to be offended by the term unconditional parents?

[Hattie11]

This is not a dig at mumsnetters just at the company that have created the programme and chosen a title "Unconditional Parents"!

I've only just learnt the term through another post on here. Had a quick search and read up on it and yes i see its offering a valid approach to parenting similar to the one i use.

But i can't help feeling its looking down on anyone that doesn't use it implying they are not unconditional parents.

Am i alone?

You know, people can see what you post even if you put it in a different board.

If you have questions, why don't you ask them on the actual thread, rather than starting a new and defensive one?

I think what perceptionreality said on the thread was an extremely good point. Some parents do place conditions on their children. If you take it for granted that parents love their children unconditionally (as did I until I saw her excellent, and sad, point) then perhaps you are lucky.

Unconditional parenting - as described in the book - is not permissive parenting at all.
I think all parenting books should be approach as books to pick and choose from rather than take wholesale, but this is one I took loads from.
I need a refresh read really, but for example, one of his beliefs is that a lot of perceived bad behaviour actually comes from parents having too high expectations of young children.
Not rocket science you say.
But the number of times I've heard parents on another form I use talking about their child being 'a little cow' when at 18 months they've got bored in a shopping trolley, suggests to me that parents CAN expect too much. That's made me really aware of my expectations of my 3yo. Even when I have to manage her behaviour, it's less stressful for me I think if I'm recognising environmental factors or my expectations rather than just thinking I have a naughty child.
That's not the only part of it, but I just wanted to illustrate one of the things I read in it that I liked and I feel has positively contributed to my parenting.

Re saying 'i will only love you if' - no, people usually don't say that. His point is that you need to be careful that you don't act like it. I know I do sometimes.

pmsl i do know that Bertiebotts, i just responded before coming back here.

I started new thread as i said in my op not digging at any mumsnetter for using the term, just confused by the title altogether and still think its horrid. As said on other thread - many of use the practice before having heard of it. And now that all seem to have agreed boundaries have to be in place i can accept it.

In pre 1960s america it was common to tell children you wouldn't love them if they didn't do what you say? That seems like a sweeping yet oddly specific generalisation.

Kohns own description is woolly and simplistic. Quote " Yet conventional approaches to parenting such as punishments (including "time-outs"), rewards (including positive reinforcement), and other forms of control teach children that they are loved only when they please us or impress us"

This is bunkum, plain and simple. Ask any child.

Hattie I don't think you do completely understand it.

Maybe you should read it before dismissing it.

Yup its a horrid term! YANBU!

I hate all these so called methods and labels, we all muddle along in our own ways doing the best we can. I will not be told how to parent my kids, it just happens with a bit of trial and error. I have 2 fab kids who dont cause trouble and work hard at school and are nice to those around them.
Seems label less Ive reached the aim of most parents of having pretty well rounded kids with out paying some schmuck to tell me what I do wrong, thats pretty plain when it happens thank you very much!!

Sorry its my huge bug bear - Ill climb back under me rock now :)

thank you fallenpetal!

Goodasgold - i'm not actually critiscising the approach (except for boundary bit which has been cleared up now). Just the title - maybe you should read my posts before assuming i am.

Often when parents on threads call their kids "little cows" or other names, they are venting. They haven't called their child this in RL.

Feeling angry and frustrated is normal. Venting here is a more healthy way of dealing with those feelings than taking it out on the child or bottling it up. Surely parents need to be able to express our "not happy" feelings a safe non judgmental space without fear and it is only when we learn this for ourselves that we can teach it to our children.

Dione, I have suggested that they have said it their child, or that people shouldn't have a space to vent when frustrating.
For me, understanding why my child has behaved as they have can take away the need for venting because I don't feel so angry.
Here's an example from a friend... She had a big rant because her just 2yo changed her mind about her cereal, and tipped it over the floor.
My friend was upset, frustrated, angry - and yeah, she shouted. She explained it to me in terms of a child who was deliberately pushing all her buttons.
Similar happened to me, and I thought 'she's two, she does have the cognitive ability to cope with the frustration of changing her mind, or the lack of control over the situation when she does'.
(haven't we as adults taken bread out to toast then stuck it back in and gone for weetabix occasionally ourselves?!)
So we've both been in a position of discipling for thrown cereal - but in my situation there was no stress, and in hers there was loads.
Now this is ONE example - I am NOT saying I'm perfect, she's not. I chatted to her about the expectations thing, and she said she found it useful.
I know I do - even if my daughter's behaviour is the same, my level of stress is lower. Isn't it better, where possible, not to even need to vent? Not to think 'little cow' in any way?
Don't want to derail the thread - it's just something I remember from the book. I don't think people should slavishly following parenting books, but I'm totally open to picing up ideas from books, internet, friends... Some of which have served me really well.

I'm not so sure my parenting is unconditional.

If I had an adult (or older teen) child who did something truly awful (murder, rape ...) the I think I could give up on them and maybe even stop loving them.

Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. My oldest is only 9!

How does all this fit with older 'children'? I have spent a lot of my life working with addicts and their families trying desperately to convince parents mainly mothers that they have to have boundaries, withhold approval for unreasonable behaviour and shut the door physically or metaphorically to their addicted offspring unless they tackle their substance issues. If they want change that it. Is this UP just for small children and if so, how long are they considered children?

"I will love you if you..."

Surely that is not unconditional? You don't love someone just because they do stuff...

Yes, thats the point.

My love is unconditional and is there and will be there whatever my parents do. As I say to them often, I shall always love them but it's better if I can like them too!

Treats, new clothes (teenagers now), days out, school trips, etc., are conditional upon certain expectations being met. Homework done, bedrooms tidy(ish), plates, glasses taken back to kitchen, helping me unpack shopping, being polite, keeping in touch when they are out.

Sorry should have written children in the first line.

Well, it's just a jargon term for a style of parenting by one particular guru, which us inherently PA because of the extent to which it exists in reference to criticism of parents who don't believe in it.

The way it is usually expressed by its adherents is both smug and patronising, and laden with innuendo, and sometimes insult about typical parenting.

And as others point out, it is often misunderstood to refer to the nature of love between parents and children. That is unfortunate too, but as that interpretation must have been obvious from the outset, I can only conclude that that is indeed an interpretation which is wanted (a kind of priming, perhaps?)

But at least it's something which can easily be ignored - only a small slice of first world women, who are exceeding rich by global standards and who are removed from extended families, are living in circumstances which allow them to spend so long on theories.

It's not offensive, it's just plain wanky to assign any label to your style of parenting or IMO to pick out an off the shelf parenting plan to raise your children.

All children are individuals and people who love to go around telling everyone they do parenting come across as people who care more about sayong something about themselves than anything else. Which makes me think they must be dull as dish water, so I avoid them.

You're not part of a "movement", you're a parent. Get over yourself

It's not about not having boundaries, and it doesn't mean never upsetting your child either. A lot of UP is about realising that the behaviour we model is picked up by our children as well, so actually you need reasonable boundaries if you are to teach them about healthy relationships where one person isn't riding roughshod over another's needs and feelings.

It's not even anything that amazing, it's just the POV that behaviour is a symptom of something underlying (even if that underlying thing is just immaturity/misunderstanding) and aims to fix the root cause through education and understanding (coming down to the child's level if they are not mature enough to reach you on yours) rather than trying to manipulate behaviour by external means. Whereas I would say most people would aim to fix the immediate behaviour issue first hand and then work on the cause in order to stop it happening again. UP just says that the first step is unnecessary if you are doing the second and causes unnecessary tension between parents and children.

I'm not sure how to answer the substance abuse question, because that is an extreme example of a destructive behaviour which happens because of many complex underlying factors. Plus the not using sanctions like the naughty step/withdrawing attention in case your child thinks you don't love them is a very small part of it, which comes out more when they are young. It sounds as though in your example the families involved have problems setting boundaries rather than loving their child too much. I think there comes a point where you have to say, in a destructive adult to adult relationship, "I love you but I cannot be the one to help you through this, because I am too close."

I can see it is useful to think about causes and understand these - while still having firm boundaries. For example, I have never allowed my dcs to be fussy eaters. But a friend who had a similar approach was having problems getting her young ds to eat anything and was seeing it as him being naughty. But she was giving him huge portions. I very very gently suggested the huge portions might make him feel like not eating anything and just to give him a very small portion to start with. And it worked.

It does help to look at things froma childs pov and if there are causes that are reasonable to change, then yes change them.

Disclaimer - I am NOT sayingthat all eating issues can be solved this way.

I'm, not offended by it but it's tripe imo. I'm not prepared to have a spoilt brat in the short term to go for some kind of superior long term goal.
I was having a good laugh reading about it the other night and a woman suggested that you should put yourself in time out eg locked in the loo if your child hits you!
Mu dd doesn't think she is unloved because I discipline her - she knows that I do it because I love her and want her to be the type of person other kids (who don't love her unconditionally) want to be around in the short term as well as the long term.
I also disagree that praise is bad - it increases kids confidence imo.
The only thing I would agree with is that smacking is always wrong.