To be unsure about Unconditional parenting because.....

[poshsinglemum]

I have not read all of the book because for some reason it got on my nerves. I like a lot of what he says but my main gripe is that the author implies that you do not love your child unconditionally if you tell them off or speak to them in a stern manner. I think that it is really unfair to make parents feel guilty for telling their kids off.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Of course I completely agree with avoiding emotional blackmail and bullying and I love to be fun and loving to my dd but there are times when I have to say a stern no if she is going to hurt herself and I daresay there will be more times in the future.
Also I think it takes a real level of saintly patience to be on the level and practice up all the time, especially if like me, you are knackered a lot of the time!

sorry-crowded

I actually think it easier as they get older because they have greater reasoning powers. A 2 yr old has a tantrum purely because they don't want to be reasonable!
I think that a lot of peope who have read the book were not parented like that themselves, so they have no idea what it is like to be on the receiving end! I think that I was, so it is my natural way -but it can be very tiresome to the DC. I was a very reasonable DC and sometimes you feel that things are talked to death and you would much rather someone said 'do x now'!

See now I have a big problem with any approach that 'acknowledges that we are people after all' as some poster (sorry I forget who!) said. To me setting high, idealized standards for parenting is not only problematic for the parent but also for the child who implicitly may feel pressure to live up to these high standards.

Whatever happened to good old common sense?

There isn't much of it about Maria2007-this is why people read books! They would be much better using their own common sense! I would want to see AK's own children before I took note of his words.

"he's telling you that your child may feel that your love is unconditional when you do things that make it look like you're withdrawing love when they misbehave"

do you mean 'your love is conditional'?

And btw what does it even mean for love to be 'conditional' or 'unconditional'? I find all those adjectives next to the word 'love' pretty daft. Love is difficult to describe, to measure, to generalize about. Love is behaviour plus feelings. And it's differently expressed in every different relationship, & actually in different moments in a relationship. The idea that there's a proper, better way to 'love' & can be thought about / learnt through following some particular ideas seems bizarre to me.

What i don't understand is why people are so down on UP when they don't understand it/have never read the book

it's easy to come oon here and say "well, i don't like UP cos of x, y and z" when the x, yand z given are usually nothing to do with UP

If you want to debate the merits of a parenting style then the least you can do is read about it and find out as much as you can before you start slating it

ajnd you know what? if you don'tagree with it, you don't have to do it!!!!
I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to get any book and parent the exact way thatthat book says.
I lean towards UP, and have read the book several times becauwes it backs up what I believe, and reminds me why i like it, and gives me ideas whenI have run out of my own in a particular situation
but i'dnever read it and say ok, I have to do this that and the other, or i am a bad parent/not doing it properly.

to all the people who think UP means you can never show anger/hurt/upset. you are WRONG.
you can. I can let the children know that hitting me has hurt me, without withdrawing love from them.
I can say OUCH ds1, that really hurt,give me the hammer now. and still give him a cuddle, play with him etc etc

the 2 are not mutually exclusive, no matter how much modern parenting gurus would have you believe
we seem hell-bent in this country atm to treat children as if they are adults and to focus a lot more on the immediate result than the long-term effects of our parenting.
a "successful" parent these days seems to be the one who shuts their kid in its room, puts it on a "naughty step" and otherwise forces it to behave in the desired manner regardless of the consequences.

Hello

Wanted to do my own answers to a few posts on here now I've come back to the thread:

By Maria2007 Thu 15-Oct-09 07:20:05
"I meant to say- & I hope that came through- how do you teach your children that hitting is unacceptable if you don't show displeasure / anger etc? "

By Broke Wed 14-Oct-09 21:46:40
"I'd admire those who can be all smiles and praise all the time, it must be exhausting."

By PoisonToadstool Thu 15-Oct-09 07:36:11
"When my DS was a baby I would read threads about UP and think that it sounded like the approach I wanted to take. But here I am, DS is 2 next week, I try hard not to raise my voice too much or shout (though do on occasion) but I just cannot believe now that a calm and simple 'no DS don't throw your wooden shape sorter at me, there's a love' without any outward indication whether vocal or physical that a) it bloody HURT and b) it is not on. "

It's frustrating that people have this misconception about UP. It is not about this at all. It is not helpful to your children to not be genuine with them. You should show them that you're cross/hurt/whatever. What you shouldn't do is withdraw your love (in their eyes) when you do it. I pull my children onto my knee and have a go at them there, while I'm cuddling them. It also helps because, when you're cuddling someone, it's much easier to stop yourself really, really losing your temper over and above what is appropriate.

By lljkk Thu 15-Oct-09 07:58:14
"Any philosophy that 100% prohibits large numbers of useful parenting tools is suspect, especially without telling you what to do instead, imho."

UP does tell you what to do instead - just because it doesn't look like an alternative to punishment, doesn't mean it just says 'don't punish or reward' and then leaves you pondering it!

"The whole premise that love from parents MUST be unconditional in all respects at every moment, I have trouble with that. There are moments when I will be disappointed with my children."

See above - you don't have to withdraw (in their eyes) your love just because your disappointed with them though.

"Some UP-proponents (am not thinking of anybody on MN) are obnoxious in the things they say about other styles of parenting, that puts me off their philosophy enormously."

That is just plain daft. That's like saying 'some people who take paracetamol when they have a headache are really rude which really puts me off taking it myself'

"Some people who SAY that they are UP, actually rely on conditions to back up things they want their DC to do: so they say that they never use threats or conditions, but if child doesn't do something expected then what's the repercussion? Always some privilege being deliberately withdrawn or another in-effect punishment. What a load of hypocrites!"

Maybe, but a lot of people who say they are UP do not do those things. I don't!

"Most UP-lovers have only very young children; funny how the ideals tend to fall by the wayside as kids get older (heehee)."

No, most UP lovers on websites like MN have young children. I know lots of UP (actually, more than UP IMO - more like consensual living/non-coercive) families with older children. My oldest is 6 - is that old enough for you?

"I guess at the end that UP isn't meant to be an all-or-nothing philosophy, maybe it will work beautifully for me when my youngest is 16yo or so. I am still interested in Consensual Living but I need some practical examples (detailed anecdotes) of how it works. "

Read Winning Parent, Winning Child - linked to earlier on in the thread.

By piscesmoon Thu 15-Oct-09 08:08:31
"The main problem with UP is that people think they are doing it but they don't understand it. I think that you are best not reading any books, but if you do you really need to read it several times to make sure that you understand it fully."

I 100% agree with this. Also read other books with a similar approach.

By PoisonToadstool Thu 15-Oct-09 08:17:04
"But I just cannot believe that shouting, stern words, or even time-out (not sure how I feel?) is equated to an absence of love. My mum wasn't the shoutiest of parents but I was certainly told to go to my room plenty of times and don't even remember feeling scared that it meant she didn't love me?"

It's not a concsious feeling, though, Poison. And not inevitable either. For a child, though, if you make them be apart from you, that can feel, subconsciously, that you don't love them. For a child love is a very physical feeling - it is expressed through cuddles and hand holding etc. And shouting/stern words are ok, just not withdrawal (in their eyes) of love.

By DuelingFANGo Thu 15-Oct-09 08:38:58
"he's telling you that your child may feel that your love is unconditional when you do things that make it look like you're withdrawing love when they misbehave"

do you mean 'your love is conditional'? "

Yup

I'd do that annie, because we try to live consensually. It's not about 'rather than get in an argument', which, I agree, is rather wet. But about 'I don't want to coerce my children to do something they don't want or need to do, because I don't think it's moral or helpful'.

I was sent to my room (for screaming at/fighting with my older brother) numerous times between the age of 8 and 13 and it always felt like my parents didn't love me. They never bothered to find out why I was furious. It felt like peace was a priority over how I felt.

'I see imposing consistent and sensible discipline as an act of love in itself'

I agree. I bet most primary school teachers would, too.

UP is compatible with 'consistent and sensible'

I do not like unconditional parenting.

My sil works in a school, there is a little girl in yr 1 who is very bright, sweet but refuses to do anything she is told. The other day she threw a book across the classroom and was told to pick it up when she refused she was asked to sit on the time out chair. When her mother collected her at the end of the day, the teacher informed the mother of the incident and told her that the girl was often refusing to do as she was told. The mother replied "I don't blame her, you have far too many rules, my daugher is an individual she will decide when it is right to do something, we practise unconditional parenting and would like this to be followed at school as well". .

In our family we all know that there are consequences to our actions. If dh decides to throw a sickie, he faces disciplinary action at work and could get the sack. If ds (5) decides he wants to write over the walls he will forfeit his right to pocket money. I mentioned this on another thread and said that ds is mostly a lovely well behaved boy and I was told that he is only well behaved because he is scared of the consequences. With non conditional parenting the child is good because they want to be good. Yeah in an ideal world...

Sorry, I should have been clearer that I was responding to PoisonToadstool's post:
"But I just cannot believe that shouting, stern words, or even time-out (not sure how I feel?) is equated to an absence of love. My mum wasn't the shoutiest of parents but I was certainly told to go to my room plenty of times and don't even remember feeling scared that it meant she didn't love me?"

Annie - lots of people advocate sending children to their room, or to a naughty step as an example of good discipline.

"I actually think teaching children about rules, acceptable behaviour etc is doing them a favour in the long term. As well as the gift of security and unconditional love I want to give my child the gift of being a likeable person who is capable of behaving in a considerate and unselfish way towards others and for me, being subject to some consistent discipline and rules as a young child forms part of this - that doesn't mean that I believe in stamping on indivualisism or free thought - to my mind there is a healthy balance. When I see children with parents who seem to be relectant/afraid/whatever it may be to ever be the "boss" or do anything that child may object to it makes me cringe. I know its not the same for everybody its just me. I just personally don't think its doing a child a favour."

I also agree with your sentiments here, but not your method. I don't see how respecting my children's right to make choices about their lives and bodies as being reluctant to be the "boss". It's a life-philosophy to not think it's acceptable to coerce people and assume I know better than they do and I, and others, extend the philosophy to my children because I think children are people too. I don't hesitate to share my best theories with my children, tell them plainly what is acceptable and to tell them outright not to do somethings like hurt others, run out into the road in front of lorries etc. but I don't see who is being hurt by a child going to bed in their uniform!

I wouldn't dream of telling my husband not to do it - I might think he was odd. And, as someone more experienced than my DCs, I would tell them that their uniform would look crumpled in the morning and they may well get told off at school; also that they may be uncomfortable sleeping. But I would let them make the ultimate decision because I think children need practice at making rational decisions in order to get good at it.

There really is very little in chidlren's lives that needs outright coercion.

Sorry, annie, but all your reasons for keeping hair well brushed are a load of rubbish! You don't get more lice in unbrushed hair! And choking on hair while eating?????

How is it not considerate to others to have long unbrushed hair? Because it offends their eyes? Maybe we should ban ugly people for the same reason?

Ok, I know I'm reacting OTT and you and I will have to agree to disagree on this matter - I think coercing children is not moral and not helpful, you think the opposite.

If UP drives you mad then don't read 'Smart Love'. I read it a few years ago when I was pg with my 4th child and it just made me feel dreadful with very few practical tools for how I "should" be doing things. I think it's coming from quite a similar standpoint to UP and is all about 'meeting the needs' of the child so that they don't misbehave. Apparently any undesirable behaviours are a result of their needs not being adequately met. Oh, and you should have an age gap of at least 3 years between each child. Which explains why with a 4 1/2 year gap between the first and the fourth child I struggled somewhat!!

Maybe UP isn't so extreme, but I'm afraid Smart Love put me off the whole genre really and I've gone back to just doing my best, praising the good etc with a few threats and punishments thrown in. They seem pretty happy and well-adjusted so far...