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!

see so many people, who I presume have read the thread, are STILL coming out with the same old stuff.

you're missing the effing point!!!!

UP IS NOT ABOUT LETTING YOUR KIDS DO WHAT THEY WANT.
IT IS NOT ABOUT HAVING NO RULES

good grief, how many people hve to spell it out on here before you get it????

we h ave rules in our house on certain things and they HAVE to be done.
these include:
getting school uniform on in the morning
brushing teeth twice a day
eating dinner together at the table
and various other things.

UP households are not full of unruly kids running around refusing to do as they're told, "discussing" whether or not to do things and causing havoc while the parents sit there saying "awww, johnny, it'd be nice if you didn't cut the cat's tail off"

if you don't understand the concept then why even bother commenting on it?

my children are, on the whole, very well behaved. they know that certain behaviours are unacceptable, they know that before they go to bed they have to brush their tteeth.

but i don't need to use any kind of conditional love-witholding methods to make them do it..
ds1 is well-behaved at school, and well likedc by teachers and his peers.

i have no idea why you would assume that because our house isn't run like a school he would have trouble fitting in there.
kids aren't stupid, they very soon learn that different places have different sets of rules. maybe if you gave your children the chance they'd show you that?

"but I don't need to use any kind of conditional love-witholding methods to make them do it".

Why do you assume that people who don't like unconditional parenting use love-witholding methods. That would be cruel.

ThisYesterday, so what is the point please, if we're not 'getting it'?

Is it cuddling at the same time as telling off (an example given)? Because- I'm sorry- that's complete bonkers, in my mind, and actually could lead to serious trouble by creating confusion. Cuddles & anger are opposite behaviours, I would imagine I would get hugely confused, as a child or as an adult if I was cuddled & told 'I love you' while being told at the same time that someone's angry at me.

Or the other idea that was mentioned here 'children are not born irrational'. What an utterly bizarre concept!! Of course children are born irrational! They have wishes, they have needs, they have a temperament, they have thoughts, they are hugely complex & fascinating creatures. And of course they should be listened to & taken seriously etc. But they certainly don't know (and why should they? that's what parents are for) what's best for them. They know what they want. That's not the same always as what's best for them. This is common sense, nothing more, nothing less. I'm surprised there's even any disagreement about all these things.

I think that many parents (and not just parents. Teachers, therapists, lots of people in different positions of authority) have trouble, sometimes, accepting that they are in a position of authority. Being in a position of authority is not easy, not for everyone. Especially not for people who happened to grow up with overly harsh, illogically harsh sometimes, parents. In which case they might think 'ok I'll do things differently, I'll take my children 'seriously' & I won't impose consequences etc except natural consequences' (or whatever the fashionable theory of the moment suggests).

Except it doesn't work. Parents do have authority. They do know best. They have to impose rules. That is called socialization. And that is what makes parents different from children. Not better. Just different, in different positions. The big question of course is how to do this, how to implement the rules, how to use the authority. Not an easy one, I agree.... But I don't think ideas such as UP have the answer. To be honest, I don't see anything 'conditional' at all in imposing rules, or in accepting that there will be consequences sometimes when these rules are not followed.

Also, the idea that us non-UP parents use 'love-withholding methods' is just even more bizarre, patronizing, and frankly I see it as an insult. Saying no, being angry, imposing rules- sometimes without extensive discussion if it has to be that way- does not equal withholding love!! To be honest, I couldn't withhold my love for my DS even if I wanted to...not sure how that could be done & why some parents assume other parents routinely do this. I want to believe that my DS knows I love with my whole heart even at the moments when I'm saying 'no' or being slightly angry (well how angry can you be at a 14 month old for god's sake)...

Good post Maria2007.

My nephew is a child who has been brought up using this methd and he is vile!

Says it all for me!

'UP IS NOT ABOUT LETTING YOUR KIDS DO WHAT THEY WANT.
IT IS NOT ABOUT HAVING NO RULES

good grief, how many people hve to spell it out on here before you get it????'

They don't get it because they see lots of horrible brats (not their fault-just parents who don't give boundries)whose parents THINK they are UP.
UP gets a bad name because people who don't understand it call it that!
I agree with Maria-I couldn't possibly withhold love for my DCs and they know it! I am there, through thick and thin, and will always be-no matter what. There are certain things that they have to do-they are part of a family and we have to live together. When you have more than one DC life has to be even more of a compromise-e.g. if the baby is asleep the older DC can't shout right next to his ear. You can explain nicely, in the first instance, if they don't want to listen you move them-even if it is against their will! I haven't got the patience to keep explaining the same point to someone who doesn't want to listen!
I am often surprised at how DCs who are rude and uncooperative with their parents are an utter pleasure in the classroom. They understand the rules and they are consistent-they feel safe.

Saying no, being angry, imposing rules- sometimes without extensive discussion if it has to be that way- does not equal withholding love!!

no, no-one on here has said it does!!!! do you not read anything anyone has posted?
every single person on this thread who does UP has said that sometimes they do these things, that these things are not "banned" if you do UP.

You just aren't reading the thread properly.

and it's sooooo boring hearing

"i know someone brought up this way and they'[re horrible. that means UP is crap"

ohhhhhh yes cos you know one person who believes they do it, and you dislike their child that means UP doesn't work for a single family?

i know people with absolutely vile children who don't use UP. who use a naughty step andall that supernanny crap.

it doesn't mean a thing

and it's sooooo boring hearing

"i know someone brought up this way and they'[re horrible. that means UP is crap"

ohhhhhh yes cos you know one person who believes they do it, and you dislike their child that means UP doesn't work for a single family?

i know people with absolutely vile children who don't use UP. who use a naughty step andall that supernanny crap.

it doesn't mean a thing

picsesmoon is clearly calmer and more eloquent than me!!!

I wasn't saying that it does! Unfortunately there are people who think that-they are the ones who think they are UP without understanding it!

I think I have got completely lost in who is saying what!

I hate the argument about withholding love too. I find it obnoxious. I have a friend who is an ardent UP-er, who thinks that when her child hits her she should pick him up, put him on her knee for a big cuddle and ask him what's upsetting him. He's nearly six and carries on hitting her hard and furiously regularly. Within the past six months has drawn blood twice that I know of. When she tells me I've been cruel and withdrawn love and shown "conditional love" to my DS2 it makes me mad. I personally found the most effective way to deal with my child hitting me was to put him down. I think it's utter nonsense to say that this is withdrawing love.

I've seen some shocking parenting under the guise of UP. Recently I saw an unchecked three year old been given a loving cuddle after launching an unprovoked attack on another child. What's worse is that the mum didn't seem to think there was anything odd about comforting her aggressive son in front of the boy he had just hurt. My son watched it all and asked me some very searching questions.

This whole business about uniform in bed, hair brushing etc... isn't that a bit of a question of what's right for the family? Surely you can be UP and still insist on hair brushing, as long as you have good reason for it. Or am I missing the point?

It just seems to me to cross over with what my mum always says about choosing your battles... DS is only little but I just make decisions on whether what he is doing 'wrong' actually matters or not.

'I've seen some shocking parenting under the guise of UP.'

This is the whole problem with it. Out of all the words written on parenting, I would think this is the most misunderstood-it almost needs a workshop to go with the book.

Ok thisyesterday, I'm getting a bit tired of being told 'i'm not reading properly', 'i don't understand' etc. I'm also tired of hearing that this or that is not 'proper UP' as if proper UP is only when children turn out perfectly well behaved & all spoiled, unruly children..ah well it was because UP wasn't done properly. I could turn it around & say to you 'ah well this parent who is being overly strict is not doing gina ford properly' or 'this is not proper controlled crying, this is how it should be done'. It's an endless, circular argument, leads nowhere & is boring.

I'd love it if you could respond to my actual points! Then we could have an interesting, productive discussion. I, like others, have met parents (some of them friends & lovely in every way) who are raising their children democratically (I'm using he word very widely)& we have some questions & issues with it.

I personally like a lot of what AK says in UP, but I actually don't think it's enough. Tinier says that you can be UP and still insist on hair brushing as long as you have good reason for it.

Well, tell me, please, what is a good reason for having your hair brushed when you're a child? Someone said stuff about nits and choking earlier on, but maybe I'm naive - I just don't believe those are real risks of having messy hair. Is it really just so you look nice? In which case, is it really worth it? Children don't mind what they look like - they are far better at prioritising their lives and their lives, in their eyes, are far too short to waste it doing something unpleasant that doesn't really need to be done. Different matter entirely if it's being done with a new hairbrush, or with special conditioner so it's not hurting, or in order to have a braid put in your hair, or a new hair-do...

For me, parenting is far more about treating children as people, not as something lesser than me just because I'm older. Yes, I have more experience - and I share that with them all the time. I also share my greater experience in certain areas with adults I know, but I respect that ultimately it's their decision. To me, I don't think it's moral for me to insist on my children doing things that make no sense to them.

This is categorically not the same as letting them do whatever they want. Quite simply, if something makes sense to them, then they are unlikely to not do it. 'Stay on the pavement when you're walking along the road in case you get hit by a car.' - do you really think a child would say 'no, I like walking in the road and being hit by cars'??? Well, actually they might - they might if they are used to their parents telling them lies and therefore can't trust them. Their parents have spent their lives telling them it's vitally important that they brush their hair every day and the children know that that is crap because several times they've managed to escape having their hair brushed and they're still alive and well, and because their parent has never come up with a good reason. So their parents lie about the hairbrushing, who knows if they're lying about being hit by cars too?

The children have no experience rationalising these things for themselves because so many decisions are made for them by their parents. So not only is coercing children immoral, IMHO, it is also counterproductive.

Flamingobingo, if your children are not the obstinate type, that doesn't mean every child who would walk into the road "just because I want to" (or even more likely, forget and run into the road on an impulse) has become that way because they have been lied to.

My parents never lied to us. My brother was a sweet rational little soul. I was obstinate, just for the sake of it.

My dd wanted to hit and bite people a lot. This made perfect sense to her: she was unhappy and in pain, for reasons beyond my control, so she wanted to hurt other people. Was it immoral of me not to let her beat her little brother to pieces, just so he could be unhappy and in pain to? It was, after all, logical...

And have you ever been in a situation where your hair has been tangled after several weeks of non-brushing and you suddenly want to look nice again? I have: it took 3 extremely painful hours and I cried throughout (I have very thick hair). Given that experience, I feel perfectly justified to tell ds that he either brushes his hair or wears it short. And nits are a very real problem in his school- I thought it was well known that brushing keeps them down. The other parents aren't going to thank me for sending an unkempt forest full of wildlife into the school.

Cory, did your parents really, really never lie to you?

I don't know how to make it any clearer:

THIS IS NOT ABOUT LETTING CHILDREN DO WHATEVER THEY LIKE!!!!!

It is not acceptable to hurt other people and this is behaviour that should be stopped. My point is that there are actually very, very few examples of times when children really, really need to be coerced. When they hurt someone else, when they need life-saving treatment, when they are about to run infront of an articulated lorry. Nearly everything else we assume is a given can be reconsidered and talked about to find a solution that makes all parties happy, not just the parent.

Nits do not breed in unkempt hair, they breed in all hair. The only difference is that they are harder to get out of unkempt hair, and, like I say, there is nearly always a way to deal with things without having to force the child.

But if you have a very high spirited child, or an unhappy child, then the times when they hurt someone or boss someone or need to be coerced for other reasons, is not going to be very, very few examples: it's going to be what you live with every day. If you have calm children (like my db), then you just don't know what it's like.

My mother did not lie to me about my eyesight when she tried to get me to go to the optician's. But to me, the fear of wearing glasses (which I thought were ugly and silly things) far outweighed any consideration of what it might be like as an adult to have vision problems and not to be able to drive. 'I'm never going to want to drive anyway and I don't care about what my eyes will be like then', seemed a logical enough proposition at 7 years old. Unfortunately, it's not one that's helping me now.

It wasn't because I thought my mother was lying: it was because I lived in the Now and thought my adult self was such a remote person that I didn't have to consider her at all. My eyesight wasn't troubling me at that time and the future just seemed too remote.