environment where you did things because you were told to with no explanation as to why it might be a good idea to do it anyway. As a result I grew up always waiting to be told what to do.

I would also challenge LeQueen's rather dismissive version of what an UP parent is like. In the aeroplane situation an UP child would put the belt on with no encouragement because they would understand that not to do so would be irresponsible and a risk to their own safety and the safety of others. UP'ing is not about sitting back and saying 'oh please don't do that darling' whilst the kid is running round the garden with a bread knife.

At the end of the day people can parent their children as they like and we shouldn't engage in this sort of slanging match. Whatever parenting route we take I think we can all agree that our common goal is to raise children that will become happy, motivated and responsible adults.

how insulting and patronising to say that other parents parent conditionally;

what do you think 'parenting conditionally' means if it doesnt mean the love is conditional (10.13 and 10.15 posts).

I dont rely heavily on punishments or rewards but I do use them and my kids damn well know how much I love them and that i will love them forever, no matter what- how very dare you!

it sounds to me like a good starting point for those who need it - a middle-class manual for those who havent got an fing clue

ragged- will you sit on my hands too please

"Kohn only considers it okay for parents to take action without consulting the child if it's a matter of Life or Death."

What the actual jeff?! Really? Preposterous.

Of course, I'm a John Rosemond fan myself, and he considers any parenting advice given after 1960 to be bollocks. :o I do know two sets of parents in RL who are doing UP (at least, that put a label on it.) The first family has a lovely little DS, and the second family has two DD's that I cannot stand. So...whatever works, eh? It would definitely not work for me, but if you can raise a child this way and not have him/her turn out an utter brat, more power to you.

This may be long -sorry.

As I said above I came across the UP thread yesterday (toothache and scanning MN for distraction) and had a read. I realised that my parenting style was very similar and I am likely an UP. (I don't need a name for it and certainly don't like to name what I do).

I haven't always parented this way and it has come about as it is right for DS and I.

I was left as a single parent when DS was 13 months - abroad and alone. I had 2 jobs and limited time and always barked orders of getting dressed/ do this/that.

DS has always beeen a very compliant child and I was often praised on his behaviour.

We moved back to the UK when he was 22 months and of course he started the 'difficult phase'. My usual warning and consequence didn't appear to be working as he'd do it again and again. He accepted the punichment but it didn't stop him doing the crime iyswim.

So my Mum suggested smacking - I tried it but tbh I never felt comfortable doing it and DS (of course!) didn't like it either. I stopped after I'd smacked him 3 times. (and yes they were calculated times )

Then when he was 4.03 he started school. He had problems. Always getting into trouble and again repeat offending. It was a very hard time for me as up until then everyone said how well behaved he was, and also I saw him become very miserable.

One day he said to me 'I hate that Mrs X thinks I'm naughty, why am I a naughty boy mummy' . He was 4.5 at the time.

SO.... I took a look at things and realised that maybe my parenting style of 'expecting' him to behave wasn't working and he needed guidence and help about how and why to behave. It took a year or so to get it right but I can honestly say its worked and I've not used (or needed) the naughty step for over a year and this years teacher says jow well behaved he is.

DS is not perfect. But by explaining and most importantly listening we've got a far better and fun relationship.

For example: Before I would have said 'DS, put your trainers on' His reply of 'I don't want my trainers on' would have been met with 'I don't care I've told you to do it so do it'. Now I would say 'why not, we are going out you need shoes on'. DS will reply he wants to wear x shoes instead because...

With regards to the aeroplane and seatbelt - that doesn't seem like UP to me. I would have told DS why he had to wear it but would have enforced the rules and told him when it could be removed. Its about understanding.

I'm not going to announce myself as an UP - but as a parent trying their best. I agree with most of the principles but I get it wrong sometimes/ have a bad day and bark an order.

beejezus you are reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest

both myself and lecce have pointed out that the LOVE is clearly not conditional, but to a child it can appear so.
and by punishing and rewarding you are showing your child that your approval must be "earned" by behaving in a specific way. that is conditional.

if you believe that approach is good and works and is right then why on earth would you be offended by my saying it?

and maryz, i disagree. ds1 has ASD and is not an "easy" child, but UP works for us and for him. yes, it's much harder work than some other parenting techniques, but i think the work is paying off.

i love how myself and other UP parents (whether they want the label or not ) sit here and take all this crap about how we're shit parents and how UP is crap and ineffective and our children will be awful and we're setting them up for a lifetime of problems etc etc ad nauseum
we sit, and we take time to reply and counter arguments

but the moment someone criticises a different technique it's all "how very dare you"

if you can dish it out bejeezus then I'm sure you can take it

Actually I agree with the poster who said that a child who is angry and think momentarily "I just want to HURT that person" and so hits probably is thinking something along those lines, so I wouldn't deal with it by saying "Hitting isn't nice" etc, but I'd take them away, apologise to the victim (and probably when I first saw it I did say "NO, DS") and then say something like "I can see you were a bit angry then. But it's not okay to hit people, no matter how angry you are. You can do X instead." where X is say "Stop it" or walk away or wait for your turn or count to ten or whatever is age appropriate. Telling them off for something they feel perfectly justified doing has no effect, or it didn't on me as a child, I just thought of sneakier ways to get my sister back etc.

Also disagree that the UP child immediately accepts things like seatbelts because they know it's responsible, WTF If UP really was a magic formula like that then nobody would need to talk it through, would they?

In the aeroplane situation an UP child would put the belt on with no encouragement because they would understand that not to do so would be irresponsible and a risk to their own safety and the safety of others.

This is exactly what I mean! It is controlling to your way of thinking. I was the sensitive DC ,so of course I would do the above. You haven't met my brother!! What do you then do with the unsensitive DC who can't (or *** well won't)see the above? Perhaps you are just lucky and have people pleasers?

I would explain why they are wearing the seat belt but there, is no option on what they do with it.
It is the same with car seats-when little explain and then fasten in despite squirming, screaming or fighting it. When they are old enough to undo it, the explaining can go a little further and if they won't listen I refuse to drive until it is fastened. The quickly realise cars mean belts and you don't have endless replays.

Those who call themselves UP should realise it is just a method and just a way of getting your DC to what you want them to do.

actually i think that is up. as I said before, AK says readily in the book that sometimes there are things that cannot be compromised on, and that we simply try and impose our will as gently as possible and explain to the child why this has to happen this way
it isn't about always doing things in a certain way or never doing other things.

when ds1 is kicking off and having a mega tantrum then I remove him, we don't use a time-out in a "tyou have to stay here for x minutes and then you HAVE to apologise or you can't come back way" but we have a "safe" area for him to calm down in with stress balls and stuff liekt hat and we encourage him to use it and to come back when he is feeliong less angry

I actually e-mailed AK about this kind of thing as I was feeling bad about the effective "time out" and he mailed me back!

and it isn't about not enforcing rules either!

it's about NOT using rewards and punishments when children do/don't follow those rules
it's about teaching children that a set of social (or whatever) rules exist, we model the behaviour we like to see (such as not hitting people when they annoy us, or washing our hands after using the toilet) and we try and ensure that they follow these rules because it's the right thing to do, not because we will punish them if they don't

I'm American and I'm a right old meanie-pants, Maryz. :o

I explain things too, but sometimes it really does come down to "because I said so", and I have no qualms about using that phrase if it fits the situation.

TIY yes you have hit the nail on the head with the social rules. This is what DS lacked I had failed to teach him . But by listening and explaining he gets why things are the way they are and can mostly make sensible choices.

On one occasion DS was hit by another child. The child had repeatedly asked DS to stop what he was doing to them as it was annoying. Of course DS was upset but I explained the other child had made a poor decision in hitting but he allows himself to get hit when he makes poor decisions too. I don't want to inferere and tell DS to stop annoying other children - he needs to learn to do this for himself. The other child was put in time out for hitting DS and I felt . She had behaved badly but not unprovoked and I felt needed to be given a better way to deal with it - not punished. (they were 5yo at the time btw)

I haven't given rewards for washing hands or punishments for washing hands! I do it myself explain why- and they will wash their hands-no further discussion required.
I would agree with Mayz and anything taken to extremes is bad.

I suspect that Alfie Kohn is quite a sensible parent-it is the interpretation that goes wrong. I wouldn't mind bettig that he would be horrified by a lot that goes on in his name!

But the explanations don't allow for contrary behavior, like Ds2, who I really should have called MaryMary

eg, about hand washing...

"wash your hands please, they're dirty and it's dinner time"
"I like having dirty hands. I am NOT washing them"
"but then germs will go in your tummy and make you sick..."
"I like germs"
"But you don't like being sick, remember?"
"I do like being sick."
"But you will have a tummy full of germs, and that's not nice"
"It is nice. I like germs. They will be my tummy pets."

How on Earth do you rationalise that? You can only have a rational discussion with someone who is rational (Ds1 is very rational) and Ds2 still, at 5, does not fit that description.

I gave up rationalising with Ds2 when I realised that actually, he warps his perception of reality to fit neatly into what he wants to do.

So now I would say "Wash your hands please, it's dinner time and I'm not serving it until everyone has clean hands. I bet you can't do it before I count to 20! GO go go!"

"Mum suggested smacking - I tried it but tbh I never felt comfortable doing it and DS (of course!) didn't like it either"

is that rather not the whole point of it?

Of course no loving parent would enjoy smacking, and would use it as a last resort or a threat. If a child doesnt like being smacked, then the threat should be enough to stop the child in their tracks.

My mum would warn me "do that again and you will get a smack". Oddly enough, I didnt like getting a slapped arse, so I wouldnt do it again. I can only remember getting smacked a handful of times in my life, and I know damn well it was justified. I didnt think my mother had stopped loving me, but I knew she didnt like me right then because of my behaviour.

My stepson and his partner will say to their 5yo exactly the same thing. She has only ever been smacked a few times. One of those occasions was for climbing up on a stool, stealing the scissors and cutting her own hair. Another has been for swearing and kicking when she wasnt getting her own way about something, and had been warned that if she carried on she would get a smack. She apologised for kicking and behaved.

I agree Maryz to an extent but he doesn't do it puposefully and doesn't 'get' how him being annoying makes them feel. And when I say annoying - in this case DS wasn't actually doing anything other than trying to sit on the sofa with other children. They wouldn't give him space so he just sat in front of one and refused to move. I wanted them both to work it out - I didn't want to move DS from the situation as I felt that would give the other child the feeling she was right to exclude him because she felt like it.

Maybe I was wrong? Who knows I'm a typical parent - I get it wrong sometimes.