to not know what unconditional parenting is?!

[GirlOutNumbered]

Just read it on a thread. I have no idea what this is?

I'm talking about parenting in general. The parent who won't let the 8yr old stay at home for 10 mins, get themselves changed from swimming, the parent who won't let the 12yr old cook alone, who thinks a 16 yr old can't do a train journey on their own etc etc etc

Not in the least bit patronising or smug, Laqueen

Ok, what would you do with a child of eight who isn't ready to leave the house when you need to pop to the shop? What would you say to a child who won't get themselves dressed after swimming?

I am inclined to think that the common sense approach I have witnessed, would be to plead, plead some more, bribe, offer reward, threaten punishment and finally shout. Is this over protective?

This philosophy is strictly for the

typically SAHMs with too much time on their hands
mums who were unhappy about the way they were raised themselves and are using their own philosophy for child rearing to heal themselves
mums who feel a need to demonstarte how enlightened their approach to child-rearing is

nurturing type of mum.

The is nothing in this approach that makes me think its actually child-centred.

I know a couple of families who use his approach and their kids are really, really annoying to be around as they are very self-centred, take themselves very seriously, and generally show little empathy for others. They typically like playing with older children - because they get cut a lot of slack that way.

One of the kids, at aged 7, isn't anyway close to reading because she doesn't like being told what to do! She's just not used to that approach!

Bonkers...

Laqueen, love your Death Stare and Death Voice. D that too and it is surprisingly effective, very quickly, once established.

One look and my Death Stare even stops the dog from begging at the table !

The death stare, yep, I have silenced a table of adults with mine but I don't have to shout with dcs. Shouting becomes ineffectual after a while surely?

Children often fidgit when asked to practice reading. Far more effective for a child to learn to read when it is a skill they need. Mine started asking about signs or wanted to know what something said, so most children realise they have a need to learn to read. Some might not have come to that realisation as early as others.

I'm not certain how you can get children to empathise if your reaction to something is to show little empathy. So if a young child hits another because they have snatched something, it might be because the child thinks they will never get that toy back, they have no idea about time and no prior life experience that might tell them that the other child will drop the toy when bored. So one parent would console the angry child and try to explain or distract whilst another would show no empathy and tap the child or shout. The latter doesn't model empathy for the child to learn from.

The other thing that I don't like about this approach is that it leads to a parenting style that comes across as being highly stylised, plastic almost.
It just doesn't seem to have a natural flow or rhythm to it. It appears to me to be counter-instinctive.

Just to give an example: at the playground, UP's son(7) had climbed on top of the crossbar of a goal post and was trying to stand up on it. My heart was racing watching this because I knew the UP had seen her son but had chosen to allow him to explore his boundaries without trying to control his play

Now whereas I would have shouted "get down from there that's dangerous!" this UP left it a minute before, with an obvious dry mouth, shouted out "Oh, I can see you're up high there. Are you balancing?"

Same approach taken by same UP to her DC crossing a public road. Don't even like to be reminded about the way her 7 yr old was sent off with "Now, I'm trusting you to cross the road safely because I know you can do it". I really, really cringed as her 7 yr old walked across the road having looked in one direction only before crossing and about 2 seconds later a car passed, from the direction he hadn't checked.

Like I said Bonkers!

Children are seen as problems to manage, they are a burden to be dealt with or a project to work on. They have little autonomy and control over their lives and environment. No wonder the teenage years are now so problematic. Adolescence is a fairly new phenomena and presents problems because children rebel, but why? what if they had nothing to rebel against? what if they were fully autonomous people with rights and responsibilities and we didn't see them as a problem that merited control

I can honestly say I have never viewed my children like this. A burden? I've loved every stage they've gone through and, as far as I can see, it just keeps getting better. They are wonderful, intelligent, fallible, funny people.

You talk about responsibilities.

What responsibilities does a child have if they are being UP'd?

Mine have always done jobs around the house for pocket money. They will also do extra jobs if I ask for help just because they are part of the family.

They have made their own lunch boxes from about the age of 7.

My 13 year old ds can do a weeks worth of shopping at the supermarket, getting the best deals and the longest use by dates. He can cook, iron, use a washing machine and oven.

My 16 year old dd can balance a budget and drive a car, and they both have good self esteem. These are the skills they need for life and they started learning from a very young age.

Although we are always here for them, they are pretty self-reliant and I have no concerns that they will not be well prepared for adult life.

Oh, and I used to make them carry their own bags to and from school.

And my own parents were pretty crap at parenting.

Fairenuff, can't say I view mine like it either, I was commenting in a more general way about how society views children as something to control and contain. Even state education, a way had to be found to get children off the streets whilst their parents worked. (factories acts C19th)

Mine do a lot for themselves, they help prepare food, they make food for themselves (help themselves if hungry and close cupboard doors!) they make tea, they carry their bags and help clean up. They both asked if they could have pocket money for chores, I am not keen on this idea, DP and I will think about it.

Reading this thread makes me realise what wonderful children I have. They brush their teeth because they know they will fall out if they don't, they walk on the pavement because the road is dangerous and they wear a coat because its cold..... I don't know what I did/do but it's certainly not any negotiating or making the bathroom a fun place to be or carrying their coat around.

Maybe I have easy kids or maybe I just can't be bothered with nonsense!

Well Mini you can't give pocket money if you UP can you, because it's a reward.

It's a useful reward because it helps teach about saving, banking and budgeting. But not available to parents who UP.

Fair I do UP, my dcs do help with chores but not for pocket money. They do it because they are part of the family and we work as a team.
They have done so as soon as they could (eg about 2~3yo) by putting their plate in the dishwasher and tidying up their toys.

They are learning how to cook, they cross the road safely and have been out and about on their own much earlier than most other dcs around where we live.

All that to say that you can use UP and have children that are independent, kind, helpful and self reliant.
You also have parent who don't do UP and have children who are NOT independent, kind, helpful and self reliant.

As I said before, no one on MN would say that using 'How to talk' is rubbish and just unnatural or conter-intuitive. Even though Faber IS doing UP.....

So can anyone explain me why AK is so bad but Faber is OK?

Of course you can give pocket money! Why is it a reward? If you don't link it to behaviour then it's not a reward.
I agree totally with your post, Sparkly.

Well I do UP, my dcs do help with chores but not for pocket money. They do it because they are part of the family and we work as a team.
They have done so as soon as they could (eg about 2~3yo) by putting their plate in the dishwasher and tidying up their toys.

They are learning how to cook, they cross the road safely and have been out and about on their own much earlier than most other dcs around where we live.

All that to say that you can use UP and have children that are independent, kind, helpful and self reliant.
You also have parent who don't do UP and have children who are NOT independent, kind, helpful and self reliant.

As I said before, no one on MN would say that using 'How to talk' is rubbish and just unnatural or conter-intuitive. Even though Faber IS doing UP.....

So can anyone explain me why AK is so bad but Faber is OK?

Well if you think people are trying to parent well aft their own difficult childhoods, why aren't you applauding the effort rather than being snarky about it? The equation seems to be ' I know how to do it, so anyone who doesn't must be smug/ a shit parent/ wooly woo' And can I ask what is additionally wrong with being a SAHM nurturing parent? I'm at work, have already said I think my childhood was difficult, and have already said that I'm only interested in being better than my parents at this. So explain, why does that make me smug/ a little bit mad, wooly woo or whatever? And if it is common-sensual to dismiss others' approaches and opinions, patronize them rather than address their response to your attitude, describe their parenting itn pejorative ('smug') or belittling terms ('fancy-dance' 'wooly woo'), imagine since you know one parent who claims to use UP but fails to safe guard her children, we must all be like that having read the book, well I'm not so sure we should be congratulating you for that. And if we all agree to congratulate people who have had happy childhoods, could they please stop congratulating themselves and using it as a basis to claim that they must just know better than us idiots looking for advice - usually from a range of sources including but not limited to - UP?

Of course pocket money is a reward for behaviour.

What else is it for?

Even your dcs acknowledge this - They both asked if they could have pocket money for chores

I don't think I want them to be only motivated by reward, that way lies selfishness (maybe) they already help and they already contribute but wouldn't they come to see the pocket money as a condition of their participating in what is really just family/social activity and necessary labour. How do I square that with the fact that SHAP parents are perceived to contribute little value to society because it is unpaid. Everything I do at home is unrewarded financially.

In my house pocket money is an allowance - it's not in return for chores. Chores are separate.

The only reason I'd remove pocket money is if something needed to be paid for, e.g. something which was broken and it was the fault of the child and they were aware ie it wasn't an accident, if they owed me money, or if they were using it to buy something like cigarettes or drugs - then I'd stop it for their safety as it reduces their ability to get hold of the stuff (evidently we're talking younger teens here, not 16/18+, but then I'm assuming at that age they could earn their own money)

Academic as DS isn't really old enough yet, but that's my theory anyway. Hence, it's not a reward for being good in general as it would only be removed in specific situations.

It's not a reward if you don't link it to chores or 'being good', if you simply hand it over every week come what may.
What is it for? Sweets and shit. Oh and learning about budgeting, saving up for bigger items/toys, just for enjoying going down the road with a jingle jangle in your pocket & the knowledge you can pop into the shop for some chocolate if you feel like it.