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!

AnnieMac, what exactly have you done to ensure your DD lets you groom and wash her hair without a fuss? Have you done anything more than explain and reason?

I just don't think hair would ever get that bad. When I had an issue with my DD's hair (which was entirely my own, and I totally recognised that), I usually managed to get them to let me brush it somehow. We bought a tangle teaser, we bought that leave-in conditioner, we made it a fun part of bathing with bubbles, offered to use my hair dryer on it.

It was never such a problem that their hair ever got as bad as your describing and to me, that is not UP or non-coercion, but neglectful parenting. It does not warrant 'rules' though, it warrants creative thinking, sharing best theories, working together to find solutions that please all parties.

Not coercing children is not rocket science, but does require a huge change in how you think about children and about your role as a parent. I don't think that the parent of the child you're referring to is doing that.

My children have had periods of having wild, unkempt hair, and they've never choked. If they had done, I don't think it would have taken much discussing for them to realise that it was vitally important that their hair was brushed. If they refused, then maybe I could just tie it back with a hair bobble. The one time we thought they could have caught nits (they hadn't) they trusted us when we said we needed to wash, condition and comb through their hair carefully.

The point is that they trust us because they know we don't ask them to do things that have no rational basis and we will always strive to find a solution that they are happy with as well as us. Children aren't born irrational, but they very quickly lose that rationality when they're not trusted.

Sorry, I meant - I don't think you'd have a child refusing for so long that it could get that bad.

I was brought up by parents who didn't believe in arguing or punishment, and we always sat together and resolved any issues that we had...infact we still do.
However, as teenagers both my brother and I went off the rails - we would go to parties and not only refuse to let my parents pick us up but sometimes disappear for over 24 hours without any contact and we both drank and smoked dope from 13. My mum was at her wit's end - luckily by the time I was 18 I'd calmed down. Then, when my younger brother and sister came along, I noticed my parents were stricter, though certainly not authoritarian. They just indicated that although we were all in this together, they were to be respected. DB and DS were great, enthusiastic teenagers, who now in the 20's seem much calmer and able to cope in challenging situations than my brother and I.
I'm not condoning UP, as I really know nothing about it. I have the most amazing bond with my DD, who is 2 1/2. I would never tell her she was naughty, but prompt her when she does something wrong and she certainly knows that rubbing me up the wrong way only leads to time out which I always follow with a cuddle.
She tells me every day that she loves me and I think that to me means I must be doing some thing right.

However when she kicked me in the face tonight because she didn't want her toenails cut, there was very little I could do but lose it with her. (Later followed by a cuddle of course! )

I don't have a problem with DD's messy hair (it is usually messy ). But I totally understand where Anniemac is coming from. Some things just are non-negotiable.

Flamingo: Paracetamol has scientifically proven benefits in many situations for a wide range of people.
Whereas the success of a parenting style is obviously personality dependent. If a person who says UP is successful for them also comes across as obnoxious, then of course I'm put off.

Ooh, and about sleeping in uniform: not good if child tends to wee a little (or a lot) each night, uniform ends up smelling of wee.

See, the problem with UP (for me) is that it ends up making me feel bad as a parent. Because I am NOT that creative, I am not going to dance around blowing bubbles, making up original songs, or going out to by hair-dryers just to make my child let me comb her hair (or similarly needed actions they don't feel like). I don't have time, the creative force, the energy, whatever. Just sometimes you need to get things done NOW and simply and not decided by committee, either.

Okay, okay, I will disappear from this thread, now!!

Oh, and one last thing (I promise ).
Kohn's theories have NOT been proven by academic research.
What he does (yes, I have studied the book) is take a lot of academic studies that back up his punishment/praise is bad ideas in a classroom environment, and then says the same is true in parenting situations.

Can we at least all agree that teaching is not the same as parenting??!!

And what Kohn doesn't provide is all the counter-argument studies of which there may be tens of thousands, I don't know which truly test and either reject or uphold his theories -- least of all in parenting rather than teaching situations.

What I know is that reading that book made me see an alternative to the way I see parenting being done all around me.

I don't think conditional parenting is the worst thing in the world, but if I can have the strength and patience to see it through, UP feels like the better alternative to me.

I grew up as a child regularly banished to my room, doubted, distrusted and downright ignored at times - often from transgressions supposedly committed when we were left alone all day together (from the ages of around around 7, 9 and 12 - I am the middle sibling). I grew up feeling like attention and material things were only given when you did things that made my mother happy. When you were in her good books, she really loved you, but when you did things she didn't like then you were on your own.

While I'm not saying that there wasn't much more to this than a bit of conditional parenting, that certainly felt like the central theme to my childhood - that love was dependent on doing the right thing (and that you couldn't always be sure what the right thing was)

I don't want to do that to my son and if that means trying to parent differently, and in a way that might be harder, I will try my best, because I think that the way I would parent 'instinctively' is too coloured by the parenting I received. Sometimes you need some outside influence to make you take a step back and think about why you are doing things.

It is interesting that a lot of people praising unconditional parenting were brought up by parents who seemingly practised quite harsh strict parenting. I can see why someone might want to go for the methods of unconditional parenting if they felt that their self esteem was affected by their parents parenting style.

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

I think that people are against it because they see the results of the parents who think that they are practising it but are not-like the little girl who threw her book across the classroom and had the mother who let her decide which rules she wanted to follow. It is quite simple-throwing a book across the classroom might hit and hurt someone-you don't do it. In the first instant you explain this, but if they persist you simply tell them they are not going to do it. If a DD has long curly hair and won't have it brushed I would give her a simple choice-have it brushed or have it cut short!
I think it is often used by people who had over strict parents-the danger there is that they swing too far the other way.
I find these books interesting, but I would never follow it all. I take out the parts that suit me and use them-I have never found an expert where you can agree 100%. One size never fits all. You can't treat every DC the same-even within the same family-it depends on personality. With DS1 and DS3 humour worked brilliantly-it was the worst thing possible with DS2.

My own view as a non-parent myself but as somebody who can remember her entire childhood word for word, is that the 'conversation' that has to follow bad behaviour is in effect, a punishment anyway.

My parents were liberal and 'modern', don't know if they were officially UP but in many ways acted it. So for instance, my parents never smacked, rarely shouted and always explained.

But if I'm being honest, if the explanation was in response to bad behaviour, it was basically a lecture and was punishment in itself becuase you had to sit there and listen to it. BO-RING!

I'm a lovely person these days if I do say so myself, but I will openly admit that I was mostly self interested until I was well into my 20's, and if I ever did anything kind before then it was to be recognised as such. I think most kids just are self interested, and that you can get them to act against that grain either by shouting, punishing, or lecturing.

But either way, they're doing it to avoid the bad outcome, and will only become truly kind, considerate and thoughtful of the feelings of others when they have to make it out there on their own.

Haven't read entire thread and don't profess to be an expert on UP, but having read phrases on this thread such as 'creative thinking', finding novel solutions etc, I have to say that I disagree.

IMO, parents have a duty to tell children what to do. Not all the time, not in an overly presciptive way. But, at the end of the day, if there's something that I need DD to do, I'm damned if I'm going to spend minutes negotiating the terms or saying why it's necessary. I expect her to comply with what I have asked.

Most of the time, there's no need for me to put my foot down and things tick along nicely. But fundamentally, I believe that a certain amount of obedience is necessary. At school children are told what to do. At work, employees are told what to do. Why should it be any different at home?

I was not raised in a UP household, but my parents would allow me to argue for hours and let me get away with not doing things. I'm a good deal stricter with DD as a result.

Some things really do matter, and there's an unconditional side to that too - some things must just be done, for safety's sake, or for hygiene or whatever.

For me it is about deciding what matters - I like the example in the book about not wanting to take a bath. Does it really matter? Did they have one last night and don't actually need one? If they do need to wash somehow can they have a shower or a washdown with a flannel instead?

It is certainly not just - well if you don't want to do it, we'll forget about it. I see it as taking the time to try to achieve a goal in a way that causes least grief all round! There are at least a few parents I know that do things like this and don't stick a label on it - they just know that some things, despite our conventions, aren't that important!